1972-07-05

QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43 to propose a motion dealing with a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, namely, the method of core funding of Indian organizations. It has been brought to my attention that offices of Indian organizations are experiencing great hardship and are in danger of having to close their doors because allocated funds are not being forwarded. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski):
That the whole matter of funding of Indian organizations be referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development for investigation and report.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion proposed by the hon. member for Athabasca is submitted to the House under the terms of Standing Order 43 and requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity and the hon. member's motion cannot be put.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
On the order: Introduction of Bills.
Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I have had some discussions with the opposition House leaders and it would meet the procedural circumstances at the moment if I could have consent now to calling introduction of bills just before orders of the day. In the meantime I would be happy to explain to my colleagues the necessity for this procedural delay until that time, and I will explain the situation then.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand that the bill to which the hon. minister has referred will be introduced or presented for first reading at the end of the question period before we call orders of the day. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)



DREE GRANTS-BANKRUPT INDUSTRIES, 1970

Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	What are the names and addresses of the industries that went bankrupt during the year 1970 after having received grants from the Department of Regional Economic Expansion?
2.	In each case (a) what was the amount of the approved grant (b) what was the amount paid (c) what was the nature of the operations?


Hon. lean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: 1. Abattoir Gerard Inc., Berthierville,
Quebec.
2. Abattoir Gerard Inc. (a) $121,843, (b) $121,842, (c) Abattoir.



NUMBER OF GRAIN CARS MOVED OVER PGE RAILROAD, 1970-72

Mr. Horner: How many grain cars were moved over the PGE Railroad to the Ports of Vancouver and Prince Rupert each month during the crop years 1970-71 and 1971-72 (until March 1972)?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: 1970-71	1971-72
VCR	PGE	VCR	PGEAugust 1970	25	August 1971	37September	16	September	20October	32	October	40November	29	November	23December	23	December	16January 1971	8	January 1972	8February	17	February	5March	16	March	1April	6	May	6	June	13	July	9	
Total
Total
3770

Questions



GRAIN CAR UNLOADINGS-PORTS OF VANCOUVER AND PRINCE RUPERT

Mr. Horner: How many grain car unloadings were there at the Ports of Vancouver and Prince Rupert each month during the crop years 1970-71 and 1971-72 (until March 1972) by CN and CP Railways?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: 1970-71	1971-72
VCR	CN	CP PRUP CN VCR	CN	CP PRUP CN	August 1970	2,277	5,386	306	4,821	8,000	776September	2,263	5,798	542	4,005	7,140	572October	3,415	6,286	456	4,383	6,768	295November	2,703	5,470	101	4,854	7,845	456December	2,637	3,960	97	3,982	7,581	544January 1971	3,612	5,001	512	3,984	3.210	245February	4,903	5,971	763	5,345	5,972	699March	5,674	4,788	871	5,771	4,633	1,152April	4,994	5,806	669	May	5,537	7,441	419	June	5,234	8,244	1,067	July	4,475	8,604	789	47,724	72,755	6,592	37,145 51,149	4,739



FEDERAL PAYMENTS FOR CANCER RESEARCH

Mr. Burton: How much has the government spent for cancer research in each of the past four fiscal years?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Under the Public Health Research Grant program, the National Health Grant program, and the Medical Research Council, federal payments for cancer research were made as follows for the fiscal years 1968-69 to 1971-72: 1968-69, $2,660,436; 1969-70, $3,498,972; 1970-71, $4,126,339; 1971-72, $4,793,597. In addition, based on projects submitted by the provinces, federal payments totalling $9.2 million in 1970-71, $10.3 million in 1969-70 were made under the Health Resources Fund program to assist the provinces in the construction, acquisition and renovation of research facilities where research activities will be carried out in the various fields of health, including cancer. The analysis of federal payments for the fiscal year 1971-72 is not yet completed.



DREE-GRANTS TO FIRMS IN BEAUCE CONSTITUENCY

Mr. Rodrigue: Were funds invested by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion in the constituency of Beauce since the establishment of the Department and, if so (a) what was the total amount (b) what is the complete list of firms that received grants (c) what amount was granted to each firm?


Jean Marchand: Yes. (a) As of May 31, 1972, net accepted offers of incentive grants totalled $2,152,540. As of the same date, actual disbursements under the terms of these offers totalled $1,426,057.

(b)	(c)
Companies accepting	Amount of
incentive offers	accepted offer $ 19,889
Henri Bonneville & Fils	
Valley Shoe Co.	16,582
Tex-El Inc.	76,603
St-Georges Metal	33,846
Turcotte & Turmel Inc.	115,895
Societe Co-op Agric. de St-Joseph-de-Beauce 60,872	
Jos Cote Inc.	5,478
LBP Inc.	67,907
La Chemise Lapointe Inc.	17,331
Beauce Machine Shop Inc.	17,408
Produits de Cedres	10,342
Glendale Mobile Homes (Que.)	57,122
Frangois Giguere Inc.	54,902
St-Georges Carpet Mills	47,598
Ceramiques de Beauce	63,595
Chaudiere Chipping Center	44,198
Les Lainages Victor Ltee	99,443
Industries Rancourt	95,753
Meunerie St-Frederic	24,051
St. Joseph Mfg. Co.	66,287
Precision C Inc.	1,493
St. George Shoe Co.	20,773
Kennebec Wood Products	15,659
Unique Art Inc.	19,325
H. P. Gilbert & Fils	10,502
Beauce Machine Shop Inc.	18,300
Manufacture Frameco Ltee	12,150
St. George International Inc.	61,000
Les Produits Arbex Ltee	24,579
Dionne Spinning Inc.	65,000
Boulangerie Doyon Inc.	17,911
Manac Inc.	20,589
John Breakey Limited	131,500
Moto-Jet (1970) Ltee	53,055
Vachon Inc.	160,407
Beauce Plastique Inc.	45,611
Plastiques Bovac Ltee	82,551
Filature Lemieux Inc.	12,507
L'Eclaireur Ltee	8,808
Clermond Hamel Ltee	100,263
Victor Woollen Products	46,900
Les Maisons Mobiles (Ideal) Ltee	176,000
Triffle Goulet & Fils Ltee	52,555



DREE-GRANTS TO FIRMS IN KAMOURASKA CONSTITUENCY

Mr. Dionne: What amounts were granted by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion in the constituency of Kamouraska?


Jean Marchand: The following companies accepted offers under the Area Development Incentives Act and the Regional Development Incentives Act:
July 5, 1972

	Amount of	Amount
Name	Incentive	DisbursedA.I.D.A.	$	$P. E. Boucher Ltee	36,668	36,668Pneus V.S.P. Inc.	86,286	80,580R.D.I.A.	La Boulangerie La Pocatiere	12,200	NilP. E. Boucher Ltee	919,050	Nil[English]



'ALLOCATION OF FUNDS FOR 1972 OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM

Mr. Burton: Has an initial allocation of funds been made by province for the 1972 Opportunities for Youth Program and, if so, what is the allocation for each province?


Mr. J. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I have this reply here. It is rather lengthy. I wonder if it might be tabled and reported in Hansard as if read.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: The reply above referred to is as follows:]
An initial target allocation was made by regions in consultation with the Department of Manpower and Immigration and with Treasury Board for the 1972 Opportunities for Youth program. This initial target allocation was made in terms of regional disparities in projected levels of student employment based on information provided by Canada Manpower.
Initial Target
Regions	Allocation
(per cent)
Quebec	38
Prairies and North-Western
Territories	14
Ontario	22
British Columbia	and	Yukon	10
Atlantic	11
National	2
Reserved for future allotment to
take account of	demand	3



CIGARETTE ADVERTISEMENTS

Mr. Mather: Is consideration being given to requiring the inclusion of a health warning in all permitted print media cigarette advertisements?


John Carr Munro: Yes. The Department is giving consideration to requiring the inclusion of a health warning in all permitted print media cigarette advertisements, as well as other possible ways of combatting the detrimental effects caused by cigarette smoking. It was with the encourage-
Questions
ment of the Department that the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers Council recently decided to include a health warning on all new stocks of cigarette packages. The Department has also placed before the House legislation which it considers to be a significant measure towards controlling the injurious effects of cigarette smoking.



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROJECTS

Mr. Burton: 1.	What is the total amount of money made available by the government for Opportunities for Youth projects in 1972?
2.	Of this amount, what allocation was made available for distribution within the Province of Saskatchewan, and what percentage is this of the total?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: 1.

2. Opportunities for Youth projects are being recorded by regions. The allocation made available for distribution within the Prairie Provinces and the Northwest Territories was $4,350,126 and represents 14 per cent of the total amount of money granted to Opportunities for Youth projects in 1972.



EXPORTS OF WHEAT TO MEXICO

[Stage Direction]
Question No. 642-Mr. Dinsdale: (Supplementary)
1.	How much wheat has been supplied by Canada to Mexico during each year since 1968?
2.	Of this, what proportion does this represent of that country's total wheat import?
3.	Did the Wheat Board make any offers of Canadian wheat to the Campania National de Subsistencias Populares (CONA-SUPO) during this period?
4.	Does Canada have international suppliers and brokers representing her in connection with the sale of seed, wheat or other cereals to Mexico?
Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister Responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board):: 1, 2, 3 and 4.
Since the 1963-64 crop year, with the exception of 1968-69 when a negligible quantity (1,000 tons) was imported, Mexico has been a net exporter of wheat. The Canadian Wheat Board and private trade continue to represent Canada's interest in this and other markets for Canadian grain and oilseeds. No business in wheat sales to Mexico was concluded during the period in question. This year Mexico has held some tenders for imports of wheat but to date Canadian exporters have not been successful bidders.



CMHC ASSISTANCE-HOME FOR THE AGED, HAVRE ST-PIERRE

Mr. Blouin: What was the contribution of the government or of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation toward the construction of the home for the aged in Havre St-Pierre, which was completed in 1971?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation approved a loan of $392,000 in August, 1969, to assist in the financing

July 5, 1972
Questions
of a home for senior citizens in Havre St-Pierre. This provides 56 hostel beds.



LOCAL INITIATIVE PROJECTS

Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	What was the percentage of local initiative projects submitted by individuals which were proposed and accepted across Canada?
2.	What was the percentage of projects submitted by municipalities which were accepted and carried out?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. The percentage of Local Initiatives projects submitted by individuals which were proposed and accepted across Canada is 38.6.
2. The percentage of projects submitted by municipalities which were accepted and carried out was 45.1.



WELFARE RECIPIENTS IN CANADA

Mr. Caouette: 1.	How many welfare recipients are assisted by the government in Canada?
2.	How many welfare recipients are assisted by the government in each province?


John Carr Munro: 1. Under the terms of the Canada Assistance Plan, the federal government shares in the costs to provinces of assistance and welfare services. Provinces are responsible for administering social assistance programs. The same procedure is followed in respect to the Blind Persons Act, Disabled Persons Act and Unemployment Assistance Act.
2. The total number of recipients of benefits under the above programs, as of December 1971, were 608,987. (Recipients refers only to family heads and single persons and, therefore, does not include dependents). In Newfoundland, there were 28,001 recipients. In P.E.I. 3,567 recipients. In Nova Scotia 21,944 recipients. In New Brunswick 21,741 recipients. In Quebec 203,380 recipients. In Ontario 149,543 recipients. In Manitoba 36,397 recipients. In Saskatchewan 21,454 recipients. In Alberta 34,575 recipients. In B.C. 79,918 recipients. In N.W.T. 7,338 recipients. In Yukon 1,119 recipients. The Northwest Territories has not yet signed an agreement with the Canada Assistance Plan. Social assistance costs are consequently covered under the Unemployment Assistance Act.



LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM

Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	Who was responsible for analyzing, accepting or rejecting projects submitted under the Local Initiatives Program?
2.	What criteria were used to examine and accept the projects?
3.	Were special and essential standards used to decide which projects would be accepted and, if so, (a) which standards (b) were they known to the public before the projects were submitted?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: 1. (a) For those projects under $75,000, the regio-

nal offices for the Department of Manpower and Immigration in Halifax, N.S., Montreal, Que., Toronto, Ont., Winnipeg, Man., and in Vancouver, B.C., were responsible for analysing, accepting or rejecting projects submitted under the Local Initiatives Program, (b) For those projects over $75,000, a preliminary assessment was conducted by the staff referred to in 1(a) and then dispatched to headquarters along with their recommendations. At departmental headquarters, these projects were re-assessed by senior project officers prior to submission to an executive board which made recommendations to the minister for his approval or rejection.
2.	The criteria used to examine and accept projects were announced by the minister in the House on October 27,
1971.	A further announcement was made on December 8, 1971 regarding an amendment pertaining to man-months. In addition to the foregoing, public information releases were carried by the media and all LIP applicants or prospective applicants were provided with detailed printed instructions and the criteria. The criteria involved were tabled in the House of Commons on October 27,
1971.
3.	No.



WHEREABOUTS OF GUYANESE VISITORS

Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	Has the Department of Manpower and Immigration discovered the whereabouts of the 52 Guyanese visitors who were not aboard their return charter flight from Toronto during the week of June 12?
2.	Have any of these visitors applied for landed immigrant status?
3.	If any have applied for landed immigrant status what has been the response of the Department?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: 1. The Department of Manpower and Immigration is unaware of the present whereabouts of thirty-three of the fifty-two visitors who failed to depart on the flight in question.
2.	Yes. 19.
3.	These applicants are being processed in the same manner as any visitor who has applied to remain permanently.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	In each of the past three years (a) how much money was distributed in the form of grants for research into the problems of mental health (b) how many grants were made to projects in each province (c) what was the total amount of the grants paid out in each province?
2.	In each of the past three years (a) how many requests for grants for research into the problems of mental health were made by researchers in each province (b) what was the dollar value of the requests from each province?
Return tabled.
July 5, 1972



FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO CANADA COUNCIL FOR SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Schumacher: 1.	Does the federal government contribute financially to a body or organization known as the Canada Council for Social Development, or known under any other name, set up for the purposes of providing permanent programs for transient youth and, if so, what is the correct name, address and authority of such body or bodies?
2.	What specifically are the aims, purposes and programs administered by such body or bodies?
3.	What is the cost of each program and in each case, how much is borne by the federal government?
4.	Where specifically are such programs being carried out, and by whom in each case?
5.	What remuneration of any nature is paid to any individual or individuals in each case?
Return tabled.



TRADE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

Mr. Nystrom: Are there any trade development programs which are identified with a particular region of Canada and, if so, what are examples of programs which have specific benefits to the Province of British Columbia, to the Prairies, to the Province of Quebec and to the Atlantic Region?
Return tabled.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

[Stage Direction]
Mr. ]. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council): I ask, Mr. Speaker, that notices of motions for the production of papers be reserved.
Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

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


Mr. Stanfield:: Mr. Speaker, my questions relate to the dock strike and as the minister is not here and a bill is to be introduced I shall defer them.



FINANCE


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister in the
Inquiries of the Ministry
absence of the Minister of Finance. In light of the survey businessmen in the country conducted recently in which some doubt was expressed concerning the efficacy of the budgetary measures, particularly depletion allowances, will the Prime Minister advise or consult with the Minister of National Revenue and others involved concerning when the regulations will be coming out in respect of depletion allowances in light of the fact that officials of the Department of Finance say it will be months, and will he try to have established a definition of the word "manufacturing" which apparently is to be left to the courts?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: I will gladly take notice of the question, Mr. Speaker.



EFFECT OF BUDGET ON ALLEVIATING UNEMPLOYMENT-GOVERNMENT INTENTION RESPECTING FURTHER MEASURES

Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Would the Prime Minister also take cognizance of the results of this very wide survey across Canada which shows that much less than 50 per cent of the people consulted felt that the budget would do anything for unemployment? In light of that, is it the intention of the government to re-examine the situation in view of what was said during the budget debate, and now confirmed, and to bring forward further measures say in September when the House reconvenes?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think we might want to examine the survey first, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that 50 per cent of the businessmen do not think the budget is likely to do anything about unemployment, will the Prime Minister consult with the Minister of Finance to see whether he would introduce measures to increase the demand side of the economic curve by reducing taxes for individual taxpayers?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.



PENSIONS


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the serious situation that will develop in Canada if the Canada Pension Plan and the Quebec Pension Plan get out of line, and in view of the fact that the Quebec National Assembly has passed a bill to amend the Quebec Pension plan effective January 1, 1973, may I ask the minister what steps the federal government is taking to try to cope with this situation?


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I had an opportunity to talk very recently to the minister responsible in that province. I do not think there are any changes in the Quebec Pen-

July 5, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
sion Plan that are that much out of line. They have the same general thrust as the ones we recommended in the white paper. I am very hopeful we can still preserve uniformity and can get together with the other provinces and come up with changes to the Canada Pension Plan that may fit in very well with what is proposed in Quebec. If there are things proposed as a result of discussion with the other provinces that are not in the Quebec bill, I do not anticipate that that will preclude changes there. In other words, I do not think the prospect is all that dismal. In fact, I am relatively optimistic that uniformity can be preserved.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary question may I ask the minister if he will convene a meeting of the appropriate ministers from the other provinces very soon in the hope that plans can be worked out so that the nearest possible approach to uniformity may be achieved before January 1?


John Carr Munro: Yes, that is our aim, to try to meet the January 1 deadline in order to preserve uniformity. Whether the mechanics, in terms of the method of operating that the hon. member has suggested, are the best, I do not know right now. Certainly we are meeting with the other provinces; our officials are talking to their officials. If it seems that the matter could be speeded up by having all the ministers meet at one time as opposed to bilateral discussions, we would be prepared to consider that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I have one more supplementary question. In view of the fact that one of the changes made in the Quebec Pension Plan is to increase to 3 per cent the rate of escalation of benefits after they have been put in pay, and in view of the fact that this was not in the white paper proposals of the federal government, will arrangements be made to include this matter in discussions with the provinces?


John Carr Munro: Whatever changes the government may be prepared to consider with reference to its original proposals would be matters of policy for us to consider, and we have not yet reached that state.



AMENDMENTS TO QUEBEC PENSION PLAN-PRIOR NOTIFICATION OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether he or the federal government was informed about the intention of the Quebec authorities to propose these changes before they were introduced in the National Assembly in Quebec or whether to his knowledge the Quebec minister discussed them with the ministers of other provinces as well as or in place of the federal government?


John Carr Munro: In answer to the latter part of the hon. member's question, I am not prepared to say what discussions Quebec may have had with other provinces because personally I am not aware of them. So far as the first part of the question is concerned, I think it would be fair to say that we had some notice that Quebec was going to pro-

ceed, although perhaps not precisely as to the date on which they would be implementing the legislation.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Would the minister tell us whether the central government contributes one way or another to the James Bay development project or if it is left entirely to the province of Quebec?


Jean Marchand: We have not entered into shared programs with the province of Quebec. That province proceeds alone with the development of James Bay. The Quebec government has indicated to us that it would make special requests, including one for the establishment of an airport, for example, but those are matters which will be considered by every department involved and not exclusively by mine.



TAXATION


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. Would he take the first opportunity on motions, preferably tomorrow, to outline to the House why Mr. John Weldon, whose effectiveness as a member of the Tax Appeal Board has never been questioned, was not reappointed to serve until the age of 70, six years from now, when two other members of the same board, Mr. St-Onge and Mr. Frost, have both been reappointed to serve partial terms until the age of 70?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that it would serve any purpose to analyse in detail the reasons for making a judgment concerning the appropriateness of a reappointment. In fact, of course, of the two men who were reappointed one was appointed by this government and one by a previous government of another party, as was Mr. Weldon. The judgment was made totally on the basis of ability in view of the new functions of the board, the present board having rather different functions from those of the old board.


George Harris Hees: Is this discrimination on purely political grounds part of the just society?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows that that question is clearly out of order.
July 5, 1972



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact the Secretary of State is supposed to be present today and seems to be absent, I would like to ask the Prime Minister this question: Is the Secretary of State absent because he is still sulking from his public spanking or is he actually away on business or has the cabinet shuffle already occurred?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I thought I made it quite clear yesterday that the Secretary of State would not be changed during the lifetime of this government but that after we had won the election I would be shifting him along with other members of the cabinet.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I am sure many portfolios, other than that of the Secretary of State, will be changed after the next election, including that of the Prime Minister-and you too, High Park-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: In view of the fact there may not be too many more days left in this part of the extended session, I would like to ask the Prime Minister seriously whether he would communicate with tfle Secretary of State, or directly with the CBC now that that labour difficulty has been settled, so that the national news can again be seen in eastern and Atlantic Canada at eleven o'clock instead of at twelve o'clock or one o'clock?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will gladly transmit the representation to the Secretary of State so he can transmit it to the CBC, so the hon. member can watch the news before going to bed.



CANADA PENSION PLAN


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is the minister aware that in the city of Ottawa the six months' cost of living adjustment received by old age pensioners at the end of June has been deducted from social assistance payments and, if so, does the minister intend to change the federal regulations under the Canada Assistance Plan to prevent this kind of thing happening?
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, the regulations have been changed to permit the provinces to take whatever action they see fit as being an area within their jurisdiction in terms of social assistance levels, but there is no obligation for them to do so. I have already indicated that if I had my preference I would prefer that they did not.



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development whether he can report favourably on the negotiations he has been having over a period of time with his counterparts in Ontario and Quebec regarding a potential park in the Timiskaming area?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, up to now I made more progress with Quebec than with Ontario.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister whether he is continuing his difficult negotiations with the province of Ontario on the possibility of establishing an interprovincial park in the Lake Timiskaming area?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I keep in touch with the governments of Ontario and Quebec, but I must tell the House that the main part of the park which interests the department most is obviously on the Quebec side, because lakes and mountains are on that side. We are always interested in obtaining part of the territory of Ontario if that is possible.



GOVERNMENT POLICY-DISTRIBUTION OF ANGLOPHONE FILMS

Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for the Secretary of State who, according to the roster, is supposed to be here today, but in his absence I will direct it to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister consider that the Canadian film policy as outlined yesterday by the Secretary of State will satisfactorily contribute to the development of the Canadian film industry without an effective distribution network for Anglophone films?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not grasp the import of the question, but I will certainly refer it to the Secretary of State for consideration and deep thought.

July 5, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry LABOUR RELATIONS



QUEBEC-LONGSHOREMEN'S STRIKE-GOVERNMENT APPROACH TO PROBLEM OF JOB SECURITY

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. It is a little unusual but I would ask for your indulgence in view of the fact that a bill is to be introduced later today and we will not receive printed copies of it for some time. The question might somewhat facilitate deliberations this afternoon in preparation for second reading. Can the minister indicate very briefly what approach he is taking to the solution of the problem of job security?


Hon. Martin P. O'Connell (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, it is true that I intend to introduce a bill in the House later this day, hopefully later this afternoon. As I said yesterday, I should like to assist hon. members opposite as much as possible in these circumstances-


An hon. Member:: Answer the question, then.


Mr. O'Connell:: -but it would not be appropriate for me to disclose the contents or the principles of the bill until it is introduced in the House.


An hon. Member:: Why not?


An hon. Member:: You could certainly make a statement.



THE MINISTRY


Mr. Mac T. McCutcheon (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Can the minister assure the House that the ethical guidelines concerning the use of government aircraft during election campaigns, as outlined on June 30,1972, at page 3682 of Hansard, were not violated by the Prime Minister on his visit to northeastern Ontario last weekend in the undeclared election campaign?


An hon. Member:: Ben, the question is for you.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for York South. Is the hon. member for Lambton-Kent rising for a supplementary question?


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Now that the minister is awake, may I ask him a supplementary question, or perhaps I should repeat the first one. Can the minister assure the House that the ethical guidelines concerning the use of government aircraft during election campaigns, as outlined on June 30,1972 at page 3682 of Hansard, were not violated by the Prime Minister on his visit to northeastern Ontario last weekend in the undeclared election campaign?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the use of government aircraft here is far better than that in the province of Ontario and that we do not violate these principles.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: Will the minister assure the House that these guidelines, established as safeguards for just and equal election campaigning by all parties, will not be violated by the Prime Minister or any other minister in the present government? Never mind Ontario; they are doing all right.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that government aircraft in the Department of National Defence are used for government purposes with certain privileges provided for members of the opposition, including the Leader of the Opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, for my own information I should like to know under what conditions government aircraft are available to the Leader of the Opposition?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, there are certain regular flights of armed forces aircraft to Europe and western Canada and if members apply and there is space available we try to make it available to them whether they be in the opposition or on this side of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are three hon. members seeking supplementaries on this subject. I shall recognize the hon. member for Lambton-Kent and then the hon. member for Temiscamingue.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: Will the minister be kind enough to comment on the dead-heading of two of our largest helicopters from Ottawa to Earlton in order to fly the Prime Minister a distance of 30 miles and then dead-head back to Ottawa?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, we have aircraft available that have to carry out training flights and they carry them out.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: It is a good thing the Prime Minister was on a training flight. He needs some training.


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


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence.
The minister stated that aircraft and helicopters may be used also by members of the opposition. I have had the opportunity of travelling with cabinet members to Rouyn-Noranda because I had been invited. But how is it that when the Prime Minister visited Kirkland Lake, the hon. member for Timiskaming was not invited since he does represent the voters of that area?
July 5, 1972


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the hon. member for Timiskaming was already there.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is not a very fruitful exchange. If hon. members think we should return to this very high-flying subject later, perhaps we might do so. In the meantime the Chair will recognize the hon. member for York South.



COMMUNICATIONS


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I go to
another form of communication. May I ask the Minister of Communications whether he has completed his study of the information with regard to the Bell application for increased rates? Has he anything to report?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I have completed the examination and have concluded that there is no supportable basis in this case for substituting my judgment or that of the Governor in Council for the considered judgment of the independent regulatory body that is charged by Parliament with setting rates which are just and reasonable.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I must say I am not surprised at the answer. I suspected that the corporate attitude would be the minister's attitude. Would the minister have the courtesy as well as the courage to make a statement on motions in the next day or two informing Parliament of the reasons for his conclusion, the reasons for letting Bell Canada get away with the kind of gouging it has got away with for so long?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION OF ALLEGED FAILURE OF BELL CANADA TO FULFIL OBLIGATIONS

Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister investigate why Bell Canada is not fulfilling its obligations to all parts of Canada, particularly to Newfoundland, and why its service is deteriorating?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to inquire about that. I have asked the president of Bell Canada to meet with me as a result of reports that there has been some cutback from the original expectations for capital investment by the company during the current year. I will be glad to raise this question with him as well.
Inquiries of the Ministry
If I might reply briefly to the hon. member for York South, I think I would owe this House a more elaborate explanation if I were to interfere with the decision of the independent authority which Parliament has charged with the responsibility of setting rates.



BELL CANADA RATE INCREASES-AUTHORITY OF GOVERNOR IN COUNCIL TO RESCIND OR VARY

David Lewis: I have a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister looked into the lay-offs at Northern Electric owing to the failure by Bell Canada to make the level of investment it undertook to make? Also, is the Canadian Transport Commission to be left alone in its decision or, instead of that question, may I ask the minister to inform the House why Parliament placed in the Governor in Council the authority to rescind or vary these decisions if there are grounds? If there are not, we ought to know about it.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, I am sure you would not want me to try to assess the motivation of Parliament in passing the National Transportation Act, but I have found no instance in which the Governor in Council has interfered with a Canadian Transport Commission decision on telecommunication rates.


An hon. Member:: That interference is long overdue.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: In fact, no petition has been received from any party to do so. I note that neither the hon. member nor his party made any representations at the hearings.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. Has the minister examined the bill, introduced in the Quebec legislature yesterday, granting new powers of search, seizure and arrest to the Quebec police? Will he say whether this bill contravenes the federal government's constitutional jurisdiction over criminal law?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet had time-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure whether I can interpret the hon. member's question as being one that seeks a legal opinion. If that is what the hon. member is asking now, then he appreciates, I am sure, that the minister cannot give that opinion at the present time. Perhaps I did not interpret the question correctly, and the minister might reply briefly in light of the procedural restriction I have indicated.

July 5, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we will be examining the legislation from the point of view of our own interest in it and can then communicate, of course, with the responsible authorities. The usual procedure in connection with legislation is for persons who have doubts about it to challenge it in the more ordinary way rather than for the government to give an opinion about it.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If the minister's advisers advise him that this legislation is in fact unconstitutional and trespasses on the federal power, will he consider referring the matter to the courts?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will appreciate, I am sure, that put in those terms the question is hypothetical.



DECISION OF BRITISH COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEAL


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of Justice with respect to the decision of the Court of Appeal of British Columbia about which I have questioned him twice. He said previously that he had not had time to complete his deliberations and examination of the decision. Recognizing that the Minister of Justice must walk deliberately, may I ask him whether he has had an opportunity to complete his assessment of that decision and what measures he proposes to introduce, if any, in light of it?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am examining the decision carefully but I have not yet completed that task. I will walk deliberately, as the hon. gentleman recommends.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In the meantime some people could practically starve to death.



AIRPORTS


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. It arises from the considerable number of press releases being made for the minister by Liberal members in connection with airport improvements. Who is making the announcements in connection with improvements in the ridings of opposition members?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, so far as I am aware I have advised all members of the House, regardless of party, when I have had representations from them. If there has been any change in that, I will be glad to hear about it.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Is the minister authorizing these press releases only in connection with members of the Liberal party through his own department?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No, certainly not, and I think the evidence of that is that a good many of these airports are being built in regions other than those represented by members on the government side of the House.



MOUNT HOPE, ONT.-PUBLICATION OF DETAILED EXPANSION PLANS

Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister advise us whether any members of the government have made any announcements with respect to the detailed plans for the Mount Hope airport expansion, which is certainly long overdue? If so, will they be made public?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, yes, they will be made public. I believe I answered the hon. member a couple of weeks ago, indicating that a number of alternatives were being submitted. I have received those now. It is my intention to convey them, as I indicated to him at that time, to the various authorities in the Hamilton region with a view to getting their reaction to the alternatives.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: As we were told a month ago that there would be an announcement within three days, can the minister tell us when he will give some indication as to what these detailed plans are?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, if there were enough hours in the day I would be glad to say Friday but it may be Monday or Tuesday; I am not sure. As soon as I have time I will look over them myself and find out who the appropriate authorities are to whom they should be sent.

'	EXTERNAL AFFAIRS



NUCLEAR TESTS BY FRANCE-NUMBER PLANNED-RESPONSE TO CANADIAN REPRESENTATIONS

Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Having in mind today's press reports indicating that there have been two French nuclear tests in the Pacific up to this time and that a further test is forecast, may I ask whether the government has information as to how many of these tests are planned, and what response the French government has made to the Canadian government's representations opposing the tests?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, unofficially we have reason to believe that there have been two tests. The French government refuses to confirm or deny this fact, but it seems to be common knowledge. I understand that they intend to continue the tests. They have received our representations but the only indication we have is that the French government intends to carry out its program of tests.
July 5, 1972


Barry Mather: Is it the government's intention to add to its former protests in opposition to these dangerous tests?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, not only has the government protested both in general and in particular but the House of Commons passed a resolution which has been presented to the French government. I cannot think of any stronger protest than that.



UNITED NATIONS


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, my question is also addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Does Canada support the view of Kurt Waldheim, Secretary General of the United Nations, that both Germanys should be members of the United Nations? If so, what is this country doing to bring about this result?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I indicated previously, and I think the Prime Minister has also, that we are hopeful that the negotiations between the Federal German Republic and the Democratic German Republic will be successful and that both Germanys will be able to come into the United Nations together having solved their problems so that they do not import them into the United Nations.



AIRPORTS


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of the chaotic and terrible conditions at Toronto airport last weekend, I wish to ask the minister whether he and members of his department are giving consideration to establishing a depot completely separate or divorced from Malton so that arrivals and departures can take place in a manner very similar to the operation in London?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes. In point of fact, the new terminal has only been open for a few days. Last weekend, of course, was the worst weekend of the year. Air Canada established a new record for the number of passengers.


An hon. Member:: What about baggage?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: The hon. member may have lost his baggage. I regret that very much, but if he does not lose anything more than his baggage he is in good shape.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Inquiries of the Ministry


Donald Campbell Jamieson: In any event, Mr. Speaker, we are examining the possibility of moving charters to a separate location as was done last year.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. It is in two parts. Can the minister indicate whether proposals for replacement of the Argus will be invited before the end of September? Also, have negotiations now been completed with the British government with regard to purchase of the Scorpion?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, as far as can presently be determined the answer to both questions is no.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the fact the Saskatchewan Department of Agriculture, together with producers and major dairy manufacturers in Saskatchewan, has been working for two years to revitalize the dairy industry, can the minister indicate whether his department is now reconsidering its reported rejection of an incentive grant for a milk manufacturing complex at one or more Saskatchewan points?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take this question as notice.


John Stratford Burton: In view of the fact the policies of the Canadian Dairy Commission did a great deal of harm to the dairy industry in Saskatchewan, will the minister find some way to assist-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A question asked in those terms is not procedurally acceptable.



TRANSPORT


Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. It deals with the proposed creation of a council to govern the Trent and Rideau waterway systems. Can the minister advise whether a date has been set for creation of the council and when it is expected to take control of the waterways?

July 5, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure how urgent this question may be, but the Chair has to take into account the possibility that the House may adjourn later this week. Perhaps the minister might be allowed to reply.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question could more properly be directed to my colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, who has now assumed responsibility for the waterways in question.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I will look into the question and reply tomorrow.



NATIONAL REVENUE


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of National Revenue. Will the minister advise the House whether income tax files of individuals or corporations are examined by representatives of other government departments with a view to conducting further investigations or to establish charges in any of the courts under the jurisdiction of the federal government?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member's question arises out of a newspaper report. All I can say at this point is that I have asked for a report on the matter. To the extent that I am able to do so, without transgressing the concept of not commenting on something which is sub judice, I would be prepared to make a report to the House.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Will the minister make a statement indicating precisely the extent of the authority of government officials outside of his department to examine Department of National Revenue files with regard to income tax returns of both corporations and private individuals?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: As I have said, Mr. Speaker, I have asked for a report on the matter. I will be happy to see what further information I can provide.


Mr. C. Terrence Murphy (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Revenue. When the minister is inquiring into the matter raised by the hon. member opposite, will he also inquire whether information from his department is passed along not only to federal but to provincial authorities, because there is evidence that reassessments that have been made by his department have been made within days by the provincial authorities as well in exactly the same figures?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to do that. It may well be that parts of the agreements which the federal government has with provinces for tax collection pur-

poses call for arrangements for exchange of information. I will look into it further.



DEPARTMENTAL POLICY RESPECTING MONITORING OF SALE BY USE OF AGENTS WHO ATTEMPT TO BUY WITHOUT PRESCRIPTIONS

Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Does the minister's department have a policy of monitoring the sale of restricted pharmaceutical products by recruiting individuals who attempt to buy these without the necessary prescriptions, in effect using agents for surveillance in this regard?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I will look into this matter and endeavour to answer the hon. member's question tomorrow if I can.



AUTHORITY FOR MAILING OF ACREAGE PAYMENT NOTICES TO PRAIRIE FARMERS LAST SUMMER

Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. In view of the fact that the officials of the Canadian Wheat Board who appeared before the Standing Committee on Agriculture last week denied any knowledge of or association with the mailing of certain acreage payment notices to prairie farmers last summer, purporting to have emanated from the Canadian Wheat Board, can the minister advise the House who mailed these notices and under whose direction and authority they were issued? Did the direction come from the minister or some other government department?


Otto Emil Lang: Yes, Mr. Speaker. There was never any doubt about this. They were mailed under my authority.



INTENTION RESPECTING CONTINUANCE OF ACREAGE PAYMENTS UNDER TWO-PRICE SYSTEM

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Vegreville. In view of the fact we are now less than one month away from the new crop year, can the minister in charge of the Wheat Board state whether it is his intention to continue the acreage payments as a subsidy in respect of the two-price wheat system in the coming crop year? Are plans being made for this?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, further payment will be made. I reject the use of the word "subsidy" by the hon. member. Also, the exact form of payment is subject to further discussions with the pro-
July 5, 1972

ducers. My indication so far has been that it is desirable to have a production neutral payment.



PROVISION OF SHARE OF ACREAGE PAYMENTS TO OWNERS OF RENTED LAND

Mr. Les Beniamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. In view of the fact that many members from the prairie provinces have received complaints from people who rent land, particularly elderly people, who are not receiving any share of the acreage payments, can the minister advise whether he and his officials are trying to arrive at some method for future payments whereby owners of land, particularly elderly people who rent it to practicing farmers, will receive some share of the acreage payment?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we do not propose a method for such a division. We do propose to make clear to landlords and tenants that it is very much up to them to make an arrangement in connection with their leases as to how these payments should be divided.



HOUSING


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, who has been absent on his last two duty roster days, may I ask the acting minister or the Prime Minister whether the Michael Dennis report on low-income housing will be tabled this week?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take notice of the question. I am afraid I do not have the answer. I will transmit it to the minister.



CANADIAN CULTURE


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In May the Prime Minister stipulated that he would advise the House who would make up the formation of the Canadian Advisory Council on Multiculturalism. Would the Prime Minister like to name these people so there could be recognition of the visible minorities of Canada? And please, no Pierre Vallieres or Rene Levesques!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Steve Eugene Paproski: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Edmonton Centre is rising on a point of order.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I was hoping that the Prime Minister would answer my question which was not really meant to be facetious.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will appreciate that the first part of his question was in order, but if he rules himself out of court by an addendum to his question the question cannot be asked and the Prime Minister cannot be allowed to reply to a question which is clearly out of order.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I should like to remove the addendum, if I may, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member might ask his question tomorrow.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of complaints that are coming in from Canadian National Railways employees and pensioners concerning the failure of last Thursday's announcement about pensions to meet their just claims, can the minister say whether he has made representation to the management of Canadian National to review this matter in all its aspects as quickly as possible?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have done so. No later than half an hour ago I was discussing this matter with a major executive of Canadian National and I conveyed to him copies of the telegrams which the hon. member was good enough to send me.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister underline in his discussions with management the desire of Canadian National employees to have the same pension benefits that are accorded to federal public servants?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As this is in the communication it is obviously in their hands, but I will convey the matter verbally as well.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I believe the House agreed to return at this time to introduction of bills.

July 5, 1972
3782____________________________________
Proposed Legislation



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Abram Ernest Epp: for leave to introduce Bill C-230, to provide for the resumption of the operation of the ports of Montreal, Trois-Rivieres and Quebec.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the minister shall have leave to introduce the said bill?


Mr. Valcde:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Before the House gives its assent, could the minister say whether he will make a statement on the whole situation, whether he will inform the House of the economic effects of the strike on ports, and when will work resume?
I would ask the minister whether, before agreeing-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.

Order, please. That is not a point of order. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, if I may raise a point of order, I should like to explain to the House that a full printing from the Printing Bureau will be available later in the afternoon, but very shortly a number of copies will be distributed which have been put together rather quickly within the building. This will give hon. members an opportunity of examining the bill and then later in the day, when members feel they have had an opportunity of examining the bill and are ready to proceed with second reading, we should like to call second reading of the bill.


David Lewis: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate entirely the minister's desire, as it is mine, to see the bill before we go to second reading. However, the minister would not have introduced the bill unless there were reason for doing so, unless there were an emergency, and I therefore suggest that the minister propose, and that the House agree, that second reading begin, say, at 4.30 or five o'clock, and that we make it an order of the House so we will know exactly where we are going and how long we will take to examine the bill.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the suggestion of the hon. member is quite acceptable to the government. We agree that 4.30 is a good time and we could begin second reading then. In the meantime we will have makeshift copies

available for hon. members which, if they regard them as sufficiently official, will enable us to proceed to second reading at 4.30.


Mr. MacLean:: That is agreeable to the official opposition, Mr. Speaker.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the House leader whether, in terms of second reading and the Standing Orders, he would give consideration to making a change from the normal procedure under which this bill would be referred to the labour committee and send the bill, in view of the emergency, to the Committee of the Whole House.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have already given consideration to that point. It was my feeling that we would probably facilitate the passing of the bill more rapidly by sending it to a standing committee. It would be the intention when the bill is sent to the standing committee to ask the committee to deal with it as quickly as possible.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, in view of the fact, as I understand it, that the House is in session primarily, in fact solely, to deal with the Montreal port strike, would the government House leader now agree to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Timiskam-ing and make an about-face in regard to the conclusion he has reached?


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed and so ordered that the House will consider the bill on second reading at 4.30 this afternoon?


William Arnold Peters: No, Mr. Speaker. It seems to me that this is an emergency, and I object to a small committee of the House making the decision on a matter that the government itself considers to be a national emergency. I believe all members should participate and I would be willing to co-operate to that end. However, I would be unfair to myself as well as to dealing with what the government has declared to be an emergency if I agreed to handle this bill in any other way, with the House carrying on business as usual while this very important matter is handled by a committee. If the government House leader does not see some merit in the House itself dealing with this emergency, I see no particular reason for agreeing that the emergency is such that we should waive our rules in other respects. I suggest that we waive the rules in such a way that all members will be able to participate at the committee stage.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, may I underline the proposition put forward by my colleague from Hamilton West. I am sure that the government House leader is fully aware of the rule that provides that when a committee reports back to the House the report cannot be considered until 48 hours later unless, of course, unanimous consent to consider the report is obtained, but then the government might be running a very serious risk. After all, this legislation is the reason we were called back this week. I, too, should like to participate in the discussion of the legislation in this House. I am sure every member recognizes what is its purpose and I think the bill should be considered here.
July 5, 1972


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in view of the comments that have been made and which the government House leader has heard, I wonder whether we could not agree to start the debate on second reading at 4.30 as indicated. We could also agree to leave for further discussion among the representatives of the parties the question of which committee the bill would go to after second reading.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I accept the suggestion of my hon. friend. I simply want to make the point that we are treating this bill as we treat every other bill under the Standing Orders in sending it to a standing committee. It was my expectation that if the House could give second reading to the bill today, the standing committee could consider it in the morning and it could be back in the House tomorrow afternoon. That is a matter for consideration but that was the idea I had in mind.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I suggest that we have been called to examine the emergency situation created by the dispute in the harbours of the St. Lawrence. We are now being asked to refer the bill to a standing committee of the House, while we have been kept here, as the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) said a few minutes ago, especially to deal with this issue. The Committee of the Whole House should examine the bill so that all members have an opportunity of expressing their views. In my opinion, the sooner we shall start this debate, the sooner we shall end it, because all hon. members are interested in this dispute coming to an end in Montreal, Trois-Rivieres and Quebec. We need only agree that the debate should start as soon as possible in the Committee of the Whole House so that all hon. members have an opportunity of airing their views.


Mr. Speaker:: The latest suggestion, as I understand it, is that the House order the bill for consideration on second reading at 4.30 this afternoon, leaving in abeyance the question of the referral of the bill after second reading to either the standing committee or committee of the whole, and this would be the subject of discussion among the party representatives. For the time being there will be only one decision for the House to take, namely, to order that at 4.30 the House begin consideration of the bill on second reading. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.
Foreign Takeovers Review Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, July 4, consideration of Bill C-201, to provide for the review and assessment of acquisitions of control of Canadian business enterprises by certain persons, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, and motions Nos. 10 and 11 (Mr. McCleave).
Hen. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West): Mr. Speaker, yesterday at ten o'clock at the adjournment of this debate I had asked the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) to reconsider very carefully the amendment put forward by my colleague, the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave), and to see whether there was some area of agreement between the minister's thinking and the amendment put forward, with a view to making the legislation more precise and less confusing. I had hoped the minister might now be able to give us his answer.
Hon. Iean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry. Traae and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I still stand on the opinion I gave yesterday which is to be found at page 3763 of Hansard. I hope the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) will accept the explanation I gave at that time.
The hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) indicated that if we were to accept the amendment we might open a loophole in the bill which would be most undesirable. This loophole would allow the possible acquisition of a business under the cover of a leasing operation. The hon. member for Waterloo saw the difficulty in the same way I did, and I suggest that this view should be accepted by the proposer of the motion. I am eager to hear his views.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question on the motion now before us?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on motions Nos. 10 and 11. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motions? All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


An hon. Member:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare motions 10 and 11 negatived on division.
Motions Nos. 10 and 11 (Mr. McCleave) negatived.
3784_____________________COMMONS DEBATES_________________July 5, 1972
Foreign Takeovers Review Act


Mr. Speaker:: The House will now proceed to the consideration of motion No. 12 in the name of the hon. member for Edmonton West.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: motion No. 12 as follows:
That Bill C-201, an act to provide for the review and assessment of acquisitions of control of Canadian business enterprises by certain persons, be amended by deleting line 25 on page 12 thereof and substituting therefor the following:
"based on such information and evidence; and, where the opinion is that the person is not a non-eligible person, the minister and his successors in office shall, upon such information and evidence, be bound by that opinion."
He said: Mr. Speaker, the reason I have put forward this amendment is that it embodies the point of view put forward by certain committee members including myself, as well as many of the witnesses who wished to simplify the administration of this legislation by eliminating as much as possible the necessity of having to come to the minister for every transaction. Every transaction which might be considered to be caught by the act would have to be brought to the minister. That would include everyone who is close to the limits but who has established that for the purposes of this act the control is Canadian. Having done that once, surely it is possible for that person or corporation to look forward to a period of peace during which he would not, every time in respect of every transaction, have to come to the minister. If the minister has granted a certificate there should for a time be some reliance placed upon that certificate.
I would place this matter where the onus should lie, that is, with the minister and not with the corporation. Why should the companies always bear the onus of establishing their innocence? It seems to me fundamental that companies should have the presumption in their favour. If having obtained a certificate from information which may be obtained by the minister or lodged with him there is some doubt as to the company's status, the certificate, having been granted some time before, could be called into question. But the onus would be on the ministry: that is where it should be.
This is not the Income Tax Act, although the minister in all cases has acted in the spirit of the Income Tax Act. In other words, the Canadian citizen, the Canadian corporation, must establish its innocence. Since when is that a generally acceptable principle of law or of conduct? We hear everywhere, all along the line, that the individual is the person under this legislation who must establish that there is significant benefit to Canada. The onus is wrong. The government is establishing the regulatory agency; let it act. Why should the responsibility be that of the individual? It is all too easy for government to act in that way. I for one find this provision totally repugnant. It is a matter of personal repugnance to me that in dealing with government it is always the individual who must prove his innocence. That to my mind is not part of a democratic society.
This is the spirit of the amendment. The administration could be handled much easier on the basis of my proposal. If the minister in accepting the principle that I have

put forward should have an alternative formula, I am quite open in this regard. I recognize there is no solution that would be 100 per cent in respect of acceptance of my point of view. Perhaps a certificate that is good for three years on balance would be the best method. Once a certificate were granted and the company had not materially changed its circumstances, the certificate would be valid for three years unless revoked. On the other hand, the certificate could be granted for an indefinite period subject to revocation. These are two avenues of approach. But it seems to me it would be infinitely more acceptable, infinitely more just and infinitely less costly, with much less red tape involved, than the procedure now required by the minister where the responsibility lies with the individual person as determined by this legislation.
It must be remembered that every time the government introduces legislation of this kind, the cost in time and endeavour by the citizen or the businessman is an additional cost. The good Lord only knows how in the past quarter of a century costs which are really the responsibility of the government have been piled on the backs of business and economic activity throughout the country. Who pays for the cost of compiling and maintaining unemployment insurance records and filings on behalf of employees? Who pays for the cost of collection of income tax at source? It is the employer. Who pays for the compilation of the Canada Pension Plan and the computation thereof? The employer. Who pays for health insurance, medicare and so on? Then we have Statistics Canada which comes along with a whole series of requests for information so that a business which employs 25 or 30 persons must hire one or two more merely to maintain records for the government. I did forget that there are also workmen's compensation levies and reports. That item is also a cost that is loaded on the back of the employer.
Who pays for these things in the end? It is the consumer, the Canadian public. All these requirements are fed into the machine. Bureaucracy piles upon bureaucracy, increasing the price which has to be paid by the ultimate consumer, John Citizen. What benefit does he get from it? A great deal of it is highly doubtful. This is another instance of the government feeding the cost of more bureaucracy into the economic machine of this country.
It is a completely new departure; it is a completely new input of bureaucracy into the economic affairs of the country. This has to be paid for. I find it repugnant that this should be so. I say it would be far better for the minister to accept proposals which seek to eliminate as much red tape as possible and make it as easy as possible for those involved or coming under the purported jurisdiction of this legislation to carry on their affairs with a minimum of interference, albeit meeting the requirements of the minister under the act. It is for this reason I have put forward this amendment and seek the support of the House for it.


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, it is always helpful to me to listen to the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) because it sort of reconfirms my reason for becoming a Socialist rather than a Conservative. When he talks about all the deductions in respect of medicare, hospitalization, unemployment insurance and
July 5, 1972

workmen's compensation he rhymes these off as though they were a litany of evil, as though these were evil things for which the employer is forced to pay.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: They are costly.


Max Saltsman: They may be costly but not, certainly, in the way the hon. member attempted to suggest. There is no way I could support this amendment because really what the hon. member for Edmonton West is asking us to do, in the fine moral fury of presumed innocence which he has worked up, is to proceed on the assumption that once somebody receives a clean bill of health so far as ownership is concerned, he should be left alone. It is like saying the lady of the evening has her certificate and therefore one should never look at her again because she is all right.
The hon. member for Edmonton West, who is very knowledgeable about business and the stock market, knows that a certificate could be issued in the morning and in the afternoon the entire ownership of the corporation could be changed. How does one go about saying that once the minister has made a decision, that decision is forever? I realize the difficulty of the situation as suggested by the hon. member, that the onus of proof should be on the government. This is fine. He brings in other cases where this is done. However, in bringing them in the hon. member neglected to indicate that in these cases there is a disclosure mechanism which makes it possible for the onus to lie with the government. For instance, in the case of income tax a person must declare his income annually. The government can review the income tax return and make a decision.
What makes this more surprising, and certainly not understandable so far as the hon. member for Edmonton West is concerned, is that over the years when in this House and in committee we have debated various pieces of legislation, the hon. member has constantly refused to put disclosure regulations in the Corporations Act and other acts.
I do not like the onus being put on the individual or on the corporation. I think this is not a good principle. But unless you have disclosure in the rest of the legislation, which the hon. member for Edmonton West opposes, there is no other choice. If the disclosure were there, the minister could act on the information which came under other acts and we could say to the minister that he has to initiate proceedings in such a case.
The Canada Corporations Act is useless in terms of disclosure; there is no disclosure below the level of $5 million of assets, whereas this bill calls for examination at the level of $250,000. Therefore, the other acts do not enable the minister to have any idea of what is happening. We have run into similar problems with the minister in other areas and we have not yet solved the problem of disclosure. The one thing on which I can agree with the hon. member for Edmonton West is that as a principle the onus should be on the government. But then you have to say in justice that our disclosure legislation must be improved; at least information must be available to us.
Foreign Takeovers Review Act
Recently we had the problem of American corporations in Canada which had made application under the DISC program in the United States. No one was as surprised in Canada as the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) who thought he had received assurances from these good friends of his that they were not going to apply for DISC. He woke up one morning and to his horror found he had been shafted in so many places that he looked like a pincushion. His friends had let him down. He had no way of knowing that they had made this application until some outside, extraneous information came to his attention. This would be the same case.
I cannot see how you can possibly have any kind of meaning in an act as meagre as this one. The inclusion of this amendment would wipe out the entire significance of the provisions, because all you have to do if you are an American corporation is obtain Canadian corporate ownership; you would then be as pure as the driven snow. The minute you obtained your certificate you could do as you pleased and the minister would have to play cops and robbers and chase you all over the country to find out what had taken place. If we tried to get disclosure incorporated into the legislation, then my friends to the right, the Conservative party, would say that this is useless information and that we do not need it, that it is just probing and prying. Obviously we do need it. If this amendment has any significance at all, it is that there must be disclosure.
Again, this bill would have very little meaning because there is no disclosure and because built into the situation the minister already has enough problems in trying to ascertain the disposition of a business or what its shares may be, without adding this provision. So I think that on reflection, if the hon. member for Edmonton West thinks of the problems that would be created by accepting his amendment and if he is really serious about strengthening or improving the bill, he will withdraw his motion.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of ideas on the same subject to complement what the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) has said. I am in full agreement with him on this matter, but I have no intention of joining the NDP because of that. My first comment is that if the minister should get into the business of issuing binding opinions he would very rapidly be subject to accusations, perhaps from the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), of having protected his friends because he would be making exceptions for individual companies. That would be very dangerous politically.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: You are going to do it every day.


Jean-Luc Pepin: No, Sir. I do not want to repeat what was said during the hour or two which we spent in committee on this point, but I pointed out that so far as the administration of the act is concerned, where the share ownership of the company concerned has not changed materially after the minister has given an opinion on the eligibility or otherwise of the company, the opinion should be considered as remaining in effect. That is the only thing one can do. Knowing full well, as was emphasized by the hon. member for Waterloo, that shares keep moving constant-

July 5, 1972
Foreign Takeovers Review Act
ly, the minister could not commit himself in advance on these matters. But as I said in the committee, administratively speaking the opinion given under clause 3(8) is valid inasmuch as there has not been any material change in the distribution of shares in the company. This is known only to the company. Suppose I give an opinion today, on July 5, and there is no material change in the distribution of shares in the company until September, 1974. The opinion that I have given is then one that the company can use, and that is all it is possible to do under the circumstances.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The minister is still insisting on the onus being on the individual.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: On division.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I delcare the motion negatived on division.
Motion No. 12 (Mr. Lambert, Edmonton West) negatived.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to agreement made yesterday, motions Nos. 13 and 14 are to be considered and disposed of separately. Therefore the Chair will not put motion No. 13. Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West) moves motion No. 13 as follows:
That Bill C-201, an act to provide for the review and assessment of acquisitions of control of Canadian business enterprises by certain persons, be amended by inserting therein, next after line 34 on page 12 thereof, the following:
"(b) a business enterprise carried on by a corporation with provincial objects that is incorporated under the laws of a province and is excluded by name from the application of this act by an order of the Lieutenant Governor in Council of that province;"
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, this amendment, which I must admit from the jurisdictional relationship point of view does adduce a certain complication, does allow me to indicate one more area where this act is an expression of unilaterally assumed jurisdiction by the Parliament of Canada. The Canadian Bar Association has recommended to the minister that this bill be tested by or referred to the Supreme Court to see whether the government has jurisdiction to deal with a company incorporated under the laws of a province with objects that are limited to activities within that province.
This amendment was designed to authorize an exception to be made by a province, bearing in mind the legitimate interests of provinces in economic activity within their borders. This is something which is not the sole

prerogative of the federal government, extending the unilateral action it has taken, completely disregarding prior consultation with the provinces. The whole question of foreign ownership and of takeovers, so far as the provinces are concerned, was considered in a vacuum; they were not consulted.
I think the minister will agree with me that the provinces have a legitimate interest in the economic activities of companies or businesses that operate within their territorial jurisdictions. This is the first time the government of Canada has dared move into this particular field, which I describe as a form of economic czardom or overseeing.
Therefore I have taken the limited means available to me by proposing that power be given to a provincial government to say to the federal government in this regard, "Keep your cotton-picking hands off." That is a term that has been used by provincial ministers to federal ministers on innumerable occasions. It has been used in dominion-provincial conferences, and that is what is meant by this amendment. There is reason for it. If the minister were on this side of the chamber and looking at the bill, he too would recognize that a province has a legitimate interest in doing this. He could readily see from "le chateau fort du centre du Canada" that an Olympian decision is being delivered with regard to something that is happening strictly within provincial jurisdiction.
This is something that has never come within the control of the government of Canada. The government of Canada has no control whatsoever over a foreign company coming into a province and registering under its laws. It has not one iota of control in law or otherwise. A company may carry on business within provincial jurisdiction, report to the provincial authorities, be held responsible to the courts of the province and have subsidiaries within a province. But now for some reason or other the government of Canada can say, "We will step in if you dare buy the total assets of a public company, or 20 per cent of the shares of a private company operating within the province." I say that that is totally ill-founded in law. It is for that reason that I have put forward this amendment, to highlight again the action I think should have been taken by the government in arriving at the presentation of a law that at least had the agreement of the provinces.
The provinces also have some concern about takeovers and foreign ownership. Is this action to be taken only by the government of Canada? After all, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said, "This is what we are going to do. If some of the provinces are not satisfied with the way in which we are dealing with the question of foreign ownership, let them take their own action." A province which may not be satisfied with the way the federal government is dealing with takeovers or foreign ownership may well say, "We are going to exempt all companies in our province." That would be quite in accord with what the Prime Minister said.
Indeed, the provinces might take stronger action than the federal government has proposed. Some of the provinces have already moved in an ad hoc way. The province of Ontario has moved in a certain direction because it wants more processing of basic resources undertaken in
July 5, 1972

the province; but it has not done much to encourage such processing. Aiter all, it is the buyer who determines in what form he will take the commodity he wants. There is no such thing as monopoly of supply; there are many alternative sources of supply.
The province of Alberta has moved in a certain direction and has imposed further conditions with regard to the development of the tar sands. Extension of a permit was made conditional upon certain Canadianization features. I believe some of the results may be more apparent than real because Canadian resources may not be able to fulfil all the requirements, but at least this was a legitimate step taken by a province with regard to resources within its own jurisdiction, applicable to a company within its jurisdiction.
The government of Canada hasn't a word to say about the operations of Syncrude until it starts to transport oil across the boundary of the province of Alberta into another province or applies to transport oil out of the country. The federal government has no control whatsoever over the output of oil from that development when completed except when it may be transported outside the province, when the pipeline will come under the control of the government of Canada. The transportation, the utilization and the pricing of the oil are not subject to determination by the National Energy Board. The National Energy Board may determine the market area in a certain part of the country but beyond that there is nothing that would apply.
I find it extraordinary that there has been this attempt at unilateral action. It will be very interesting to see the reaction the first time-this is presupposing that the law comes into force-the minister goes contrary to the desires of one of the provinces in regard to something that is entirely within provincial jurisdiction. Notwithstanding the amendment to clause 2(2), if the action should be contrary to the expressed desires of the provinces I would judge that the law would immediately be tested in the Supreme Court of Canada. While this is taking place we will see if the government carries on under the law.
It is with that purpose in mind and to highlight these difficulties that I have brought forth this amendment. As I have said, I do not think the House will support it because I know the attitude of the minister and his advisers. They have shut not one eye but both eyes to the question of jurisdictional competence; but it is a fact of life, Mr. Speaker.
I know it would be a lot easier for the minister if he could move at will through all the corporations of the country. It would be a lot easier administratively, but we are not a unitary state and it is not the Parliament of Canada nor the corporations branch which gives the right of existence to corporations. All that they do comes under the jurisdiction of the provinces, but it seems that the federal government of Canada now says that it will oversee these activities to the extent that it will seek to determine the quality and quantity of ownership.
I hope that all hon. members will recognize the problem and the Frankenstein they will have created if they support the minister in this bill.
Foreign Takeovers Review Act


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, it has been obvious to me for some time from the amendments moved by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) and his colleagues and the speeches they have made that far from strengthening this bill they have consistently moved amendments which would weaken an already weak bill. They would weaken it to the extent that the bill would give the government no power at all.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: What would your provincial administration do the first time its toes were stepped upon?


David Orlikow: I will come to that in a moment, Mr. Speaker. I do not have much faith in the bill, nor do I have much faith in the desire of this government or this minister to administer the bill in such a way that takeovers which have been going on at a very rapid rate will be stopped. I can think of no way in which the hands of the minister could be tied even more than they are by this weak bill than to approve the amendment moved by the hon. member for Edmonton West.
I say this more in a spirit of regret than in criticism, but Canada has a sorry record going back more than 20 years in the field of economic development in various provinces. Which provinces become involved in actively promoting economic development which does not come from the ordinary forces of market activity and the desire of industry to make profits? Not the province of Ontario, which is very active; not the province of British Columbia; not the province of Alberta where the hon. member for Edmonton West comes from. They are the have-not provinces, those where for various reasons such as small population or distance from markets economic growth has not progressed at a rapid enough rate and large numbers of people are unemployed. They are provinces such as Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and my own province of Manitoba. These are the provinces in which provincial governments through one agency or another have become involved in inducing, enticing and persuading private investors to come and build up industry or use the potential resources.
How have they done this, Mr. Speaker? To a large extent it has been through a kind of competition amongst themselves to see how much they could give the private interests in order to get them to come to their province. The record is a sorry one of failure after failure, disaster after disaster and giveaway after giveaway. Let me briefly give some illustrations of this in case the hon. member for Edmonton West does not know about them. Some years ago the government of Newfoundland was involved in this kind of promotion. Three cases come to mind. There was the tremendous hydroelectric development at Churchill Falls in Labrador which cost several billion dollars and produced a tremendous amount of power. Very little of this is needed in Newfoundland or Labrador, so the bulk of the power will be used in the province of Quebec and the remainder sold as surplus power to New York States.
Within the last week or so the minister of finance in the Conservative government of Newfoundland stated that the deal made by the former government with Brinco was so bad from the point of view of the province that it would
3788	___________________COMMONS DEBATES_________________July 5, 1972
Foreign Takeovers Review Act not even get back the money it put into the deal. The promoters will do very well and will make money, the province of Quebec will get power at a reasonable rate and the State of New York will get power at a good price, but th epeople of Newfoundland will be the losers on this Brinco deal.
Similarly, tens of millions of dollars have gone into a linerboard plant in Newfoundland. Again, the financial arrangements made between the then Liberal government of Newfoundland and the interests putting up that plant were so bad from the point of view of the people of Newfoundland that the present government has exercised its right to take over the plant. The latest example is the oil refinery at Come-By-Chance on which the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis) has served notice that it must comply with the federal government's pollution control standards. Unless within the next three weeks they are prepared to invest another $5 million in improving pollution control equipment at that plant, he will order a shut down of the work.
Or you can consider the proposal of the province of Nova Scotia, made by the former Conservative government, for building a heavy water plant on Cape Breton Island. That plant has been in the process of construction for five years or more and has cost the people of Nova Scotia and the federal government, which is involved in the financing of that plan and in the financing of most plans proposed by the provinces, more than $100 million. That is how much the plant has cost the government of Nova Scotia and the federal government. It is estimated that we shall spend $200 million before-or should I say "if"-that plant produces one pound of heavy water.
Or you may consider something that happened in my province. The former Conservative government entered into an agreement with a mysterious group of financiers in Switzerland who were to build a pulp and paper complex at The Pas in northern Manitoba. As an inducement for coming to Manitoba they were given rights to cut timber in virtually a quarter of the province. About $100 million has been spent on building that plant. Without question there was much overexpenditure and unnecessary spending. Mr. Speaker, 90 per cent or more of that money was put up by the province of Manitoba. So bad did the situation become and so behind were the supposed owners in meeting bills of contractors and workers that they were forced into bankruptcy. The provincial government had to take over that plant. Again, the federal government was involved because under our program of grants to slow growth areas the federal government was obligated to pay substantial amounts of money for that project.
I could go on and on, Mr. Speaker. I am trying to tell the hon. member for Edmonton West that the record of provincial governments of whatever political stripe is bad, not because they are incompetent, not because they cannot do a good job but for other reasons. Provincial Crown corporations and provincial hydroelectric systems, most of which are publicly owned in the provinces, have demonstrated repeatedly that they can operate efficiently and provide service to the people at low cost.

Which provinces encountered difficulties? It was precisely those provinces which were in the worst shape. They suffered from the highest rates of unemployment in this country and were forced by pressure, by the need to do things for their people, into poor deals and poor financial arrangements. Despite that, the hon. member for Edmonton West would move an amendment to this bill which would give the very provinces which have demonstrated repeatedly their inability to execute plans which would benefit their people the power of the veto. In other words, they would have power to veto even the limited proposals which would be made by this government.
It seems to me the hon. member for Edmonton West is saying that the provinces will accept almost any deal which will provide some employment and some economic development; they will accept any deal regardless of cost and the concessions they must give. The hon. member would give them power to veto even the very limited steps which the government will be empowered to take under this bill. That means, although the hon. member for Edmonton West does not say so, that the have-not provinces in the vast majority of cases could say, when the federal government deemed a takeover not to be in the interest of the country as a whole, "We need this takeover and therefore we insist that you do not prevent it." If the hon. member for Edmonton West is so obviously opposed to this bill, instead of moving amendments which would cripple the bill he ought to vote against it.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, in the course of this debate we have supported amendments that would increase the degree of consultation between federal and provincial governments. We felt that this was highly desirable because we think that in making their decisions the two levels of government ought to enjoy a closer relationship. We were agreeable to the amendment suggested by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) which would achieve that end. What we have never wanted-and our position was set out clearly by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow-is a veto power in the hands of the provinces, a power they could exercise against the federal government.
The amendment we are considering supports a kind of economic separatism for it advocates a doctrine that would be totally unacceptable at the constitutional level. I wonder what the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) would say about the constitutional validity of a power which gave each province the right to veto every legislative decision taken by the federal government. I do not think he would approve. He is a concerned member and knows what the effect of such veto would be. At the same time, however, he is prepared to move an amendment that would give the provinces power to veto certain economic-based decisions made in other fields. For some reason or other he distinguishes between economic and political and social activity. That distinction I find hard to make.
If we examine some of the possibilities that might arise, we will see they are pretty horrible to contemplate. I am talking about possibilities that might arise if we gave the provinces the veto power that the amendment would permit. Allegedly, the veto power is justified by the contention that what goes on inside the province and what
July 5, 1972

happens to companies incorporated and operating within provincial boundaries affects only that province and is the sole responsibility, therefore, of the elected representatives of the province. We know that is not true. What happens in one province very much affects the lives of people in other provinces, just as what happens in Canada affects people of other countries and what happens in other countries may affect us all. Therefore, the justification for the veto on the basis of self-determination, on the basis that "It is our own skins that are affected", falls flat.
Consider, for instance, the case of a provincial hydroelectric utility. The electricity sometimes is distributed between provinces; in other cases it is transmitted from a province to a foreign country. Say, for instance, that a province in financial difficulty was made a good offer for its utility, an offer so good that it could not possibly turn it down. Say that it wanted to sell out to a foreign company or concern. If the province could make a reasonably advantageous deal but did not think that provinces ought to assume the kind of responsibilities that we think they should assume, should it be permitted to sell? In other words, should it be given the kind of veto proposed in the amendment?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: But such a transaction would not be constitutional.


Max Saltsman: The hon. member for Edmonton West, who is learned in constitutional law, says that that would not be constitutional. That is the very point I am trying to make. There are all kinds of precedents to indicate that federal responsibility must be paramount in certain situations.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Which arise outside the country.


Max Saltsman: Not only outside the country but inside the country. The federal government is paramount in the field of broadcasting and in some areas of production.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: In the production of oil and gas?


Max Saltsman: Only to a limited extent. Actually, we have decided that certain things are important. Really, what the hon. member says, and I think I can say this with justice, is that considerations of foreign ownership are not important to the national interest. The implication is that they should not be considered in the same context as telecommunications, transportation, broadcasting and banking and that each province should in effect be able to make its own law. If you give them veto power, you nullify the whole purpose of a national policy on foreign ownership.
Would the hon. member disagree that we have a constitution which gives this kind of veto power to the provinces in other areas affecting the political structure of Canada? In the field of economics, he is quite prepared to say, "Let the devil take the hindmost and let each province determine its own future and priorities. There is always some validity for this."
Foreign Takeovers Review Act
Obviously, we want to see each province given as much freedom as possible to determine the thrust of its future. But in the final analysis, on a question like foreign ownership and takeovers in particular the national interest has to be considered. Only the federal government can do that. If an amendment of this kind is accepted there would be a very obvious veto in respect of all decisions made by the federal government. If a province chooses to exercise that veto, the effect would be to nullify any meagre effects this bill might have.


Mr. Robert P. Kaplan (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I want to add a word of agreement to what the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) has said. I sometimes think that the Conservative party considers it to be their role to return to the provinces all the powers of the federal government. There is already within the provinces a growing desire to run their own show, to consider that they alone speak for the citizens who live within the province, open embassies abroad, set up their own communications systems and insist on determining their own economic policy. I remind the members of the Conservative party that we in this House also represent the people of Canada. I speak for the people of Don Valley as members opposite speak for the people in their regions when regional matters are reflected under federal headings.
I do not think we should be frightened about exercising our powers under the constitution. We should not say that the government of the province of Ontario and the elected representatives of that chamber, for example, are the only voices of the people of Ontario on public affairs. We here are very much responsible for regional problems. I am here as a representative of a region, as are all members. In the process of making decisions, when a regional concern is at stake we should not think that somehow or other a province has more right to speak for all concerned than we do. This body represents the whole of the people of Canada as well as all the regions of Canada.
Let us not be frightened about possible constitutional limitations or using the powers that the constitution of Canada has given us. There is a national perspective. This is a problem on which a national perspective has to be taken. Certainly regional interests are affected, but the regions of Canada are represented in this chamber as much as they are in any one of the provincial legislatures.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to get involved in an otherwise very interesting constitutional debate. I could see that the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) took delight in elaborating on very strict constitutional views. One gets the impression that this very experienced "senior" politician is preparing his biography these days and that he already pictures himself in constitutional law textbooks. All this is very interesting.
One thing is certain, however, and many people have noticed it: even though the distribution of power between the central government and the provinces is rather imprecise in the field of industrial development, I for one doubt very much that we could make this division on a territori-

July 5, 1972
Foreign Takeovers Review Act
al basis, as the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Kaplan) has just mentioned, or on the basis of the place of incorporation of the companies. Yet this is what the amendment proposes.
I can only gather that the amendment is unacceptable because it ignores the purpose, scope and intent of the legislation and would make it ineffective.


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

The question is on motion No. 13. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Some hon. Members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: I declare the motion negatived on division.
Motion No. 13 (Mr. Lambert, Edmonton West) negatived.


Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk) moved: motion No. 14 as follows:
That Bill C-201, an act to provide for the review and assessment of acquisitions of control of Canadian business enterprises by certain persons, be amended by deleting therefrom paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of clause 4.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. There is in the bill provision for the monitoring of takeovers of companies having a minimum of $250,000 in gross assets and $3 million in gross revenue. The purpose of this amendment is to, in effect, reduce that minimum to zero so that any foreign takeover will come within the purview of the act. The reasons for it might seem rather picayune but they are twofold. Under the present arrangement there are a number of loopholes. I shall give a brief illustration.
It is possible that a foreign corporation interested in gaining a major presence in a certain segment of Canadian economic activity could, rather than undertaking to purchase a Canadian company having in excess of $250,000 in gross assets, purchase a number of Canadian companies having less gross assets and less gross revenue than is provided for in the act. Through small takeovers it could, gradually establish a rather imposing presence within a given area of the economy. That is a prospect which the legislation overlooks, and it is cause for just as much concern potentially as the kind of takeovers which
[Mr. Pepin.)
the government contemplates screening under this legislation.
The other concern which prompted me to submit my amendment is that when initially developed, a good deal of technology is financed on a very marginal basis. It is quite possible that we could lose a good deal, or at least some new technology to foreign corporations in its inception simply because the gross assets involved in the development of technology and the revenue being gained do not meet the limits proposed in the legislation in the early stages of the development. This has been the case with many great technological breakthroughs.
There is also a tendency in Canadian banking institutions to be reluctant to fund Canadian ventures into new areas of technology. This is because they are considered high risk. On the other hand, funding is readily available if a Canadian inventor of some new technology has the potential support of a United States or international corporation for his product. This gives banks the assurance they need before making development capital available.
This is one of the problems of industrial development in Canada, and as written I think the bill does nothing to remedy the situation. It lets the present position prevail whereby new technological development in Canada, owing to the exigencies of the financial world, are quite often unnecessarily thrown into the hands of foreign corporations.
These are the two major reasons for my submitting this amendment and I should like to hear the comments of other hon. members with respect thereto.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, in the many discussions on foreign ownership one of the matters often debated is whether the future of Canada's industrial development really hinges on buying back these large, monolithic, developed companies which are so set in their ways, which mass produce certain consumer or technical goods, or rather whether the future of this country depends upon finding new areas of development and on putting emphasis on financing such resources.
The hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Rowland) who moved this motion made an excellent point when he said that many new ideas originate in the minds of the staff of small companies. It is here where the most dangerous form of takeover takes place, and the provisions of this bill do nothing to rectify the situation. The reason I say this is the most dangerous form of takeover is that these ideas will generate development in the future.
I can recite a long catalogue of inventions which were conceived in someone's basement or small laboratory and which later formed the basis for the establishment of large corporations. It is not the mature companies that are at the heart of the foreign ownership problem; rather, it is the companies that have their eye on future development. The mature companies are more in the past and if we concentrate on them the future will evade us and foreign ownership will continue ad infinitum.
There are many new technologies developed by mature companies and to this extent we must take an interest in large corporations. But it would be a terrible mistake and
July 5, 1972

a gross oversight to neglect smaller companies in the way the bill does. What possible justification can the drafters of the bill have for the exclusion of small companies? Do they feel that there are so many small companies, that there are so many transfers of businesses, that the situation would be far too complex to deal with? Even if that were the case, would it still not be worth while to look at the situation?
The government would not have to take months and months to scrutinize such takeovers. Most of them would be routine. After all, the corner grocery is not going to be taken over by a large international corporation. The transfer of a small plant is usually from one Canadian to another Canadian, often from one partner to another partner or from one group of stockholders to another group of stockholders.
Small companies that develop unique products often do so with the help of government programs sponsored by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. The department has done worth-while work in terms of assisting inventors in this country to develop new products. Most of these new products are developed by relatively small firms. I presume the reason the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce offers such assistance is not to make a small outlet ripe for takeover by an international corporation but to develop products that are indigenous to this country, and to promote entrepreneural activity.
Unless smaller companies are included within a foreign ownership policy, a great deal of damage will be done. From the administrative point of view it is possible to establish an initial review procedure to approve transfers between Canadians quickly. There is no reason this cannot be done. If because the procedure is quick the odd mistake is made, then this is the price we will have to pay.
I think this review procedure would also provide an enormous opportunity for the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I have seen many small companies taken over by foreign corporations. After all, no one is going to go after the Steel Company of Canada; it is the small companies that are picked up, the companies that have difficulty getting sufficient financing. This is the sort of company the international corporations look for. Sometimes they are trying to buy out a competing product that might challenge their own. Sometimes they are just gambling, buying up all the new ideas they can. They know that though some will not work, others will. The international corporation loves to do this sort of thing and will continue to do so in view of the exclusion that is built into this bill.
Let me return to what I said earlier about the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce having an enormous opportunity here. If the clause setting the limit at $250,000 were removed and all takeovers had to be scrutinized, the minister's department would have a golden opportunity. For example, if they asked a company why it wanted to sell out to a foreigner and the company replied that it had not been able to get any financing, the departmental officials would then know that the company was having problems and might be able to help. Companies sometimes feel the government does not care about them anyway; there is a certain cynicism in that regard. But
Foreign Takeovers Review Act
here would be a real role for the department to play as the helpers of small industry in Canada.
You might, of course, get a situation where the only way to save the company would be to sell out to a foreign corporation, but on the other hand situations would be brought to the minister's attention of which formerly he and his officials had been unaware. This would enable them to go to the root cause of foreign takeovers in Canada. While legislation of itself might have some value, it does not solve the root problem. There are some things we do not understand about takeovers and about why we are so dominated by foreign ownership. We must deal with these questions, and legislation in itself is not sufficient answer.
This would be a wonderful opportunity for the minister to accept the amendment. His department would look at every takeover and would then be in a position to analyse the reason for the takeover and to consider offering assistance. Perhaps it is the sort of thing his department can do now. I am sure there are people who come to the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and are surprised at the amount of assistance available. In spite of publicity and what I think is general knowledge about services available, some small businessmen still have not a clue as to the kind of assistance available to them from the federal government and certain provincial governments.
The minister has talked about rationalization. Perhaps this is a way the minister can engage in a rationalization program. Instead of talking about it and making brilliant speeches, he could do something about this and provide opportunities for development and financing. He may say that his terms of reference are not as broad as he might wish; but if they are not, they should be. After all, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce was set up supposedly for the purpose of assisting business generally. If it cannot assist to the extent required, it should seek a broader mandate and greater responsibility.
These are a few of the things that I suggest would be of advantage. If this bill goes through without the kind of amendment proposed by the hon. member for Selkirk, it will in effect be useless. That is one of the reasons we urge acceptance of the amendment.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I am amazed at the enthusiastic way in which the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Salts-man) speaks about this bill. I cannot for the life of me understand why he qualifies that enthusiasm by saying "if this bill goes through". Why is he not willing to help the bill get through? Obviously what he says ought to be done makes sense, but I cannot understand why members of his party appear not to want the bill to pass: they speak so enthusiastically about it's content.
The reason I must refuse the amendment is that from my point of view, if it were accepted the office of takeovers would be in the business of screening every potential takeover where there was a $2 in assets and $5 in revenue company involved. That is something which cannot be contemplated administratively by me.

July 5, 1972
Foreign Takeovers Review Act


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, I find that the minister has a great deal of difficulty recognizing when help is being offered. We have made very clear our stand on this bill. We feel we need much more comprehensive, and a different type of legislation than that proposed in the bill before us. We are trying to offer suggestions and ways of looking at the particulars of this bill and how we can be of help to the minister. It is interesting to note that in his answer the minister did not deal with a single point raised by my colleagues, the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Rowland) and my friend the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman).


Douglas Charles Rowland: Am I not your friend too?


John Stratford Burton: I assure the hon. member for Selkirk that he is my friend as well. The minister did not answer one of the points raised by those two members; instead, he raised the administrative point regarding the situation created by having to screen a much greater number of companies than will presumably be the case when this legislation passes the House and the other place.
If the minister wants to grapple with some of the problems involved in foreign ownership and takeovers he must give further consideration to the points raised by my two colleagues. He must do that if he really intends to do something with this legislation. However, we find the minister turning down these proposals carte blanche.
Quite frankly, I think administrative problems would be involved if this amendment were adopted and incorporated in the bill, but at the same time the minister must give some consideration to the proposal. He has not refuted in any way the proposition that there must be some concern over takeovers of small companies as well as companies larger than the minimum size specified in the bill. He has not given any indication that he will move in this direction. I can visualize several different approaches the minister might take if he is to tackle this question and take account of administrative problems. Again the minister has demonstrated he is not really prepared to get down to business and deal with problems with which he should be concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question on the motion now before us?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to the Standing Order, the division will be postponed.

It being 4.30 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt proceedings pursuant to the provisions of the special order passed earlier today.



ST. LAWRENCE PORTS OPERATIONS BILL MEASURE TO PROVIDE FOR RESUMPTION OF LONGSHORING AND RELATED OPERATIONS

Abram Ernest Epp: that Bill C-230, to provide for the resumption of the operation of the ports of Montreal, Trois-Rivieres and Quebec, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The suggestion was made earlier that this bill might be considered in committee of the whole. I have considered this proposal and am quite prepared, if it is the general wish of the House, to agree that the bill be sent to committee of the whole with the expectation that it will be dealt with without undue delay.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion therefore will be that the bill be read the second time and referred to committee of the whole.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, it is my unhappy duty to bring before this House a bill to terminate the illegal work stoppages at the St. Lawrence ports of Montreal, Quebec City and Trois-Rivieres and to provide for the orderly resumption of operations at those ports. The government asks Parliament for this enactment because in its judgment the public and national interest require an end to this illegal situation and an end to the economic situation which is working severe hardship and damage not only on the three communites involved but on the country at large.
Acts of Parliament to terminate industrial disputes are infrequent. Indeed, it might not be going too far to say they are rare. There have been five acts over the past 30 years to bring an end to industrial disputes when the parties have failed to reach agreement in the normal process of collective bargaining. This bill, though, is exceptional for an additional reason. It does not terminate a collective bargaining dispute. It does not terminate that kind of dispute where a legal strike may be in progress. It does not terminate it in the sense that various differences between the two parties have been unable to be resolved.
Unlike previous acts of Parliament, this bill would terminate an unlawful situation, an unlawful strike which has been called after a three-year collective bargaining
July 5, 1972

agreement had been entered into in April of this year and at a time when a difference arose over the interpretation of clauses of that agreement. Subsequent to this basic source of dispute, that is to say, subsequent to the disagreement over what was the meaning of certain clauses and over what right the employer had to redeploy men in a certain fashion, there arose differences over the conditions of return to work under a contract which provided for a proper form of job security based on 37 guaranteed weeks of pay. This complex issue of return to work has become part of the difficulty in which we now find ourselves.
The debate in this House on Friday June 16 reviewed many of the basic issues in the current situation. However, I should like to place before the House now a factual account, a sequence of events which led up to this situation. On May 16 a work stoppage began. The basic issue which precipitated it was whether or not management had the right to break up longshoremen gangs prior to the introduction of the computer despatch system to be inaugurated approximately in mid-September. Management in Montreal took the initiative of breaking up work gangs and redeploying men not required to work a hatch to other work in a shed. The longshoremen's union contended management did not have this right until introduction of the computer despatch system, and the work stoppage began. I will come later to the question of the legality of the actions taken.
I immediately instructed our Montreal industrial specialist, Mr. Charles Poirier, to meet with the parties and urge that they refer this matter to arbitration as provided for in the collective agreement. Both sides declined to take that step. On May 15 I received a telegram from the MEA. If I may, I shall use the abbreviation MEA in referring to the Maritime Employers Association which is an association comprising some 51 stevedoring, shipping and other companies. The telegram requested I grant consent to prosecute the union for breach of contract. However, it was pointed out to the MEA that the appropriate remedy for the solution lay in the arbitration procedure of the collective agreement which provided that either party could initiate arbitration.
On May 30 the MEA announced that it had suspended the longshoremen. On June 5 I sent telegrams to both parties again urging that their differences be submitted to the procedure specified by law and asked them to advise me of their willingness to place their differences before the arbitrator named in the agreement. In a further exchange of telegrams in the next few days I continued to urge the parties to submit their dispute to arbitration. On June 19 I informed both parties that unless advised by return telegram that either party was ready to proceed to arbitration on the matter involved in violation of their collective agreement, it would be my intention to appoint an industrial inquiry commission to investigate the dispute, provided that the employers terminated the suspension of the longshoremen and provided that the longshoremen returned to work. I also indicated that I stood ready to meet the representatives of the parties in Ottawa at the earliest possible date to discuss such arrangements.
On June 20 and 21, together with my officials, I met with both parties in Ottawa to discuss the conditions which
St. Lawrence Ports Operations Bill
might be worked out for the lifting of the suspension and the return of the longshoremen to work. My position is, and has been, that there are four types of disputes dealt with in existing Canadian legislation governing the collective bargaining relationship:	First, disputes as to
representation of employees by a trade union. This is the normal dispute over union recognition. It is not the kind of dispute we are facing. Second, disputes as to the interpretation, application or violation of the provisions of a collective agreement. These are grievance disputes over rights. This is the kind of dispute we are facing. Third, disputes as to unfair labour practices. Fourth, disputes over the negotiation of conditions of employment to be included in a collective agreement. These are interest disputes.
The type of dispute with which we are concerned in this situation falls into the second one mentioned-disputes concerning the interpretation, application or violation of the provisions of a collective agreement. This type of dispute must, under existing legislation, be submitted to arbitration for final settlement which is binding on all parties and on all employees. The legislation requires that every collective agreement must contain a provision for the final settlement of disputes concerning its meaning or violation. Where such a provision is lacking, the Canada Labour Relations Board may prescribe a procedure for final settlement of grievance disputes. This is a distinctly Canadian procedure, dating from 1944.
The collective agreement between the International Longshoremen's Association and the Maritime Employers Association does set out the grievance procedure in article 5. I shall not read that procedure; we covered it fairly adequately in our debate on June 16. Subsequent to my meetings with the parties in Ottawa on June 22, the MEA advised me that it had decided to initiate arbitration and formally requested Judge Alan Gold, the first arbitrator named in the agreement, to arbitrate the issues in dispute. The union, however, refused to participate in the arbitration hearings which commenced on June 27. Union officers, with counsel, made an appearance at the arbitration hearings on Wednesday, June 28, only for the purpose of arguing that the issues in dispute were not arbitrable.
The arbitrator dealt with the four issues that had been submitted to him by the MEA and concluded as follows. I would like to read one or two pages which comprise the conclusions of the arbitrator since I think it would be valuable to all hon. members to have these in front of them. I quote from page 21 of the arbitrator's decision dated June 29 in Montreal.
It reads:
Dealing now with each head of the grievance I conclude as follows:
(1)	In so far as article 501 I is concerned, it is evident that there was a dispute between the parties concerning the interpretation and the application of the collective agreement. Under the circumstances, the men were obliged to continue working in accordance with the orders given by management. Their failure to do so is a breach of this clause.
(2)	In so far as article 501 J is concerned, it is equally clear that once these orders were given the president and the business agents of the union had no right to hinder or stop the progress of the work nor to
25319-54*

July 5, 1972
St. Lawrence Ports Operations Bill [Translation]
-nor to prevent the companies from exercising their right to determine and direct the methods and procedures of operation.

In intervening as they did and in taking the men off the job, the union, its president and its business agents clearly breached the provisions of this clause.
(3)	In so far as article 6 is concerned, it is clear that the partial and total work stoppages that resulted were in direct contravention and breach of this clause and contrary to law.
(4)	Article 911, the issue at the root of the dispute, is in a sense irrelevant in view of the larger issues involved, for even if the union were right in its pretension, which I do not believe, it was wrong to act as it did. It should have had recourse to the grievance procedure, the accepted method of dispute settlement under the collective agreement and the law.
The fact is, however, that on the merits of the question the union is wrong. If there is ambiguity between article 3 of the old agreement and article 911 of the new, it is readily dispelled by the clear terms of the memorandum of April 3,1972.
Upon the proper construction of the new agreement and the memorandum, I must conclude that management's stand was correct. Whatever the practice may have been before, it is clear that under the new regime (including the transitional period awaiting the installation of the computer) the practice was to be changed.
In the result, I find that at all times material article 911 was in effect and the construction put upon its terms by management was in conformity with the agreement between the parties and that the orders given to the workers as a result were lawful and should have been obeyed.
Mr. Mulroney-
I should like to say here that Mr. Mulroney is counsel for the Maritime Employers Association.
-has indicated that although he is entitled to ask for damages against the union he does not do so before me but instead reserves his right for the future. In the result, I find it unnecessary to decide whether or not the grievance, as drafted, is wide enough to encompass such a demand.
Counsel has also asked me to suspend Mr. Jean-Marc St-Onge, president of the union, and Messrs. Claude Guay, Theodore Beau-din and Jean-Baptiste Tremblay, business agents, from any activity on the Port of Montreal for a period of at least five years and to order that their names be struck for life from the registers of the job security fund. While the conduct of these gentlemen undoubtedly merits the severest sanctions, I do not believe that within the narrow compass of the grievance as filed with me I have the authority to apply them. These were not issues of which they had notice and which they might have met had such notice been given to them.
For the foregoing reasons the grievance herein is hereby maintained

-a toutes fins que de droit,-

and I hereby find and declare:
(1)	That the union and its members have violated the provisions of article 5011 of the collective agreement;
(2)	That the union, its president, Mr. Jean-Marc St-Onge and its business agents, Messrs. Claude Guay, Theodore Beaudin and Jean-Baptiste Tremblay, have violated article 501 J of the said agreement;
(3)	That the strike by the union and its members is illegal, constituting work stoppages in violation of article 6 of the agreement and contrary to law;
(4)	That the construction placed by management upon article 911 of the agreement was correct and that the orders given in conse-

quence were lawful and should have been obeyed by the employees concerned.
Montreal, June 29, 1972
Alan B. Gold, Arbitrator.
Following the release of the arbitrator's report, the ILA held a meeting and decided that they would not accept the arbitrator's award.
As I indicated earlier, I could not offer the parties mediation services until the provisions of the law and the provisions of the collective agreement in respect of arbitration had been utilized. However, once the arbitrator had made his report, the situation was such that I could proffer mediation on the issues impeding, the lifting of suspensions and the return to work.
On Friday, June 30, I directed the Deputy Minister, Mr. Bernard Wilson, and the Assistant Deputy Minister, Industrial Relations, Mr. W. P. Kelly, to proceed to Montreal with a view to arranging meetings between the MEA and the ILA and, if possible, to mediate conditions that would enable the ports to be re-opened.
The key issues involved in a return to work appeared to be the lifting of the suspension of the employees by the employers, agreement by the union and employees to accept the arbitrator's awards and return to work, the calling back to work of the employees as and when work became available, and the most important item which had to do with the job security provisions of the collective agreement. My officials conducted intensive mediation over the holiday weekend for some four days and when it was evident that the parties could not reach agreement, they submitted a detailed proposal recommending the conditions which should prevail to bring about lifting of the suspensions and a return to work. The recommendations were to be submitted to union meetings on July 4, yesterday, and the MEA was to consider the proposal the same day.
I have heard officially from the parties to the dispute in telegrams which I have here with me. I should indicate to the House that late last evening I received a telegram from the Maritime Employers Association which I will read in whole. It reads as follows:
The Maritime Employers Association accepts the proposal outlined in your return to work arrangement dated July 3, 1972 for the ports of Montreal, Quebec and Trois-Rivieres.
A. E. Masters President M.E.A.
I received official notice, although informal notice was available earlier, early this afternoon from Mr. Norman Quigley, international vice-president of the longshoremen's union and president of the local at Trois-Rivieres, and in his wire he speaks for the two locals situated at Trois-Rivieres and Quebec City. I will read his telegram. It, too, is short.
Dear Sir,
Memberships of local 1846 and 1739 have accepted proposals made by government representatives with one condition that any legal procedures will not be taken against any officers or members and union of above mentioned local.
July 5, 1972

The reference to legal procedures is to legal procedures initiated by various employers with respect to the illegal work stoppage. I have received a wire today from Mr. St. Onge, president of local 375 of Montreal. Perhaps I should read that in full, but it is rather lengthy.
Mr. Minister, following the recommendations made by your deputy minister on July 3, the International Longshoremen's Association, local 375, held a special general meeting of its membership in Montreal on July 4. While accepting the principle of returning to work as soon as possible, the members of the association have unanimously decided to reject the recommendation concerning the suspension of the job security plan until October 15, 1972 , a date which was deemed totally unacceptable. The members have set as a condition for returning to work that the job guarantee be restored approximately one week after the activities are resumed in the port of Montreal and that management give up the idea of any legal proceedings and action against the union and its officers. The officers of the association are available to meet you at any time in order to reach a satisfactory agreement whereby work can be resumed as soon as possible.
Those were the responses, Mr. Speaker. Work in fact is not being resumed at the ports and in the circumstances I have to assume that the proposals of mediation have not been successful in bringing about a termination of the dispute and that the proposals have in fact been rejected. May I now come to the principles in this bill.


William Arnold Peters: Would the minister permit a question? Was part of the agreement that the court action that was contemplated was left in abeyance? Was this part of the recommendation?


Martin Patrick O'Connell: No, Mr. Speaker; the question of court action was no part of the proposals put forward by the mediators. If the House would like me to read the proposals, I will do so. It might take me a moment to locate them.


William Arnold Peters: The question I was really asking is this: Is this a new factor in the negotiations that your deputy minister had undertaken? Has this been added since, or was it part of the negotiations in which he had been involved and in the proposition that he put forward to the parties on June 3?


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Mr. Speaker, I will check into that to be absolutely precise, but my preliminary answer is that the question of legal action did not enter into the main negotiations, that the proposals had been worked out prior to that issue arising, that Mr. St. Onge raised it at the last moment as he was leaving. But I will check into these factors. I would like to report again, to be absolutely precise on this point.
The bill before us, if enacted by Parliament, expresses the will of this Parliament that the ports be reopened. It expresses the national interest, that the public interest lies in the opening of these ports. The object of the bill, as hon. members will see, is to achieve the resumption of long-shoring and related operations in the three ports of Montreal, Quebec City and Trois-Rivieres. In the bill we notice the requirement that each employer must resume long-shoring and related operations in the ports of Montreal, Quebec City and Trois-Rivieres immediately after the bill comes into force. That is set forth in clause 3. Second, each union officer must give notice to the members of the union that any strike declaration, authorization or direction previously given is invalid. That is in clause 4. Each
St. Lawrence Ports Operations Bill
union officer must comply with any order or request for the dispatch of longshoremen. Again that is in clause 4.
Every longshoreman coming under the collective agreement must, when so required, return to the duties of his employment. That is laid out in clause 5. Again, according to clause 5 union officials shall not impede or prevent, or attempt to impede or prevent the longshoremen from returning to work. Clause 6 provides that a further strike or lockout is prohibited under the terms of the collective agreement. This clause in substance repeats a section of the Canada Labour Code, section 128, except that it also forbids a union officer from declaring or otherwise authorizing a strike which is not provided for in the legislation already in force.
Clause 7 relates to the job security plan, which is a major impediment to returning to work. Clause 7 suspends the provisions relating to the job security plan in the collective agreement until such date as an arbitrator may specify for the resumption of operation of the plan. Under clause 7(2) an arbitrator may fix the date on which the plan will come into effect and may make such modifications to the plan as are required to give effect to it. That is an important part of the bill in front of us, Mr. Speaker. I trust all hon. members are aware of the job security plan. It is that very particular plan in this collective agreement which provides 37 guaranteed weeks of pay to the longshoremen whether in fact they are working or not. The difficulty would immediately be apparent to hon. members that if men report for work but there is no work to be done, the employer is not in a position to live up to the guarantee written into the agreement.
Again, clause 7 suspends those provisions until an arbitrator, considering all of the factors, specifies a date for the operation of the plan, and necessarily in that event the original plan becomes modified and he is given the power under this bill to make such modifications to the plan as are required to give effect to it on the date selected.
Clause 8 provides that the minister may in the future refer a matter in dispute to arbitration if the parties do not do so within a reasonable time. The final clause provides for the coming into force of the bill on the day following its being assented to, and that it expires with the collective agreement on December 31, 1974, unless earlier by proclamation.
I think those are the main facts of the situation, Mr. Speaker. The main reason for coming to Parliament at this time is to ask it to do what it is asked very infrequently to do in the federal jurisdiction but must be asked to do when facilities of such national importance as these three St. Lawrence docks have been closed going into the eighth week in circumstances which give us no assurance that they will be reopened in the near future, and when the public interest has been clearly engaged to the extent that it has. I would, therefore, ask Parliament to support the government in this bill.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask a question of the minister, if you will allow it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

July 5, 1972
St. Lawrence Ports Operations Bill [ Translation]
Order, please. The hon. member tor Sainte-Marie wishes to ask a question to the minister. He can do so provided the minister is agreeable. I think that the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) also wants to direct a question to the minister.

Will the minister entertain questions at this time before he resumes his seat?


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to answer questions.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I just want to clarify something. Can he tell the House why in clause 7(1) he did not use the recommendations suggested by his own mediator to both parties? In paragraph 3 we have a specific date for the application of job security or limit of job security. I think the minister has this document before him; it is the one he was supposed to refer to earlier. Why was this condition not included in clause 7(1) of the bill? Is there a reason?


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Yes, Mr. Speaker, consideration was given to that possibility. If a date were put in by legislation it would, in effect, ask this House to enter into one of the issues in dispute. I did not want to do that.


David Lewis: Hear, hear!


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Secondly, this House is not in possession of the economic facts and the financial factors involved. I did not think it appropriate, in the time we have available, to ask hon. members to go into an investigation of the equity of setting October 15 or September 15 or any other date. That is a very complicated matter and it seemed more appropriate to leave that question for determination by an arbitrator who can hear all of the required evidence, rather than to ask members to give to that their technical judgment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Warren Allmand: I should like to put this question to the minister. Why did he not put any clauses containing sanctions in the bill? Would he tell the House what range of sanctions he feels the government has available to it if the provisions of the bill are not followed?


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Mr. Speaker, on the first part of that question, I would answer this way. This bill is based on the presumption that when Parliament has clearly expressed its will, and has represented the public interest to the parties in this dispute, they will conform to the specific and express will of Parliament. Second, this is based on the constructive approach to the relationships between the two parties to bring about not only an early resumption of work but constructive relationships for the future. It is not that there are no sanctions behind a bill of this kind.
In answer to the second part of the question, let me quote from section 115 of the Criminal Code of Canada which relates to the disobedience of a statute of this Parliament:
Everyone who, without lawful excuse, contravenes an act of the Parliament of Canada by wilfully doing anything that it forbids or by wilfully omitting to do anything that it requires to be done is, unless some penalty or punishment is expressly provided by law, guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for two years.
Other provisions of the Code, Mr. Speaker, particularly section 646, provide that fines may be imposed in lieu of imprisonment. I think that answers the question.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Hamilton West.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must apologize to the hon. member for Hamilton West. I see the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Murphy) is also seeking the floor to ask a question. I think I should bring to the attention of all members that we are not yet in committee. It seems to me that some of the questions that are being asked now may very well be asked when we reach committee stage. I suggest to hon. members that we proceed in an orderly fashion and wait to give the minister the opportunity to answer questions.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that at this stage we take a very dim view of the makeshift approach exhibited by the activities of this government in the introduction of this bill. As I understand it, they have had this bill drafted for the past two and a half weeks, yet today the government House leader did not have it availaole for the scrutiny of members. I think all members would have liked to have had an opportunity to see it. He gave us some excuse about printing or something of that nature which meant that another hour passed before we were able to see the bill. When we were brought back here because the public interest was adversely affected, knowing that a bill would be presented, I say the least this government could have done was to have had this bill immediately available for the scrutiny of the opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I can understand that the minister and the government did not want to become involved with the collective bargaining process because, after all, this process is supposed to settle everything. The minister did not want to intervene because, as he said, if he did that would be the end of the collective bargaining process. What disturbs me, Mr. Speaker, is that a pattern has been set. We have seen a collective agreement ignored, we have seen the Minister of Labour (Mr. O'Connell's) directives ignored, we have seen the Quebec Superior Court ignored and we have seen Mr. Justice Gold's arbitration award ignored. Mr. Speaker, the third party involved, the general public was ignored; the national interest was ignored.
All I can say is that this strike has been disastrous, has been catastrophic, in its effects. Surely, one does not have to go into great detail in order to point out that it has inflicted severe economic loss. I say, Mr. Speaker, that it has inflicted inconvenience upon the nation. I say, Mr. Speaker, that it has created unemployment, that all these

July 5, 1972

losses are damaging to the economy and well-being of this country. They are irreparable, Mr. Speaker.
I understand that some 100 ships have been turned away from the ports of Montreal, Trois-Rivieres and Quebec. I understand shipping agents have announced their intention to seek other ports through which they can discharge their goods. What does this mean? It means that the entire St. Lawrence Seaway and the port of Montreal have been drastically affected, and as a result that this nation has been drastically affected.
Let us consider some figures relating to the port of Montreal. All cargoes handled at National Harbours Board ports in Canada during 1971 totalled a record of 93.7 million tons, up 7.9 per cent from 1970. The port of Montreal, however, shows a decline of 5.4 per cent, to 23-odd million tons, in the same period. And what has the strike done? Has it alleviated that situation? No, it has aggravated it.
To be honest, I must concede that as a result of what has happened in Montreal the Atlantic provinces have profited. I am sure that the port of Hamilton has profited. However, I am not here to speak about any profit that may come to some as a result of hardship that may be endured in any other area of the country. In the long run we shall all be worse off. What I am speaking about is the public interest of the entire country to which I belong.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That is why I do not hesitate to stand up and speak on this bill. Everything that comes to mind about this government can be boiled down to a word I heard many years ago before I came to this House, namely, "indecision". There have been some 40 days of indecision on the part of this government. For some reason or other it suddenly awoke to the fact that the most important party in those negotiations was not management nor labour but was the consumer, the Canadian people. It suddenly realized that the public interest must prevail. We on this side of the House have said that constantly. We have said that the public interest must prevail, if necessary to the detriment of the two parties involved in the dispute.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I cannot understand nor do I accept the principle enunciated by the minister, when he said he could not move until such time as the parties followed the terms of the collective agreement.


An hon. Member:: He did not know how to act.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Is the minister telling me that if the strike lasted another month and a half-I admit that the parties have not yet got together-the public interest would not suffer even longer? In the absence of any attempt on the part of the parties to abide by Judge Gold's decision, the strike would last longer. Surely, Mr. Speaker, there is a time when governments must face their public responsibilities.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
St. Lawrence Ports Operations Bill


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I wonder why this government has delayed acting for so long. Is it afraid of the union leadership? Is it afraid of the employers' association?


An hon. Member:: Sure it is.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: We on this side are not so afraid-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: -and I come from a labour city.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: My friends may laugh and snicker. Which party was it that said, "Let's get tough; let us show the people that the public interest must prevail." That statement did not come from the backbenches to the right of Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: We are not concerned about management and labour as such. We are only concerned about them as they exist in the whole system of our economy.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Those little ol' backbenchers may smile but they had a rude awakening when the minister brought in a measure they did not think he would bring in.


An hon. Member:: He never intended to.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The one thing that bothers me is the government's answer to a question-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


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


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, we did not go home on June 30 and I guess hon. members can take their time. We shall be here, I hope, until Friday. Let me say that we do not intend unnecessarily to block passage of this bill. Actually, we are not going to block it at all.


An hon. Member:: Cut short your speech, then.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Why? Just because the government brought this bill in?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: We are concerned about the men returning to work, about the employers' ships moving again and about the economy being able to move forward again. That is what we are concerned about.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I do not know if this bill will work. I do not know if union or management will accept the terms of arbitration regarding job security.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: There is no serious penalty for contravening.

July 5, 1972
St. Lawrence Ports Operations Bill


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I do not know whether clause 7 is acceptable. I want to know why the proposals of the Deputy Minister of Labour, a man with unquestioned expertise in labour matters, were not accepted. Of course, this has already been explained. After four days of negotiation he came forward with certain proposals. Mr. Speaker, the deputy minister knows in which direction we ought to move. He came forward with certain proposals, but this bill does not incorporate them.
I heard the minister say he did not want Parliament to intervene in matters which should be left to the collective bargaining process. Don't give me that nonsense! The government brought in Bill C-183 by which it permitted agreements to be altered if technological change was involved. The government acted effectively in that regard and thought nothing of it. Why? It acted in that field because that was not as contentious an issue as the one we are now considering. The government stayed clear of this issue. It ignored the recommendations of one of the best men that it has in the entire department. Its excuse for not including them is weak and unacceptable.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Let me read what the deputy minister brought forward:
1.	The union accepts the arbitration award of June 29, subject to any rights of appeal that it may wish to exercise.
2.	The suspension of all of the employees, including permanent employees, will be lifted immediately and they will be called back to work as and when work becomes available.
3.	The job security provisions in the collective agreements will not be given effect from the date of return to work until midnight on October 15, 1972. The job security provisions will apply in full during the remainder of 1972 and during 1973 and 1974 as set out in the collective agreements.
4.	Vacation pay due under the collective agreements will be paid to the employees as soon as it is possible to have staff available to issue the cheques.
Again, I want to know why the suggestions of a man of great calibre, a man who was given all available assistance by the Department of Labour and who sat in consultation with management and with the longshoremen's union, were ignored. Why did the minister leave his proposals out? Surely the deputy minister had good reason for putting them forward.
Consider the matter of job security which would involve, I think, for each man 35 weeks at about $188 a week. That comes to a lot of money. If these men go back to work, and if the job security part of the agreement is to operate immediately, where is the money to come from? You must remember that in the collective agreement provisions were made not only for that matter but also for a pension scheme that was admirable. So if some sort of time lag is not introduced here, somebody will be in trouble. I expect that the arbitrator who will be involved in this matter will be cognizant of that particular set of circumstances. I do not know why they are not spelled out in the bill. The minister tried to explain this matter.
Let me run over some other matters. Other spokesmen will speak on this. I am pleased to see that the government House leader, after having been enlightened by members of the opposition, agreed that this matter should be considered in committee of the whole. Why not? I know that

there is the question of calling witnesses, but surely we know what the situation is all about. The papers have been full of it for the past seven weeks. We have a fair idea. The idea is to get people back to work, not to hear the same arguments over again.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The idea is to let those who wish to condemn the government because of their ineptitude stand up and talk about it. On the other hand, I know that the government likes to play games. They have the foreign takeovers bill and the FISP program.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I hear the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin). He must feel like a lost soul, along with the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro). They cannot seem to get anywhere. If they had presented proper bills, those bills would have been passed forthwith. We cannot let that kind of nonsense go to the people.
The disheartening thing about this situation is that after three years of work, we have to intervene. After three years of work by many people, federal department mediators, union representatives and employers as well as a number of committees, an historic document was prepared. I see the former Minister of Labour, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Mackasey), smiling. With all respect to the present Minister of Labour (Mr. O'Connell), it was through the efforts of the former Minister of Labour that attempts were made to resolve these situations prior to them confronting the country. A significant agreement was ratified on March 29, 1970 by the Maritime Employers Association and the International Longshoremans Association, local 371, affecting 3,200 longshoremen. The terms were important. The unions agreed to give up featherbedding. This was the most important thing.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: If you do not know what it is all about, read the collective agreement. Management agreed to meet some of the union's most serious claims. Management agreed to ironclad job security and a vastly improved pension plan. Why the strike? This was supposed to be the classic document which would help put the collective bargaining process on the road. What happened? I do not want to be repetitious. We know what happened. Why the strike? As I understand it, and I can be checked if I am wrong, it was based on the contention that the employers tried to break up the 16 member gang system before the computer could do it properly in September. Does that really make sense? This is how the whole thing started.
Let me tell you what the collective agreement states. I remember the Minister of Labour saying that they must go to arbitration if they have a grievance. The document to which I am referring is approximately one half inch thick. It covers everything you could mention. It provides for a grievance procedure. I may be paraphrasing, but it

states that if you have a grievance you have to follow the arbitration proceedings that were determined after three years of blood, sweat and tears. The agreement reads:
A request for arbitration may be initiated by either the union or the Maritime Employers Association. The party requesting the arbitration shall set forth in writing the matter submitted to the arbitrator and send a copy of it to the other party.
I do not know what happened to that provision. It sounds simple. As a matter of fact, after three years of work, we had a very simple solution; submit your grievances to arbitration. This is how we were going to solve our problem.
There is another matter to which the minister did not refer. Possibly he did not have time. My time is running out also. The agreement reads:
Pending disposal of a dispute in accordance with the arbitration procedure,-
This is spelled out on a page and a half.
-men will work as instructed by the companies subject to the provisions contained dealing with help and safety.
I did not make that up. It is in the agreement that was signed by the two respective parties. I could be repetitious and say, as someone else has said, the agreement does not count. The procedure is set out right there. There is one clause in the agreement that should be put on the record because it reveals the hypocrisy of the situation that existed until the government had the intestinal fortitude to bring in this bill. I may be quoting out of context, but it reads:
In view of the orderly arrangements provided by this agreement for the settling of grievances, the union agrees with the companies that during the lifetime of this agreement-
Incidentally, it is a three year agreement.
-there shall be no strikes, slowdowns or stoppages of work, either complete or partial, and the companies agree there will be no lock-out.
Did you know that was in the agreement? What is the collective agreement worth? I did not know it was in the agreement until I saw it three or four days ago.


David Lewis: It is in every other agreement.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: You will get your turn to speak, and I know the approach you will take.


David Lewis: It is in all the agreements.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: It may be. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, why do the parties not abide by that provision after the three years of blood, sweat and tears it took to arrive at an agreement? It is all right for the leader of the New Democratic Party to say that this clause is in all the agreements, but this is pretty important. It was not drafted overnight by two 15 cent lawyers.


An hon. Member:: Who are they?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: There are a few. Others will likely want to speak on this bill. As I have already said, we are not going to prolong this matter. However, certain positions, facts and problems have not been explored. They should not only be placed before this government and the members of this House, but the people of Canada.
St. Lawrence Ports Operations Bill
In closing, I wish to refer to a speech that I was going to give somewhere at some time. It is extremely appropriate at this time.
Many Canadians believe that labour-management relations, whether in the public or private sector, appear to be more concerned about and involved with confrontation rather than negotiation, thereby leaving a lot to be desired in the area of collective bargaining. The whole collective bargaining system is presently under serious attack and question and one is constantly reminded of its imperfections. This case is a classic one when we cite the agreement that was signed in March of 1972. In particular, the strike which is an integral and hard won part of the process, has not escaped serious questioning.
It takes only one or two strikes or the threat of them, particularly in areas where it appears the public interest in terms of health, safety and general well-being of the individual is, or could be, adversely affected, to raise cries about the failure of the collective bargaining system, the need for some alternatives and the need for legislation banning strikes. This growing attitude towards strikes stems in part from the fact that more people who are not involved in union or management, and even some within that area, now realize that strikes are neither against the government nor the private employer, but against them, the ultimate consumers, the vast majority of whom have not been represented at the bargaining table.
That is the point we have to be concerned about today. That is the point I want to emphasize. We must move in the direction of being cognizant of the third party who is not represented at the bargaining table. More Canadians are becoming increasingly alarmed about the disruptive nature of the strike and point to the seaway strike in 1968, the postal strikes of 1968, 1970 and 1972, the strikes of the air traffic controllers as well as electronic technicians, CBC technicians and now the longshoremen. All of these, as I have said, have inflicted economic loss on the nation and created unemployment, thereby giving Canadians reason to demand from the government action for the protection of the public interest and that it carry out its public responsibility. This demand, to me, in view of all the circumstances, is not unreasonable nor unwarranted because the public interest must prevail.
As I have said, Mr. Speaker, we will be pleased to discuss the bill further. We have not really had an opportunity to digest it, but by the time it gets through committee of the whole I am sure it will be a bill that has been given proper consideration in the time allowed. I anxiously await its early second reading and passage so we can get the economy moving again and open the ports of Montreal, Quebec and Trois-Rivieres.


John Edward Broadbent: Hurry up, then.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I hear a comment from the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent). He may not get an opportunity to speak tonight. But let us keep in mind that even if the longshoremen go back to work, it will take about a month to get these ports moving again. Until then, I hear that the employees will have lost some $12.5 million in salary and that the damage and loss of income to the

July 5, 1972
St. Lawrence Ports Operations Bill
ports, according to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, will be incalculable. So let us put the show on the road again, and quickly.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I begin my remarks by informing you, Sir, and the minister, who I am sorry has had to leave the House, that as far as my colleagues and I are concerned we intend to support the principle of this bill, though it is my intention to draw to the minister's attention one part of it which in my view needs careful consideration. I had not intended to speak very long and I still do not since the issues seem to me to be very clear.
I want to say to my good friend-I hope we will still be friends-the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) that I have listened to him make speeches on labour relations on a good number of occasions, including the speech he made today, but his studied attempt to be in both camps at the same time is not going to stand him or his party in very good stead. He is invariably talking about the rights of management, as he did in this case, and says he is in favour of the rights of labour. But he then proceeds to make a speech that obviously condemns labour and strikes, and says he wants the government to intervene without defining when he wants it to intervene. As far as I am concerned, he left the implication that the government ought to intervene on the first day of any strike which he decides is against the public interest.
As a matter of fact, every one of the hon. member's amendments to the labour code dealing with technological change was an attempt to weaken the provisions put before the House, provisions that were not very strong. I do not think it serves the interests of labour and management, nor does it serve the public interest, to make the kind of statements on both sides of the issue in this case, as well as in other cases, that I listened to a few moments ago.
The hon. member for Hamilton West resented an interjection that I made. He said that he did not know there was a clause in the collective agreement providing that, pending the arbitration procedure, everyone has to obey the collective agreement. I simply said to him that this is in every collective agreement, merely informing him that those who are acquainted with labour relations do not even have to see the particular clause. Not only is it in every collective agreement, it is in the law of Canada and in every act dealing with labour relations in this country. So there was not any problem about that particular situation.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Just get on with the bill.


David Lewis: That is what I wish the hon. member had done. He did not come to the bill until he had fumed and fumigated for about half an hour. I support this bill because both the employers and the union concerned left Parliament no alternative but to act. In my opinion both the employers and the unions in this case acted in a thoroughly indefensible way, a way that it is not possible for me to support even though the members of this House know my general support for labour, trade unionism, and indeed for strikes when they become unavoidable in negotiations between parties.

However, I make no qualification of my statement that the unions in this case acted not only against their own interests in the ports of Montreal, Quebec and Trois-Rivieres but against the interests of labour and trade unionism in this country. They have aroused objections in the minds of the ordinary people of Canada which responsible union leadership ought not to have aroused.
It is impossible to have a labour relations regime if one party to a collective agreement can say, for example, that it rejects an arbitrator's award. Let me remind my friends in the International Longshoremen's Association-years ago before I was elected to Parliament I acted for that association in Toronto and Hamilton and I have known them for a long time-that if it is possible for them to refuse to accept the award of an arbitrator, when the award goes against them, they are setting a precedent for the employer to refuse to accept the award of an arbitrator when it goes against the employer. Along that road lies chaos in labour relations; along that road lies the destruction of the collective bargaining process. No labour organization in this country has the right to endanger and to jeopardize the collective bargaining process and the power of a collective agreement in this way.
Even though it were legally indefensible, I can still appreciate the employees going on an illegal walkout since at the start the employers committed an act that they ought to have known would provoke an unlawful strike. That is why I said that the employers were guilty of irresponsible behaviour in this case. You do not have to be a genius or be required to know the operations on the waterfront, even as intimately as I learned them during years of working with the International Longshoremen, to know perfectly well that when an employer takes the step of reducing the gangs and ordering people to work elsewhere than they expected to work, in the knowledge that the union did not believe that such right existed at the time, the employer is provoking a stoppage of work. The employer in this case was utterly irresponsible in taking that step, in the full knowledge that the reaction inevitably would be the employees downing tools and walking out.
I think the unions fell into a trap. I have known many cases where an employer provokes a situation in order to reduce the benefits provided by a collective agreement that he had signed. The unions fell into that trap which was set for them. The changing of the gang, knowing that would result in a stoppage of work, was deliberate because the employers began to fear the job security provisions they had agreed to, and this is frequently the case. The unions fell into that trap with the result that we now have legislation under which the job security plan will again be looked at by the arbitrator even though the employees thought they had an agreement last April.
It was a great mistake to fall into that trap. I can appreciate the workers going out on strike at that moment when they felt the collective agreement was being ignored and destroyed and that going through grievance procedures would cause delays, with fears about what the arbitrator might or might not say. I can appreciate that, but as a Canadian and as a Member of Parliament I cannot agree with that strike being continued for eight weeks.

In this connection I cannot agree with the minister when he said throughout that he could not intervene as long as the law was being broken and wanted the law obeyed before he did so. I suggest to the Minister of Labour (Mr. O'Connell)-I am sorry I say this in his absence-that that is not a very profound remark. The situation after Judge Gold's award was no different from the situation before. The minister was in no more of a moral situation to intervene after Judge Gold's award came down than he was before. This is sheer nonsense on his part. He was simply sitting and hoping that the situation would improve without his having to intervene. I think he was wrong and I do not think he ought ever to do it again.
When the Minister of Labour sees a difficult situation, and he did not require very much to see that this was difficult and the strike is in danger of being dragged on much longer, then he ought not to hide behind some kind of legalism. He ought to have sent his deputy minister and others mediators in his department down to Montreal after three or four weeks of the strike to see what they could do. I suspect the situation would have been much easier to deal with then.
This is where the mistake of the minister comes in. This is where his behaviour is really attackable and cannot be defended. Four or five weeks ago the situation would have been much easier. Losses to the ports would not have been as great. The problem of creating the funds to meet the job security provisions of the agreement would not have been as great, and losses to management would have been less. The whole problem would have been very much easier to solve three or four weeks after the strike began instead of eight weeks later when everything is bitter and has soured and when losses to the ports, the employees and management have grown to very large proportions.
I think the criticism of the hon. member for Hamilton West in that connection is directly justified. The minister would have been much better off and certainly the situation in Montreal much more sensible and in the interest of Canada if the minister had intervened earlier; I do not mean by legislation but by sending his people down to seek a settlement four weeks ago and if that did not work, going himself to Montreal. I indicated this in a question I asked him a couple of weeks ago, suggesting that he should have gone with the authority of the Minister of Labour seeking a settlement. It would have been much easier to do so, particularly with regard to job security, long before the losses which have taken place did take place.
I believe it is important to underline that strikes in large areas and in large industries are no longer matters which concern only those directly affected, and even for those that are directly affected it is necessary to consider pretty carefully what the situation is and what the consequences will be. It is necessary to underline, and I believe this with all my heart, that the right to strike is a necessary right in a democratic society.
It is important, also, to underline that because people have the right does not necessarily mean they should exercise it without consideration for the public well-being and without consideration for their own future and the future of the industry they serve. That goes double as far
St. Lawrence Ports Operations Bill
as I am concerned for the kind of work stoppage which is contrary both to the collective agreement and the law. It does not make sense to break a collective agreement, at least for as long as has been the case here. I say that because sometimes you have a stoppage out of frustration, anger and a feeling you have been let down and it can be appreciated that this happens if it lasts a limited and reasonable length of time. When it goes on doggedly and obstinately for as long as it has in this case, I say the action is not defensible on the part of the union and its members and that legislation which is now before us, or some legislation, was both inevitable and necessary.
Because I get a little fed up by statements frequently made about union bosses doing things, I also want to underline that it was not the union bosses in this case but the membership of those unions that voted. This is the case in many situations. This is why I repeat my condemnation of the employers who knew what the waterfront is like and knew what they did in breaking up the gangs would necessarily provoke a strike. They ought not to have done this in the way in which it was done.
I think the minister ought to look carefully at one part of the principle of this bill, and that is the power it gives the arbitrator under clause 7. I mention it now in the hope that he will consider it. What he does in clause 7 is give the arbitrator two powers. One is to set out when the job security plan may come into effect. Contrary to the suggestion of the hon. member for Hamilton West, I agree that the minister ought not to have included that date in the bill. The minister gave one reason, namely, that he did not want to carry on negotiations through this bill.
I should like to give another reason, which is that the union has already rejected the October 15 date suggested by Mr. Wilson and Mr. Kelly of the labour department, and it would have been the height of provocation for this Parliament to pass into law a date which had already been considered by the parties and rejected by one of them. The minister was right, for both reasons, not to have included the date in clause 7 but to leave it to arbitration.	[DOT]
The arbitration award of Judge Gold, as I understand it, was an award made in a sense in the absence of the union. The union spokesmen were there merely to argue that the matters referred to the arbitrator were not arbitrable. After that, the lawyers for the union sat through the proceedings not opening their mouths, without saying a word, without examining the witnesses, producing evidence or producing arguments. That is my information. If I am correct, then despite the reputation of Judge Gold, which I am sure is fully justified, I would not be terribly impressed by an award which is made on the evidence and argument presented by only one side to the dispute.
It is conceivable that if the other side had produced evidence and argument the judge might have been influenced to go in another direction. I do not know that, but the fact is that his award was based on the evidence and arguments presented by only the management side to the dispute. The union, for reasons of its own, which I find unacceptable, decided not to participate in the arbitration.

St. Lawrence Ports Operations Bill
So, I would not rely on an award of an arbitrator given in those circumstances. I think the minister was right in not putting the date into the law, both because it is not Parliament's job to make that kind of a decision and because the union had already rejected that date and ought to have an opportunity to present to the arbitrator its reasons and arguments for another date, whatever the date may be. On behalf of my colleagues and myself I express agreement with the approach taken in clause 7 on this point. But in addition to giving the arbitrator the power to set the date for applying the job security plans, this bill also gives the arbitrator authority to modify the plan and the wording for that authority is so wide that the arbitrator, as I read it and I am sure I am not making an error, is given authority to change the entire ambit of the plan not only in respect of the date and not only in respect of those things which affect the date but also in respect of the entire plan. I do not see any need for this.
I ask the minister, as earnestly as I can, that Parliament not be asked to do this and that he give some thought overnight to changing that. I have made pretty careful inquiries and I understand that during the negotiation, and during the mediation proceedings, management, the MEA, made clear, so far as the next two years of the agreement are concerned, 1973 and 1974, that at this stage they see no reason the job security plan should not function in its totality in those two years, assuming of course that there is not another stoppage of work of the kind we have had. If that is so, I see no reason why the arbitrator be given authority under this bill to do violence to the agreement of the parties in 1973 and 1974. I see no reason that clause 7 of the bill could not be amended when we get to the committee stage,-I mention this now so that the minister may consider it-so that the arbitrator is not given that power for 1973 and 1974. The clause could, as I say, suggest he has the power of modification in respect of the date and matters relating to it, but has not the power of modification of the plans as they apply to the years 1973 and 1974.
I say to the minister that my suggestion to him is all the more valid and should be given all the more consideration because of clause 8 of this bill which, if I read it correctly and I have read it several times, gives the minister authority to send a dispute to arbitration under the collective agreement if management or the union fail to do so within a reasonable time. With that proviso, with the power in his hands to send any dispute to arbitration if the parties to the dispute do not do so, he is all the safer in accepting the suggestion I make to him. If something should erupt in 1973 with regard to the job security plan he would be in a position immediately to send the matter to arbitration if the parties did not do so. I, therefore, urge him as strongly as I can to limit the authority of the arbitrator which, under clause 7 as now worded, is far too wide and may cause difficulty in Montreal in respect of the law he is asking us to pass. It is unnecessary for the purpose he wants to serve.
I said, Mr. Speaker, that I would not speak for long and I have come to the end of my remarks because, like every other member of Parliament and I am no more righteous about it than anyone else, I want to see this law passed as

quickly as possible. But the passage of this law by Parliament will not end the problem. Let us be frank. After all both parties to the dispute in Montreal, Quebec and Trois-Rivieres have ignored the law until now. If they had obeyed the law as now on the statute books, either party would have referred the dispute to arbitration long ago as the law required them to do. They were required to do this not only by the collective agreement but also by the Canada Labour Code. They have, therefore, ignored the law until now. The mere passage of this legislation will not necessarily end the matter unless the employers, the unions and the employees are ready to obey the law passed by this Parliament. Without any presumption I hope, Mr. Speaker, I just wish to add my voice as one Member of Parliament, and in the position of leader of my party, in an appeal to the people involved in Montreal, Quebec and Trois-Rivieres.
I suspect Parliament will act unanimously so far as the principle of this bill is concerned. From what I have heard from the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) his party will support it. You have heard from me, Mr. Speaker, that my party will support it and I would be very surprised if the Social Credit party did not. I say to the management, the union and the longshoremen involved that it is a great pity Parliament had to act in this case. With all my heart and soul I detest laws which order people to return to work. In the common law, as members of this House who are lawyers know, there is one injunction under the law of equity in our system of law which the courts would not grant. This is an injunction ordering someone to go back into service. Other injunctions have been granted but not an injunction such as this for many centuries. The refusal to grant an injunction ordering people back to work was based on a very valid doctrine that human beings should be free to work or not to work under some of the conditions which they do not like, and that the law should not descend on them and say that whether they like it or not they must return to work. Therefore, I detest with all my heart and soul any law which orders people back to work.
Work is not so pleasant on the waterfront. Being a stevedore is not so imaginative and creative that people ought to be ordered back to work. I appeal to the men involved in this case that Parliament does not act lightly in these situations. Certainly, my colleagues and I do not lightly support a bill to order people back to work. However, we are obliged to do so, not only in the interests of Canada as a whole but also in their own interests, in the interests of decent collective bargaining and decent labour relations and in order to end a situation which has lasted far too long, for eight weeks now. Through this House I appeal to them that they have a duty to themselves, to the labour movement and to Canada to obey this law when passed, to appear before the arbitrator and make the best case they can. I hope they will succeed in getting the best deal out of the arbitrator that their case and the facts of the situation deserve.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the minister rising on a point of order?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I was rising to validate certain intimations I received earlier that possibly mem-
July 5, 1972

bers would agree to sitting at eight o'clock to deal with the second reading of this bill.


David Lewis: And only with that.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is understood. During the evening sitting we can determine how long we want to sit.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent that the House resume its sitting at eight o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is agreed and so ordered. It being six o'clock I leave the Chair.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. Charles-Eugene Dionne (Kamouraska):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened as closely as I could to the summary of the events which the minister of Labour has outlined for the benefit of this House and which warrant the approach required from him in these circumstances.
I am not sure that it must be assumed that his reserve of patience has been exhausted, but it is normal to appreciate that this strike has lasted long enough already, and that the appropriate steps must be taken so that work may resume in these Quebec ports.
I have in hand a statement made by the former premier of Ontario, Mr. Robarts, in an address to the members of the Empire Club, and reported in the April 22, 1972, issue of Le Soleil, and I quote:
You merely have to look at what is taking place in Quebec and in Toronto to realize the extent to which strikes are used to dismantle the whole society.
He pointed out how Quebec and Toronto civil servants use strikes as a weapon to keep society as a hostage.
That is quite serious!
Something very special happened in the longshoremen's strike: a collective agreement was signed, setting forth the working conditions, salaries and other fringe benefits. Finally, the agreement turned into a disagreement.
I have already mentioned in this House that the complex labour legislation now in force contributed to creating a type of professional deformation particular to negotiators, regardless of which side of the table they sit on. In fact, they keep polishing the same old clauses instead of inventing new ones. Both sides quibble about commas, at the risk of overlooking the fundamental objective of the collective agreement which is to make relations between employer and employee more human.
In La Presse of Saturday, July 1,1972, we could read the following comments made by a spokesman for the longshoremen group to the effect that the executive had not caught on and I quote:
St. Lawrence Ports Operations Bill
A well-organized group of dissidents have published a manifesto accusing the executive of dishonesty, mismanagement and incompetence and demanding the resignation of all labour officials in addition to insisting upon an immediate return to work.
The spokesman for the group, Mr. Yves Dufour, who named some 20 signatories to the document has stated that the 7-week strike was due to a wrong interpretation of the collective agreement.
Mr. Dufour said that the union executive failed to understand the collective agreement and wrongly interpreted it. Our problem is due to the fact that the executive is incompetent.
He was evidently referring to the union executive.
This statement proves that there is an atmosphere of complications, and concerning collective agreements, they are trying to live with a labour legislation which, I repeat, is much too complicated for workers. Changes should necessarily be brought in this field.
I should like now to make a very short quotation which applies perhaps to another field but demonstrates very well the complications in the legislative area. This is an article published in La Presse of Tuesday, June 20, 1972, and I quote:
The President of the Treasury Board has suggested that "in the past, the (federal) cabinet has perhaps relied too much on the advice of experts (technocrats) and in so doing, to a certain extent it (the cabinet) has begun to lose touch with the public."
And this comes from a cabinet minister!
So, we see that in negotiations-and this is what happened concerning the longshoremen-there seems to be a grudge somewhere. In fact, it seems that union representatives do not get the support of all their members. And I ask hon. members to believe that I am well-disposed toward unions, having worked in the labour movement for 10 years, which means that I am a union member, but not a striker as there is a significant difference between the two. I cannot help but see that sometimes, some union officials, out of pride and in order to try and settle some petty personal scores, bring a whole team of workers to strike.
Considering the circumstances, this still seems somewhat in the limelight. In fact, the newspaper La Presse reports as follows:
While quoting as an example the Picard Act, Mr. Saint-Onge-
-and as people know, he is the union representative, authorized to make decisions-
-added that the government perhaps would decide "to knock them down with some legislation."
He is in the right mood to face the implementation of legislation!
Further on, one can read this:
As for calling a strike on May 17 last, Mr. Saint-Onge said that "perhaps it was a mistake, but last year the employers had thousands of times violated the collective agreement and never had the longshoremen taken revenge as their employers are doing at the present time."
So, revenge would be involved. Though this is stupid, it remains that we are faced with a fact, that somebody wants to take revenge because someone, at a given time, took a position which seemed inconsistent with reality, perhaps inconsistent with the spirit of the agreement. But should thousands of workers bear the brunt of a personal revenge? So I say that in matters of bargaining between

July 5, 1972
St. Lawrence Ports Operations Bill
employees and employers, of necessity we must have more flexible and clearer legislation making understanding easier.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure that if the majority of the workers could express themselves freely, they would vote for going back to work. But we know more or less what happens during some meetings; people are afraid to be considered as scabs and vote with the majority. There again, labour law should specify in what way a free vote strike should be taken at a union meeting.
As for the strike, I would like to quote an article published in the Gazette of April 12 last. An hon. senator found that this article gave a good description of the situation since he had it recorded in the Senate proceedings. And I quote:
An editorial in the Montreal Gazette of April 12 of this year illustrates very well the feeling of many people regarding strikes. Part of it states:
A strike is similar in some respects to war. It may be just,
although a just strike is as hard to define as a just war. It is a
question of causes, objectives and alternatives.
This afternoon, I heard an hon. member-and I would not criticize his statements, since I generally agree with him-speak about the strike. In my opinion, the right to live has priority over the right to strike. I have suggested this idea and it is quite easy to understand; certainly most hon. members will admit that it is more important to give the people the right to live before the right to strike.
Perhaps the legislation about certain rights has been adopted too quickly. Again I repeat what I am not afraid to say under any circumstances: the legislating function has been carried out much more under the fear of an impending election than in the citizens' interests.
Again, I say that the right to live for all is a natural right. This right should be recognized long before the right to strike or the right to make exaggerated profits, and appropriate measures should be taken by those responsible for legislation to ensure to all first the right to live. We should have enough foresight to plan a sensible distribution system for goods available without having to resort to strikes when most people want to work.
I understand that it is not always easy to strike proper balance between justified claims and the demands of the public weal. However, labour legislation must have that objective in view because of the deplorable incidents which have occurred in the field of labour-management relations. Amendments and legislation are required as soon as possible for the general welfare of the nation.
Obviously we endorse the bill now under discussion because it is a solution under the present circumstances. But I maintain that generally our labour legislation is too complicated. Right now we are even eager to see the bill passed so that all port workers might return to work.
Like the previous speaker I ask all these workers to seriously consider the present situation, to take into account all the losses they sustained and caused to a great many other Canadian citizens. These strikers have lost millions in salaries and contributed to the disruption of business in Canada. This strike could have been averted.
For ten years, I have worked in union organizations. My leader was a representative of the Brotherhood in Canada and he never taught us how to go on strike. For ten years, we have negotiated collective agreements with some fifteen lumbering companies, mostly on the North Shore, namely the Canadian International Paper Company, the Anglo Canadian Pulp and Paper Mills Limited, Donahue Brothers Limited and the Quebec North Shore Paper Company, in three operational districts, and these ten years of union work have gone by without a single strike. It is possible to find solutions, but the legislation must enable it.
We are living in such an unbalance system that people come to the conclusion that the only way to solve their grievances is to go on strike. And yet, we must logically admit that all that has been achieved in this world is the result of hard labour. Nobody can deny it. How is it that thousands of workers come to believe that the only means of solving their problems lies in work stoppage? That is a nonsense.
Failing to conclude that strikes are most of the time brought about by demands for salary readjustments or increases would reveal a lack of imagination or a refusal to face the disastrous consequences of a financial system at odds with the present economic situation. Why? It is easy to give a precise answer. Successive salary increases fail to catch up with the ever increasing cost of living. In fact, I might be permitted to use an expression which is well in line with the situation, and say that salaries are going up the stairs whereas prices of goods are going up in the elevator.
We are witnessing a transformation period and I hear a lot about technological changes. Collective agreements mention the fact that we are going through a period of transformation of our means of production. Machines are replacing men in an unheard of proportion. This heavily laden change through automation has become a nightmare for thousands of workers under our present system. Why? Again, it is easy to give a precise answer. The working man is deprived of his wages because he is being replaced by machines. Through research, scientists are exploring methods of modernizing production with the application of improved techniques involving the replacement of men by machines.
At the same time, other scientists or rather those who think they are, are advocating full employment. One thing that is beyond any intelligent concept is that industry or employers, whoever they may be, are apparently being called upon to absorb all the costs of mechanization, as well as salary adjustments and all the grievances which are caused by an ailing financial system.
This is why I emphasize the fact that we must absolutely improve our labour legislation.
May I conclude by quoting a few extracts from an editorial published in today's La Presse. I found this editorialist so familiar with the problem and capable of expressing his point of view on what is going on now that I wish to put it on the record. First, he has found another name for this kind of disease that strike is and I admit I was slightly amused when I read the title: "'Strikulture' yields little profit". So, may I quote from this editorial by Guy Cormier:

July 5, 1972

In the long history of labour, there have been many necessary strikes.
I have already said that this was a necessary evil but that we should avoid spreading it.
But in 1972, one wonders whether in every case the game is still worth the candle. One of the "high priests" of American unionism, George Meany, pointed out recently that when conflicts are protracted, the financial burden on workers is incommensurate with the benefits they hope to achieve from the confrontation.
The prolonged strike by longshoremen at the St. Lawrence ports, occupies a choice place in the annals of the last uncertain battles. It is inordinate in length: 52 days. It is inordinate in its devastating effects as compared to the hypothetical benefits workers seek to obtain.
It is obvious that if workers themselves were to consider the situation in this light, public authorities would not have to intervene to order an immediate resumption of work.
Further on, the editorial says:
Losses incurred by workers have been estimated at $8 million and the prolonged idleness of the harbours for so many weeks has emptied the till. (It is known that a 65-cent tax is levied on the handling of every ton of cargo. This revenue is used to guarantee longshoremen an annual minimum income.)
As to the guarantee of this annual minimum income they are divesting themselves of it rather deliberately following decisions of some union officers who seem to me quite irresponsible.
As to the damage inflicted on the economy as a whole, it is incalculable. There was talk last week of a net loss of $40 million. The long term effects of this imbroglio will be further compounded by competitors' eagerness (Halifax, St.-John's, N.-B.) to take maximum advantage of the problems befalling our harour facilities.
Is there today any other alternative but a forced settlement through parliamentary action? Willy-nilly, one should acknowledge the facts and answer: no.
As I said a few moments ago and under the circumstances, my party supports this bill. We would like it to be passed without delay in order to bring to an end a situation that is disheartening to the strikers' families. I am convinced that several strikers' families are far from having what they wished, because they have been deprived of an income for too long already.
I hope this bill will be passed as soon as possible; I strongly and sincerely hope that all strikers will understand their role, consider the situation seriously and go back to work without waiting for all sorts of slow procedures to be implemented which do not always solve problems. Right now, they must decide to go back to work so that we do not have a situation such as the one that arose in connection with the employees of G. Lapalme Inc.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I think that it is quite proper for me to take part in this debate, in order to state my views on the bill which I feel, as the Minister stated this afternoon, is another rather unfortunate precedent in the history of Canadian Parliament.
I am justified, I think, in taking part in this debate, since as you well remember, I introduced a motion in this House on June 16 last in which we told the Minister exactly what the situation was and what solution the government ought to choose to put an end to the long-
St. Lawrence Ports Operations Bill
shoremen's strike on the St. Lawrence. The conditions have since remained unchanged. At that time, we told the Minister of Labour (Mr. O'Connell): "You have just one thing to do to settle that conflict: force the parties into arbitration or take suitable measures."
I remember very well that the time that discussion took place, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who spoke then on behalf of his party, had stated that he did not seem to understand the scope of the motion I had brought in, that it was not clear and that my findings or suggestions were not at all in keeping with reality, and that the ways and means we were suggesting to the minister were not those that the government should consider.
This afternoon-I think I must emphasize it, because I should like the NDP's to agree among themselves and tell the House on which side of the fence they stand-the NDP leader (Mr. Lewis), obviously contradicted the spokesman for his party who had taken the floor in this House on June 16 about this matter. This afternoon, the hon. member for York South, who seemed to wish to use this very important debate probably for politic purposes, told the House that he was in favour of the passage of the bill brought in by the government, that we ought to pass it as soon as possible, even though he would do so somewhat reluctantly. He added and I quote from memory: "I want to see this legislation passed as soon as possible". He said later, and I also quote from what I remember: "We are obliged to do so."
Mr. Speaker, if I refer to the debate we had just a few weeks ago, the spokesman for his party, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), gave a completely opposite view. I should like to know what is the real opinion and position of the NDP in the House, not because I want to raise any bitter debate that would be a negative one, but rather in order to know the position of different members and parties on such an important dispute.
May I refer the House to Hansard of June 16, 1972, particularly to page 3112. Speaking on behalf of his party the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said, and I quote:
I see the Minister of Labour (Mr. O'Connell) disagree with what I am saying about the dispute being a lockout, but if the hon. member has in mind-
-he was referring to me because he did not seem to understand the scope of the motion we had tabled.
I proceed with my quotation:
If the hon. member has in mind calling upon the government to bring in legislation to put these employees back to work, the employees who may not be employees because they have been suspended, we do not agree with that either.
So, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre who is his party's House leader stated only two weeks ago that if the government wanted to pass special legislation to force longshoremen to resume work they would oppose it.
Now, the leader of his party in a flash of administrative or legislative consciousness has at last recognized that under the present circumstances there was left only one alternative since the two parties to the conflict after numerous deliberations, consultations and attempts at

July 5, 1972
St. Lawrence Ports Operations Bill
reconciling their attitudes, have been unable to bring about a solution.
Now it was obvious, Mr. Speaker, a fortnight or a month ago, or since the conflict started that only through legislation could a settlement be reached in this conflict which causes considerable if not irreparable damage to the three St.-Lawrence ports of Montreal, Trois-Rivieres and Quebec City. Indeed, considerable damage is caused to the economic activity of Montreal and Quebec City as well as to thousands of longshoremen's families who are involved in a conflict from which they would like to extricate themselves but have not yet found the means to do so, since as was pointed out earlier by the hon. member who spoke before me, there was perhaps no mechanism enabling the workers to freely express their views during their union meetings and reach a decision their union has now to make for them.
What was still difficult to accept was the incompetence of the Minister of Labour, his misunderstanding of the situation, in spite of the advice, the information he received from his experts, in spite of the opinions of the House, the members of the Progressive Conservative party, and also from Liberal members from the Montreal area; because I know that some are not happy with the situation.
I know from talking with the strikers that they were not happy with the minister's attitude. They urged him to wake up at last, decide to assume his responsibilities and introduce in Parliament a bill to bring about a solution to that conflict.
The basis of the conflict, the source of the wrongs in this increasingly serious situation is the fact that when the difficulties arose the minister refused to intervene and did not admit that he had at his disposal-and I know the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Mackasey) has enough experience to realize it-the whole apparatus required to attempt a rapprochement between the two parties. Had the minister intervened at the start by appointing a mediator, a conciliator or by setting up any mechanism at all, I am sure the conflict could have been solved without our having to resort to a special act which Parliament as a whole finds repulsive. An act of this type, Mr. Speaker, certainly cannot please the hon. members. We believe that we are too serious and responsible to accept a law which compels workers to go back to work when we know that there are at the basis of the conflict misunderstandings and frictions which can only lead to uncertainty and suspicion toward the employers.
What is wrong, in my view, is that management and labour are eying each other like cats and dogs. The climate of mutual trust which should exist in the field of labour-management relations just does not exist.
The two fundamental instruments of our economic system are the employer and the employee; without either one, I think that no economic system can work adequately.
It was an unpleasant surprise for me to hear the leader of the NDP when, in order to try to conceal his reluctance to fully support the Minister of Labour proposal, he said: We blame the employers, the ship-owners, for provoking the longshoremen by threatening to suspend them if they

did not return to work. I think these words are totally irresponsible and I do not believe that we would be serving the cause we claim to defend-equity and justice-by pitting one party involved in this dispute against the other.
This is what is incomprehensible and totally inadmissible: only 15 days ago, on June 16, when we were urging the Minister of Labour to introduce a legislation or to take some steps to bring the parties together, he said: I cannot intervene in that dispute; there is no question of our interfering by means of a legislation.
I want to quote from the minister's statements because I think that they are an admission on the government's part of their failure to give their administration a minister with sufficiently high standards to face not the easy situations-since the minister is not there for that-but the difficult ones and show efficiency and results.
While day after day, for a month and a half, we have been askings questions to the minister, this is what happened, as reported by the Ottawa newspaper Le Droit on June 17, 1972:
Mr. O'Connell advised that the government did not intend through legislation, to force the stevedores back to work.
In the Minister of Labour, we find inconsistencies, contradictions, reluctancy, inaptitude and, above all, inability to understand his duties while he is directly responsible for that collective agreement. His predecessor, through his good offices, his understanding, his labour experience-an experience actually lacking in the present minister-had managed to develop a formula that could or would ensure stability in the three harbours of the St. Lawrence river.
It is unfortunate that the minister failed to take into account the suggestions made to him by the opposition. We were not trying to take advantage of that dispute, since this would be the most abject thing to do, but simply to offer suggestions likely to help put an end to a situation that threatened the whole future of these three St. Lawrence harbours. The habour at Montreal is the largest Canadian seaport, the largest inland port, the one handling the greatest tonnage of goods, the most important access road for import and export.
Through his unconcern-I would not say his cowardice-because I hate to associate the words "cowardice" and "inability", the minister has failed to truly understand the importance of his decisions, and to take the necessary steps. We know that the government had been asked to act not only by members of this House, but also by the Montreal Port Council, which after sending one telegram after another, one letter after another, demanded that the government take action in order to end this conflict.
The City of Montreal authorities recently asked for action to be taken to that effect. The Quebec Minister of Labour said to his federal counterpart: Do something to solve this conflict, or we will interfere even if this does not come within our jurisdiction.
In the face of all those claims, all those representations, the minister seemed passive and indifferent; he felt that all those pressures were going to undermine his authority
July 5, 1972

as a minister, or that there was really nothing serious in this whole business, and that the situation could solve itself merely through a little agreement between the shipowners and the longshoremen.
That, Mr. Speaker, was playing with fire, and today we have come to this sad situation were we have, through legislation, to say to employees: Whether you like it or not, whether it suits you or not, whether some clauses of the agreement are under dispute or not, we do not care. You are going to go back to work against your will.
I feel this is an almost pre-historic way of solving a conflict, and if the minister had really assumed his responsibilities, if he had realized that the representations which we made in this House and elsewhere, as well as those of intermediary bodies, of provincial or municipal governments, were not without justification, we could have avoided having to introduce special legislation, and we could have avoided the collapse of the harbours involved, particularly that of Montreal.
Mr. Speaker, when on June 16 last I moved the motion which I mentioned earlier, I would have liked to advocate six steps, to suggest to the minister six ways to try and solve the conflict. Hon. members will remember that I was prevented from making those suggestions; fortunately, I was able to send them to the media, and I think my hon. colleague from Lachine (Mr. Rock) who, following his speech, was able to put them on the record. However, I realize that some of the suggestions which I made two weeks ago are exactly similar to the means which the minister used today by introducing legislation.
Unfortunately I see that the minister did not take into consideration an extremely important suggestion in order to avoid this kind of conflicts, so that in other conflicts we are not forced to introduce special legislation, in other words to see to it that we amend the Canada Labour Code to ensure that workers can vote secretly.
There was a successful experience particularly in the port of Quebec City. I have been told that longshoremen had the opportunity to vote secretly on going back to work, in the present circumstances, and that 99 per cent of them-the Minister of Manpower and Immigration is aware of this, I think-were in favour of this. It is the only place where a secret vote has been held.
This mechanism must be included either in the Labour Code, the collective agreements or in any other legislation. The government should not hesitate to ensure the secrecy of the vote.
I represent a labour constituency which is particularly affected by that work stoppage. I receive many longshoremen; I am also acquainted with people doing business with the Montreal port. For several weeks, many longshoremen have come to see me and told me: We would like to go back to work. At a union meeting, we would like to be able to cast a secret ballot and say, without being subjected to direct or indirect threats, if we agree with our leaders. We would be surprised at the results. We could often if not always avoid such painful conditions.
Certainly, the minister is aware of this situation; he knows perfectly well that during a union meeting when leaders are controlling the meeting or its proceedings, it is normal for the union members to rely completely on what
St. Lawrence Ports Operations Bill
the leaders tell them to do. The union leaders explain quite honestly, sometimes not so honestly, the scope of such or such legislation, of such or such contract, and the workers can indicate their views but generally, they rely on those elected to represent them.
But when you feel that in certain meetings, people have been ordered to be there by union leaders to influence and intimidate the union members, it is difficult for an individual to vote against the instructions of his leaders and we should put an end to this situation. This situation could be clarified by simply using the democratic election system of this country and ensure that the votes are kept secret. In this manner, I am confident that we will be able to avoid such legislation as that which we are obliged to debate today. We would also prevent many inconveniences to some families most affected by situations such as this one.
We should not forget that in such disputes, maybe the shipowners can afford to skip a season even though some cannot afford it; maybe the businessman can afford the luxury of staying idle for a season but the workman, the longshoreman as any worker with a family cannot afford the luxury of a year without work.
It is a human problem which should interest us first and this explains why a few weeks ago I brought in a motion and said to the minister: You have but one and only solution; the appeal to arbitration, and the only way to have this arbitration accepted is to intervene personally. And the minister replied: I regret but I cannot intervene. Today he is directly intervening. Through the bill brought in today I note that he corrects a defect in that procedure. And I refer to clause 8 of the bill which stipulates:
8. The Minister of Labour may refer any matter in dispute between an employer and a union to an arbitrator selected or chosen as provided in the collective agreements-
So the minister becomes the necessary and essential lever, if the two parties involved in such a conflict do not ask for or resort to arbitration. The minister can step in then.
The minister came up with the following argument: I cannot intervene since the collective agreement provides mechanisms to settle grievances and according to which both parties must ask for arbitration and if they don't, they will have to pull themselves out as they can. That was stupid since a section of the collective agreement whose number I do not remember exactly provides that should there be a conflict as to the selection of an arbitrator, the Department of Labour may name the arbitrator. Therefore, the minister was implicitly party to the contract, to the collective agreement. Had the minister been the least intelligent, he would surely have used that little "technical opening" in the collective agreement; he could have intervened by selecting an arbitrator and obliging both parties-not today but three weeks ago or one month ago-to resort to arbitration, which would probably have settled the conflict without Parliament having to step in with the introduction of special legislation.
Mr. Speaker, having read this bill rapidly we realize it does not mean much, except that its object is to correct minor weaknesses that obviously did not exist in the col-
July 5, 1972

St. Lawrence Ports Operations Bill
lective agreement. I spoke about clause 8 and I could also have mentioned clause 7. I find it hard to understand that a few days ago the Minister of Labour delegated his mediators, his associates, his special assistants in labour relations who made recommendations to both parties. The minister referred to those recommendations this afternoon, without quoting the document of which I have a copy here and which unfortunately I could not get from the minister but got from some other source.
These recommendations contain suggestions which, in my way of thinking, might have been useful in settling the conflict. What surprises me most is that these recommendations which have resulted from the conciliation or mediation exercise carried out by the Department of Labour with the directly interested parties, have not been included in the bill which the Minister has introduced. Does this mean that the Minister is disavowing the work done by his mediators? Is he suggesting that those four days of negotiations between the mediators and the interested parties did not achieve the results which were expected? It may be the case of an unofficial disavowal by the minister. However, the fact remains that I find it quite unacceptable that recommendations submitted by the mediators who are specialists and whose capacities have never been questioned, who are used to discussing problems of a difficult enough nature in this kind of conflict, have not been considered in the drafting of the bill introduced by the minister today.
Mr. Speaker, it is with much regret that we will support the bill. As the minister said, it is a matter of public interest, of the future of the Montreal economy, of the future and the survival of the three ports of the St. Lawrence; it is also the whole Canadian economy which is feeling the backlash, since it is quite well known that thousands of businesses are awaiting their goods. The government of Quebec complained recently that it could not get the machinery necessary to complete certain public works.
Thousands of people are directly or indirectly involved with port activity either through regular or casual employment. I think in particular of those longshoremen who are known as overtime longshoremen who, normally, are counted by the thousands and work 35, 37 or 40 weeks; they will not be able to hope to benefit from that overtime this year.
It is also unfortunate about these labour difficulties that no legislation provides for any assistance to fathers and to children of unemployed workers-no welfare allowances, no unemployment benefits, no strike fund-which I suggest should have been provided for in normal agreements. There is no machinery to enable the community to assist children of striking longshoremen.
This year, we know that the dispute will soon be settled but we know very well also that before these thousands of ships come back to the harbours of Montreal, Trois-Kivieres and Quebec, there will be a delay of four to six weeks.
The season now is ruined, we all know, and the minister knows also. It is not possible for Montreal harbour to recover this year's business. We will have to think about next year. What about the effects of this situation? Will the shippers, the businessmen and the firms that do busi-

ness with Canada regain confidence in the facilities of the three ports concerned? I hope so! Whichever part of the country we may come from, and in particular hon. members from the Montreal area, and whatever our party is, we are all aware of the extremely disastrous effects of the situation on the Quebec economy.
Before passing the bill-as there are still 12, 14, 16 or 24 hours left-both parties still have time to settle on the technical terms of the agreement so that Parliament is not forced to pass this legislation because, as the minister said this afternoon, this may be the sixth time Parliament has legislated in similar circumstances.
For my part, Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to support the bill. I believe all the members have indicated their wish to support it, but we do so, I know, with great reticence. We hope that if there are other conflicts, the Minister of Labour will not wait till the last minute, in short, till the corpse has reached the cemetery to call in the doctor to take care of the patient. I trust, Mr. Speaker, that the government will assume its responsibilities and that, thanks to his foresight and his sense of responsibility, whatever the consequences may be for him-even taking into consideration his responsibilities toward the country and Parliament-the minister, by taking steps beforehand, will prevent the recurrence of such a disastrous situation.
Once again I invite the minister to tell us whether he really intends-and I want to close my remarks on this suggestion-to consider changing the Canada Labour Code in such a way that in all labour conflicts, union members are guaranteed complete and full freedom in expressing their views by secret ballot at union meetings where work stoppages, agreements, or the signing of collective agreements are dealt with.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in the report given by the Minister of Labour (Mr. O'Connell) and in the statements made in connection with this dispute. I happen to represent people who are very dependent upon the services that have been disrupted and who are far removed from the scene of this dispute. The speaker preceding me expressed his concern at the total effect of the dispute on the economy of Montreal, and quite properly so. I am sure that the effect of a disruption of this kind must be very severe.
What has impressed me in the discussion of the situation not only today but over the last seven or eight weeks has been the importance given to this particular dispute and to the kind of agreement reached after three years of thought and work had been devoted to it. Those of us who live on the Prairies and have taken the trouble to try to understand, surprisingly have a fair working knowledge of what is involved in the labour disputes at our two shipping points in Canada, that is, the St. Lawrence and the west coast. For most of us who move grain those are the terminals we use. Most of us who use Halifax ship by train to that area.
In times past I have taken the trouble to inform myself about disputes which have occurred on the west coast. I
July 5, 1972

know that negotiations can be extremely difficult. An attempt is made to give security to the workers. If they have security, then those who hire the men have security. A real attempt was made to reach this objective but negotiations broke down. I agree with those who said action should have been taken sooner.
In the last day or two I have checked my sources of information and haye come to believe that we are on the very edge of a real slowdown or indeed breakdown as far as the movement of grain is concerned. Mr. Hurcomb, manager of the Dominion Marine Association, stated publicly that the strike is causing delays of up to six days in the movement of grain. One can check with the companies and co-operatives on the Prairies which are responsible for moving grain and will find that we have now pretty well filled the facilities at the terminals.
The lakers can move the grain down the lakes and the terminals can take the grain from them, but when you take the grain out of the terminals you must have longshoremen with the ability and know-how to load these boats and see they go to sea properly. This is the point we have reached and I do not understand how we as members of this House can do otherwise than discharge our responsibility by finding ways and means to bring this work stoppage to an end.
Another point bothers me, Mr. Speaker. I do not think you can solve by legislation all of the conflicts which exist between human beings. We had a government in Saskatchewan which said that if we had enough legislation and labour courts we could bring all these disputes to an end. I have doubts about that. To really meet the needs in this kind of situation and to achieve labour-management harmony in this country, we must make real efforts at bargaining and negotiation between the parties.
The Department of Labour will have to increase its activity in terms of negotiating with both sides in an attempt to smooth the path in working out procedures, arbitration, and so on. This is what will yield the greatest return in the medium and long run. When this fails, as it has failed in this case, then recourse has to be made to the type of action contemplated by this Parliament. I do not think there is any alternative in view of the situation facing us.
I could not go back and face my constituents, the farmers, the businessmen and those dependent on income from grain unless I am prepared to deal with the situation which faces us in the St. Lawrence ports. That is the main thing I wanted to say tonight. I concur in what the leader of our party said, that it is probably proper for the arbitrator, whoever he may be, to be charged with setting the time involved in establishing the number of guaranteed working weeks and the income for workers in this industry. This probably has to be one of his responsibilities.
I doubt very much if whoever is charged with the responsibility of arbitration should be, as is stated in clause 7(2)(b), making such modifications to those plans and provisions as in his opinion are required to give effect thereto on and after the date decided by him. If that means what I think it does, then the agreement in this area, the fine points of procedure and how they are arrived at must surely have been the result of lengthy and careful negotiation.
St. Lawrence Ports Operations Bill
It must have taken some time for those concerned to reach working agreements in the original contract and I fail to understand the necessity for those charged with arbitrating to go through all these procedures again. I think the time element should have some bearing. I hope a real settlement and working agreement between the employers and employees will be reached very soon and that we do not have to again act in this House to force men back to work.
I believe, among other things, in the rights of individuals. When we come to the point that we have now, of using legislation to force an individual to go to work under certain conditions, I do not like it. By the same token, when we say to an employer that he shall put his facilities at the disposal of the state, and that is what we are doing, I think these are measures of last resort. What these measures really indicate is that our society has failed to solve its economic problems in a civilized and orderly manner. This is what it really means; we have failed to be effective in this area. I hope this will not occur too often. I say to the minister that he should have acted before. I suppose others will say that to him. As a representative of the Prairies where the people are very much dependent on traffic through our ports, I want to say I sincerely hope we can very quickly evolve better and more effective procedures to deal with a complicated society.
On the agricultural front, we are entering a supply-management phase. We are working on the other side of the coin. We are now working out procedures by which the provincial and federal governments will decide how much of certain products will be produced, how they will be marketed, and the price at which those products will eventually be sold. This compares to reaching the point where you bargain for wages, prices and services. I suggest we will move even farther in this area because we are in this type of complicated society. The way in which we deal with human relations must be changed in order to meet a closely integrated society. We can no longer stand at arms length and say that what the other man does is of no concern to us. Someone a long time ago said that we are our brother's keeper. We are at that point now, whether or not we like it.


Mr. Raymond Rock (Lachine):: Mr. Speaker, at long last, after a period of seven weeks, the government has decided to introduce legislation to provide for the resumption of the operation of the ports of Montreal, Trois-Rivieres and Quebec. In fact, we can say after eight weeks, because many of the dockworkers went on strike a week earlier in sympathy with the general strike in Quebec which also was illegal. On many occasions in the past month my colleagues from Hamilton West, from Sainte-Marie, our leader and I have frequently asked questions of the Minister of Labour (Mr. O'Connell) regarding the dock strike. His replies were vague and his attitude was always a laissez-faire attitude. In fact, as recently as last Friday morning, as recorded at page 3692 of Hansard, I asked the Minister of Labour the following question:
Since the Minister of Labour is waiting until this afternoon for a decision by the meeting of the dock workers, would the government consider introducing back-to-work legislation immediately
COMMONS/DEBATES
July 5, 1972
St. Lawrence Ports Operations Bill
before adjournment of the House, in order that Parliament will not have to be recalled for this purpose?
The answer by the Minister of Labour was the following:
Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question clearly has to be no. Surely it is not desirable. This House would not wish to be in the position of being called upon to pass legislation to order men back to work on the ground that they are breaking the law, because the law already requires that they go back to work. Legislation to require Canadians to do that which is already required by the law does not seem to me to be appropriate at this time.
Many of us felt after that answer that the minister had no intention whatsoever of intervening in this strike by introducing back-to-work legislation. In fact, his answer to me indicated a complete capitulation. However, later in the afternoon the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) made a statement. I shall quote from page 3719 of Hansard for June 30, 1972:
Mr. Speaker, at eleven o'clock I asked that the adjournment motion stand in the expectation that the situation in Montreal might have clarified in the meantime so that the motion could be put and carried at this point. However, I am advised by the Minister of Labour (Mr. O'Connell) that the situation has not cleared up sufficiently that it would be desirable from the point of view of the government to put and carry the adjournment motion at this point.
In other words, we returned to this House yesterday and today for the sole purpose of passing back-to-work legislation for the ports of Montreal, Trois-Rivieres and Quebec. This government has shirked its responsibility in connection with this illegal, wildcat strike for at least four weeks. This government has taken a laissez-faire attitude, as it has always done in the past. This government, by not taking action earlier, has caused more unemployment in the Montreal area and an estimated loss of $1 million per day as reported by the news media. As I have said before this government, through its laissez-faire attitude, has capitulated during every strike under federal jurisdiction such as the traffic controllers strike, the postal strike, the seaway strike and so on. I would not be surprised if, for a change, Liberal backbenchers forced the Minister of Labour to bring in this back-to-work legislation. After all, it is election year and the people of Montreal are very unhappy with this do-nothing attitude of the Liberal government in serious situations such as this.


Mr. Gilbert:: You supported them for many years.


Mr. Muir:: Then he saw the light.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Lachine has the floor.


Raymond Rock: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of speaking for very long in this debate-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Raymond Rock: -because I want to see these men back to work, as all other members do. I want to see the ports of Montreal, Trois-Rivieres and Quebec in full operation as soon as possible. In all grievances and strikes in essential services it seems that those people who are most affected, the public, the people of the area, have no say while every strike which involves essential services does irreparable harm to the economy of this country. I believe it is time

Parliament thought of the public interest. The opinion of the public is that employees engaged in essential services should not have the right to strike. My constituents were asked the following question: Should persons involved in essential services have the right to strike? A negative answer was received from 80 per cent. In fact, 476 answered yes, 2,501 answered no and 170 were undecided.
I believe Parliament should adopt legislation forbidding strikes in essential services, and should provide other binding methods and means of settling these disputes. The crux of the whole problem regarding this strike is that it was and is an illegal strike, and it has continued because the government has shown weakness. It continued also because the Minister of Labour refused to permit the St. Lawrence stevedoring firms to prosecute a union of 3,250 dock workers who were on strike in defiance of court injunctions.
During this illegal strike, court action should have been taken and if court decisions were not obeyed the government should have acted immediately. Instead, the government's laissez-faire attitude prolonged this strike to seven weeks. Since this government allowed this strike to continue for seven weeks, all grain shipments bypassed these three ports. This strike cost shipping agents in Montreal $100,000 a day. The cost to the community in loss of salary and direct income has exceeded $1 million a day. One hundred and thirty two ships have sailed or have been diverted from Montreal with full holds, and hundreds of other ships never showed up. Ten thousand people depend directly on the port for jobs, and many times that number in service industries are affected. The port pumps approximately $250 million a year into the Montreal economy During this strike Montreal has lost $1 million a day. Over the past eight years labour disputes have virtually crippled the port of Montreal and this strike has done so much harm that the port may not return to its former position. This government knew this and yet they allowed this strike to continue, thus jeopardizing the future of the port of Montreal.
My colleague, the hon. member for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Valade) presented a motion, which I seconded, calling on the government to end the dock strike immediately. This was 21 days ago, and only now the government has taken action. It makes no difference to me now whether this bill is referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration or whether it goes directly to the committee of the whole, so long as we give it second and third reading as rapidly as possible in order to get these three ports back in operation.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I shall hold the floor just for a few minutes and only to clarify a few things, following my colleague from Kamouraska (Mr. Dionne).
The Canadian Parliament today faces the unfortunate obligation to intervene in a labour dispute of a magnitude which is difficult to appreciate. The dispute which has now completely crippled the habours of Montreal, Trois-Rivieres and Quebec for nearly eight weeks, has not been solved despite negotiation, dialogue and pooling of data.

And what is more serious still is the fact that even arbitration was not deemed a suitable settlement for the dispute by both parties. Today, we have a deadlock: the union involved refuses to abide by the decision of the arbitrator.
For his part, the Minister of Labour (Mr. O'Connell) does not deserve all the blame but he deserves criticism on one point, and this is why I wish to speak.
This afternoon, the minister himself stated that he did not want to intervene directly as long as the opposing parties were not conforming to the labour legislation.
I think that the minister had foreseen that should there be no other possible means, he would introduce special legislation to force resumption of work.
This is why Parliament is today considering Bill C-230.
Mr. Speaker. I often approve the minister, but I do not approve of his position; I do not approve of his choice and his reluctance to intervene at the appropriate time. I also approve neither the disrespectful attitude of employees towards the laws governing this country, nor the employers for their provocative and uncompromising stance in the negotiations.
Union members have not cooperated in good faith in the arbitration process, as was pointed out this afternoon by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) and this is also serious.
In his decision, the adjudicator has dealt with the question of job security, one of the foremost and basic causes of conflict.
Today, the minister introduces a bill in which subclauses 1 and 2 of clause 7 deal with job security and he submits that this bill, once passed, will force both parties to resort to arbitration in order to determine when the job security plan becomes effective.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to support this assertion. Today Parliament finds itself obliged to bring in a back-to-work legislation. As was mentioned by my colleague from Kamouraska, everything that exists in this country is not the result of strikes, but rather of the work of man. And it is not with work stoppages that we shall settle disputes.
It is unfortunate that our laws be based on a rather negative philosophy as far as work is concerned. Actually, they do not encourage employers or employees to settle a dispute as soon as possible, but rather to resort to a very complex procedure so that a dispute may last up to seven or eight weeks, with very serious social, economic and financial implications for the strikers' families, the financial world, the general public as well as the whole country.
Mr. Speaker-and this is what I wanted to emphasize-it seems to me that it is absolutely essential and fundamental that the minister, tonight, undertake to review labour laws in order to make them more constructive for labour so that solutions be found before conflicts break out; these laws must provide for the occurence of conflicts in order to avoid them.
I remember a few labour disputes where the parties had waited until the agreement had expired to start negotiations. Mere logic would require that negotiations should start within the last six months before the expiration of the agreement, in order to prevent a situation where for
St. Lawrence Ports Operations Bill
four or five months or more, there is no collective agreement or to prevent a dispute from lasting as long as the strike we are trying to settle.
I find it extremely unfortunate that Parliament should be obliged to interfere in a private dispute. I think that the role of Parliament is not to negotiate or to legislate on a specific dispute, but rather to provide society as a whole with the instrument required to prevent such disputes and to ensure the progressive development of our economy.
At all events, this dispute has been going on for too long and those responsible are not all on the same side. I believe that even if the Minister of Labour (Mr. O'Connell) took a long time to intervene, he deserves our support because the national interest is now in jeopardy.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, I will, reluctantly, support this bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: May I point out to the House that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have very few remarks to make at this stage. I want to thank hon. members for their contribution to the debate. I have listened with a great deal of interest and some points of particular interest have been raised. I want to say first, in answer to a question put to me by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) who inquired whether the question of the withdrawal by the employers' association of various charges that had been laid against the union-


David Lewis: Contemplated.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: -or contemplated against the union, had arisen during the mediation sessions over the past four days and had entered into the mediation discussions. The answer I gave then, and it was a correct answer, was that this question had not arisen during the mediation procedures. The answer I gave, therefore, was correct; there was no reference in the mediators' proposals to the possible withdrawal of charges or contemplated charges.
It was correct, also, to say that only after the mediators' proposals had been prepared-it is somewhat unusual for mediators to prepare a set of proposals except in the last instance; they having arrived at that point and having felt there was a reasonable chance of the parties agreeing, then they would make a set of proposals-and presented to both parties that the president of the union, at the point of his departure, raised in a manner which I think might be described as casual the question of the possible withdrawal of those charges. So this question had not entered into the discussions to that point.
I want to reply to a criticism of this by the hon. member for Hamiton West (Mr. Alexander), repeated by the hon. member for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Valade) and perhaps by others, that it does not include the proposals placed before the two parties by the mediators, senior officers of my department, on July 3. I think that is a very silly proposal to come forward with at this time.
July 5, 1972

St. Lawrence Ports Operations Bill
I thought I had fully explained why those kinds of proposals have no place at all in the kind of bill which this Parliament is being asked to pass. The mediators' proposals included a date suggested for the phasing back in of the job security provisions. It is not appropriate-I was glad to find the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) and others supporting me in this position-that we as Members of Parliament enter substantially into the dispute, and we would be doing that if we inserted into the legislation the proposals the mediators set forth as a possible solution, which were not accepted by one of the two parties.
We would not have in our possession the technical facts, the complicated facts as to when the job security plan can be reinstated. That is a matter that will properly come before an arbitrator. This is consistent with the tradition that has been followed in the past. It would be a grave mistake; I would go further than that and say that the hon. gentlemen who propose it must acquit themselves of misunderstanding the whole collective bargaining process, the very charge which they level so lightly on the Minister of Labour. I was somewhat surprised at the naivety that is behind that suggestion.
The hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Dionne), who is here at the moment, raised a point which he has raised before and which I think all of us must take seriously, that labour legislation is complicated legislation and it is difficult for persons to understand. But, Mr. Speaker, members of unions do engage collective bargaining agents. They do have the benefit of counsel in these matters. They are at no disadvantage in looking at legislation that Parliament enacts. It may be complicated but the basics are very simply stated. Whereas I sympathize with the point of view put forward by the hon. member for Kamouraska, I do not think we can do anything about it.
The leader of the NDP, the hon. member for York South, raised a very important question to which I would like to address just a few remarks. That question was related to the range in time, the jurisdiction given to the arbitrator over the whole term of the agreement, as the clause now reads, to modify the collective agreement in the restricted area where it applies to the job security provisions. I want to think about this overnight again and consult my senior officers. I do not want to make a commitment that we are prepared to restrict further the restricted range that the arbitrator has in which to make his judgment. First of all, he is restricted in that any modification he may bring in, in an award, is a modification only of the job security part of the collective agreement. That job security plan is suspended by this bill for a period of time to be determined by the arbitrator.
Should he be restricted in time to this shipping season or to the end of this year, and not have the ability at that point in time when he comes to make his decision- remembering that whenever he fixes a date he automatically involves himself in the modification of the job security plan as presently in the collective agreement-or are the uncertainties so great as to the building up of tonnages that he needs the capability of extending his modification in this restricted area down through the full term of the collective agreement?

I shall give that question very serious consideration because it is not our intention to give wide scope to the arbitrator, and I am sure it would never be the intention of Parliament to give wide scope to any arbitrator to modify the terms of a collective agreement. The necessary scope given in this case to modify an agreement is an exception to the general rule. Arbitrators interpret agreements and make awards with respect to violations. It is an unusual circumstance when they are given the power to modify. Yet that is the power that it is necessary to give here. We want to give it in a narrow range to make sure it is confined to the job security provisions, and we will give additional consideration to the time scope.
To assist hon. members in coming to their views perhaps I ought to make clear that the job security fund, as constituted, is not a direct payment from the employers' treasury, as it were; it is not coming from the employers' funds. The job security fund emerges and becomes established through a levy on the tonnage that goes through that port, so much per ton of general cargo and so much in a higher amount for container cargo. So that in this light we are not talking about bargaining over management's costs but we are talking about the capacity of a fund, developed in this manner, actually to sustain the job security provisions of the collective agreement. I want to give this point full consideration, but it may indeed be very difficult at this time, in view of the uncertainties that face the near-term and the longer-term, to restrict the arbitrator to a given period of time when he has all the facts in front of him and when he considers the future with the best judgment that he can exercise. Those are questions at which we will continue to look.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to say I have noted that all parties in this House propose to give their agreement to second reading of this bill. I think that demonstrates our full acceptance of the engagement, of the public interest in this dispute. It shows a realization of the very grave nature of it, not only in the legal sense but in the economic sense and, I would add, the social sense, and an appreciation of the damage it has unnecessarily done already as well as the damage that any prolongation would bring to these three ports, their communities and the country at large.


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


David Lewis: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the minister would mind answering a question?


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Yes, Mr. Speaker, if you permit.


David Lewis: I noted the minister emphasized that the power given to the arbitrator under clause 7 of the bill is confined to a narrow area, namely, the area of job security. I should like to ask the minister whether it is not true that even though that is just one area of the collective agreement, it is qualitatively the most important area, the one that caused the greatest problem in negotiations? Is it not also true that the agreement that was arrived at last April contained a very large amendment to the job security plan that the agreement contained before, and that as
July 5, 1972

far as the agreement is concerned it is no longer based on a particular fund? By giving the arbitrator the powers the law now gives him, to interfere with the future of the parties in the last two years of the agreement as well as this year, does the minister not think that is a very dangerous thing to do in principle? It would also seem to be dangerous in terms of getting the agreement of the union and employers concerned to accept the law with some grace.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Mr. Speaker, I am going to continue to give a good deal of consideration to this aspect. I should like to go one step further and draw attention to the wording of subparagraph (b) which says, in my view, that the modifications which may in the arbitrator's view be necessary are just those modifications necessary to give effect to the job security provisions and to make them viable provisions, not to modify them over a long period of time for any reason other than to ensure that there will be job security provisions and that the sense of the collective agreement will be brought to bear on that situation.
I do agree that the job security provisions are one of the very major aspects of this agreement. I also agree that we are entering upon a serious step when we give an arbitrator the modification power. But, Mr. Speaker, the parties have brought this situation to the point where the ports are not open, the national interest is engaged, and so we are required to take some drastic measures that may not be palatable. However, they are required in the public interest in order to open those ports again.
It is necessary to clear this question of return to work which has been a stumbling block. We must lodge the
St. Lawrence Ports Operations Bill
power to make those modifications in some place. We are lodging it in the place the parties themselves selected, in the arbitrators in whom they have confidence. Perhaps there is no escape from the dilemma, if you like to call it that, no escape from giving the modification powers. However, it may be that subclause (b) sufficiently confines those powers only to the modifications that would in fact make it a viable job security plan.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, I want to consider this overnight. We will have another opportunity to review it at committee stage.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time.
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, we are sitting tonight by the general consent of the House. Following consultations, I feel that it would be more in keeping with that general consent if we began the committee of the whole stage at the next sitting tomorrow. 1 would, therefore, like to move the adjournment of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: This House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
On motion of Mr. MacEachen, the House adjourned at 9.50 p.m., pursuant to special order.

Thursday. luly 6, 1972