1972-04-13

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a very brief statement with regard to the business of the House which, hopefully, can be translated into a House order.
We have had some discussions and, in view of the events tomorrow, we have agreed that we might extend the oral question period today to occupy a period of 60 minutes. That is the first part of the arrangement. Second, when the House adjourns today it will stand adjourned until Monday, April 17, 1972, at 2 o'clock p.m., the result being that there will be no sitting of the House tomorrow morning or afternoon. The address of the President is an address to a joint meeting of the House of Commons and the Senate. It is not a sitting of the House in the normal sense. That arrangement will permit the facilities to be prepared for the address tomorrow afternoon.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) has indicated the situation properly. Although we feel that one hour will hardly suffice to deal with the very serious and large number of problems that the government will have to face, we will accept it for the time being.


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


Mr. Fortin:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the arrangements proposed by the President of the Privy Council. Is it the pleasure of the House to agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is agreed and so ordered.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I ask the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion concerning serious aspects of this country's foreign policy. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall):
That this House suspend all other items of business this day and direct itself to a discussion of those vital questions affecting Canadian-United States relations, in such areas inter alia as diplomacy, commerce, energy, resources and environment control so that the President of the United States may have the benefit of the views of the representatives of the people of Canada in this very crucial period in the relationships between our two friendly and allied nations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member. Under the terms of Standing Order 43 it requires unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move a motion under Standing Order 43. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the subject matter of the latest unpredicted increase in unemployment be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs for study and report thereon and that the standing committee be instructed to call as a witness the Minister of Finance in order to examine him on the accuracy of the government's forecasts of unemployment and to determine the reliability of future forecasts.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion brought forward by the hon. member for Regina East. It requires unanimous consent of the House.

Is there unanimity?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

April 13, 1972
Manpower Shortage


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



INDUSTRY


Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I solicit adjournment of the House in order to deal with a matter which I consider to be very urgent, regarding citizens receiving unemployment insurance benefits.
In our region, many citizens operating maple groves need extra labour during the sugar season, which they find practically impossible to hire because those receiving unemployment insurance benefits are unwilling to risk losing this coverage. We humbly request that the House-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret having to interrupt the hon. member who seems about to bring forward a substantive motion in the House. The hon. member calls for adjournment of the House under S.O. 43. I take the liberty of reminding him that adjournment of the House must be sought under S.O. 26, which requires advance notice to the Chair.
The hon. member should therefore present his motion otherwise, under S.O. 26.


MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26 EXTERNAL AFFAIRS CANADA-UNITED STATES RELATIONS
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 26 I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Hillsborough, to move the adjournment of the House in order to discuss a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely the issues which are or ought to be discussed between President Nixon and the Prime Minister on the occasion of the visit of the President of the United States to Ottawa, including, in particular, questions dealing with trade relations, foreign investment, pipeline construction from northern parts of the continent, pollution and the Alaska Highway, so that the members of this House, as the representatives of the people, might be able to indicate the views of the people of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: I have serious reservations as to the form of the presentation of the hon. member for Peace River and of the notice he has given to the Chair, but I can confirm that the hon. member has in fact given notice of his intention to move the adjournment of the House for

the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter under the provisions of Standing Order 26.
There is little doubt that the subject matter of the hon. member's proposal is of great importance and that the matters he would like the House to consider today are of current and national interest. My difficulty is to determine whether the proposal, though I fully recognize its timeliness, importance and national interest, meets the requirements for immediate debate at this particular moment under the provisions of Standing Order 26.
My understanding of Standing Order 26 is that its provisions relate to a genuine emergency arising suddenly and requiring immediate debate. It does seem to me that the President's projected visit to Ottawa has been common knowledge to members of the House prior to the Easter adjournment. As early as October 15 last it was the subject matter of a question and a reply in the House. The proposed visit was formally announced in the Speech from the Throne on February 17 last. Hon. members need not be reminded that the debate on the address did provide an opportunity to discuss the several topics enumerated by the hon. member for Peace River. Furthermore, each one of these matters has been raised in the House on a number of occasions in the course of debates on supply motions, during the question period, during adjournment proceedings and, as I have said, during the address debate. In light of these circumstances it would be exceedingly difficult for the Chair to allow the motion at this time.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: have a question for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the seasonally adjusted unemployment figures show that unemployment has risen again to above 6 per cent, I should like to ask the right hon. gentleman whether it is the view of the government that there are plenty of jobs available if people will take them, or whether the government intends to announce any new policies designed to reduce this very disappointing rate of unemployment? In the latter case, would the Prime Minister indicate very briefly what these policies will be?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: The answer to both questions at this time is no, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Then may I put a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. May I ask the Minister of Finance if he has yet made up his mind whether he will present a budget to the House? If so, when can it be expected, and will it indicate any proposals with regard to the economy?
April 13, 1972

Hon. ]ohn N. Turner (Minister oi Finance): Mr. Speaker, if a budget is presented to the House sufficient notice will be given so that the hon. gentleman can prepare.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, for the Prime Minister. In view of the difficulties the government seems to be experiencing in arriving at a policy in this regard, does the Prime Minister intend to seek in this area the assistance of Business International Executive Services?



UNEMPLOYMENT INCREASE-GOVERNMENT ACTION IN ANTICIPATION-SUGGESTED REDUCTION OF INTEREST RATES

Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the very serious rise in unemployment, had the government foreseen that this was going to take place?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member might like to rephrase the question; I do not think it can be asked in those terms. Whether the government had foreseen certain events or not is not a question that can be asked at this time. The hon. member might like to rephrase his question.


Max Saltsman: May I ask the minister whether he had taken any action in anticipation of this increase in unemployment?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I may not have the foresight of the hon. member but I do not have his gift of hindsight either.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister an additional question and perhaps he will be less inclined to be smart-alecky about the whole thing.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Hees:: He is trying to build a reputation as a wisecracker.


Max Saltsman: I see he is not the only one on that side who is smart-alecky.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I gather there is only one hour for the question period.


Max Saltsman: My question to the Minister of Finance is this: In view of the artificial level of the Canadian dollar, which is much higher as a result of the policy of the Bank of Canada to maintain higher interest rates than those in the United States, and in view of the serious unemployment situation which requires that there be an increase in manufacturing jobs-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Max Saltsman: -can the Minister of Finance indicate whether he is holding discussions with the governor of the Bank of Canada in an effort to reduce interest rates further in Canada?
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I meet with the governor once a week and these matters are under review.



UNEMPLOYMENT INCREASE IN ATLANTIC PROVINCES- SUGGESTED RENEGOTIATION OF REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION AGREEMENTS

Mr. lames A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the increase in the unemployment rate on a regional basis-I am thinking especially of the Atlantic provinces-is the minister prepared to renegotiate the present DREE agreements with the four Atlantic provinces in view of the failure of present agreements seriously to curb rising unemployment?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister oi Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, agreements can always be renegotiated if all parties wish to do so. If the provinces want to renegotiate part of the agreement I will be pleased to comply with their request.



ATLANTIC PROVINCES-NEW PROGRAMS TO PRODUCE EMPLOYMENT

Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the statement today in the job vacancy survey showing in the Atlantic region a 15 to 1 ratio between unemployed persons and job vacancies, compared with Canada's 12 to 1 ratio, indicating that the Atlantic region has the highest unemployment and the fewest job opportunities, can the Prime Minister say whether he is prepared to introduce some new employment-producing programs for this region of Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact the same survey shows Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom with a job vacancy ratio of 1.3 to 1 and Canada with 10.6 to 1, is the Prime Minister now prepared to send out a corrected version of the last six or seven speeches he has made across the country?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Does the hon. member for Champlain wish to ask a supplementary?


Mr. Matte:: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I shall recognize the hon. member for Champlain in a few minutes.

April 13, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry



UNEMPLOYMENT INCREASE-SUGGESTED INITIATIVES TO ENSURE BUILDING OF MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE

Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the increase in the unemployment rate in this country, is the minister prepared to announce any new initiatives in the direction of ensuring that the Mackenzie Valley pipeline will be built rather than the TAPS pipeline which seems to be the route preferred by the Americans at the present time?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, we have no special announcement to make in that connection since final decisions have not yet been taken by either side.



UNEMPLOYMENT-CONSISTENCY OF LATEST STATISTICS AND FINANCE DEPARTMENT FORECASTS- FORECASTS FOR COMING MONTHS

John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. Are the latest unemployment statistics consistent with whatever forecasts have been produced within his department? Will he also indicate whether he has forecasts of unemployment in the coming months that he is prepared to make available to members of the House of Commons?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the figures that were published still show there are too many men and women in this country out of work.


An hon. Member:: You can say that again.


John Napier Turner: I am confident that the strengthening economy will bite into these unemployment figures. I am not in the business of forecasting, but if the hon. member will review what I said when I first addressed myself to this subject during the throne speech debate I think he will have a full answer to his question.



UNEMPLOYMENT INCREASE-INTRODUCTION OF MAKE-WORK PROGRAMS

Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: question is directed to the Acting Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the high unemployment rate, is it the intention of the government to introduce make-work programs similar to the local incentives program in the future to overcome unemployment?


Hon. Martin P. O'Connell (Acting Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the question of direct employment programs is under constant consideration by the government. If there are any new ones they will be announced in due course in the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Has the right hon. gentleman a supplementary question?



UNEMPLOYMENT INCREASE-ADVERTISING OF JOB OPPORTUNITIES IN PARIS NEWSPAPERS

['Order, please. Obviously many members wish to ask supplementaries on this important matter, They will be recognized in a moment. However, before returning to the hon. member for Calgary North for a supplementary as well as others on this subject, I think the Chair should recognize the hon. member for Champlain.\nInquiries of the Ministry']
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I believe this question will clarify the whole situation.


An hon. Member:: You should have someone over there to do it.


John George Diefenbaker: I direct this question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I have before me a translation of an advertisement which appeared in Figaro and at least two other Paris papers. The embassy of Canada asks that the coupon be filled in and returned and says that those who do so will receive free documentation on the Canadian way of life. It states in part:
To the higher staff and to the technicians.
To the young graduate like you. In such a case, instead of waiting, write to us. Simply fill in the coupon below and you will receive complete documentation on all the available careers in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder whether the right hon. gentleman has a question to ask after that preliminary?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I put the question in this form because the advertisement suggests that they will get good jobs that are available.


An hon. Member:: You shouldn't listen to or believe everything you hear or read.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentleman who just interrupted will soon be out of employment, whenever the election occurs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I ask the minister whether he will table in the House a list of all the good jobs referred to in this advertisement which states:
You will find out that all good jobs are not filled everywhere. They are available where you are most needed.
Would the minister table a list of the good jobs in the higher echelons, the technical and university trained, that are available and which he had in mind when he inserted this advertisement?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the right hon. member for having asked such a clarifying question. I will look at the advertisement and if I can add something which would be of interest to him or other members of the House I shall do so.


John George Diefenbaker: Is the inference to be drawn that the minister did not know the advertisement was being put in the Paris papers?
April 13, 1972



Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he can inform the House as to what the agenda is for his meeting with the President of the United States, whether such agenda has been adopted by the two administrations, and what items it covers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there has been no formal agenda adopted for the talks between the President and myself. We will talk informally and have an exchange of views on many, many subjects.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether it is his intention to take up with the President of the United States the present dangerous situation of the war in Viet Nam and whether he will seek an assurance from the President of the United States that nuclear weapons will not be used, even though I cannot believe that administration would permit the use of such weapons, in order to reassure the people of the world that this will not occur?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.


Gerald William Baldwin: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Does the Prime Minister intend to ask the President whether the recent statements by Secretary Connally that Canada cannot have a trade surplus with the United States represent the position of the President?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I will refer to any particular quotation, whether exact or not. I will ask him for his own view on these things as I did in September.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, can the Prime Minister at least tell us whether he will be discussing with the President the question of the foreign investment policy of this government and, if so, will the government then feel free after the discussion with the President to announce the policy to the House and the country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We always feel free to do that, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Obviously many members wish to ask supplementaries on this important matter, They will be recognized in a moment. However, before returning to the hon. member for Calgary North for a supplementary as well as others on this subject, I think the Chair should recognize the hon. member for Champlain.
Inquiries of the Ministry



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State.
Have the parties concerned asked the minister to intervene in the conflict between the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and NABET?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: No, Mr. Speaker.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
Does the minister intend to do something in that connection, so that the Canadian people may obtain the services they are paying for?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I think that the Department of Labour, which is directly responsible, is quite busy at the present time trying to settle the conflict.


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary.
I should like to know whether, before the CBC authorities imposed the lock-out, the minister was consulted with a view to ascertaining whether or not it might not have been possible to proceed by injunction against NABET members to order them back to work, that the people might benefit from the services of the CBC for which they pay so dearly?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I understand the dissertation but I fail to grasp the question.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. I shall clarify my question.
Did the minister advise the CBC authorities to get an injunction ordering NABET members to return to work before the lock-out?


Gérard Pelletier: No, Mr. Speaker. With regard to the allegation that the CBC locked out its staff, the situation is not as clear cut as the hon. member makes it to be.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member for Edmonton West rising on a supplementary? The Chair undertook a moment ago to return to the previous question on which I believe there are a few supplementaries, beginning with the hon. member for Calgary North.
Inquiries of the Ministry OIL

April 13, 1972



POSSIBLE DISCUSSION OF NORTHERN PIPELINE ROUTES WITH PRESIDENT NIXON DURING VISIT TO OTTAWA

Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister be prepared to clear up the question of whether pipeline routes, the Alaska route to Valdez or the overland route down the Mackenzie Valley, will be discussed with the President of the United States during his visit to Canada? I ask this in light of the fact that the Alaska route seems to be a fait accompli and in view of the fact that there is a serious danger of pollution to the west coast of Canada.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I cannot say if that subject will be discussed, but if there is time and an interest in doing so on the part of the President I shall raise it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Has the minister given any thought to discussing this subject with the President of the United States in light of reports that some discussion in reference to this matter is going to take place with the President?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister oi Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the question has already been discussed with the American administration.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I ask one further supplementary, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Calgary North on a further supplementary.



PROPOSED MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE-STUDY OF ECONOMICS AND ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS

['Yes, and in due course, Mr. Speaker.']
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Would the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources be prepared to tell the House now what study Canada has undertaken in reference to the economics of the Mackenzie Valley route and the ecology and who is heading that study, or is it being left to free enterprise? Is there some liason between the coporate bodies and the government?
Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines
and Resources): No, Sir. By the end of the current fiscal year the government will have expended approximately $15 million on studies of all phases of the pipeline, from the economic implications right up to the ecological considerations. By the end of this year we would expect to be in a position to provide guidelines to the National Energy Board and other agencies which will have to consider the pipeline, for the purpose of making an evaluation. In effect the board and the government agencies have been and will be further put in possession of the research background for this proposal so they can consider an application.



Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact the Prime Minister stated that discussions between himself and the President of the United States would be of a general nature, could he inform the House whether the United States government proposed three specific subjects for discussion which were turned down by the Canadian government? If this is so, why were they turned down?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have never heard of any suggestions the United States made to us that we would have turned down. We are prepared to discuss any subject they want to raise with us as we do between friends.


Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex):: I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. In view of the grave implications of the current break in trade talks with the United States, particularly with regard to the auto pact, is it the intention of the right hon. gentleman on behalf of the government to discuss the possibilities of an early resumption of those negotiations when he talks with President Nixon?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the question implies that there has been some voluntary interruption in the talks, and this is not the case. I am sure the President and I will discuss general trade matters and we will be saying what we have always said, that there is no interruption on our part, that we are always open to any continuation of those talks.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister as well, Mr. Speaker. Can the Prime Minister indicate whether, in his discussions with the President, he will touch upon defence production arrangements? If so, will he go into these talks with an open mind or have we already arrived at some agreement in earlier talks with the Americans on this particular subject?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this is really getting into the kind of package which has been discussed by the negotiating parties in the last several months until the February meeting. As the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has said, I do not think it would be advantageous for the Canadian government to state publicly what its bargaining position is. I believe he also said that we had discussed a series of subjects and, if my memory is correct, this is one of those which he admitted we were discussing.
April 13, 1972


J. Michael Forrestall: I appreciate the full answer given by the Prime Minister. I wonder if I could now direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In arriving at our bargaining position has the question of the purchase by Canada of the Orion as a replacement for the Argus been taken into consideration?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I remember the then Minister of National Defence saying that the Americans had a number of products they would like to sell to Canada and I remember him saying also that we were making our own estimation and looking at our own requirements.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, Mr. Speaker. Has any date been set for resumption of the discussions between the governments of Canada and the United States on the subject of trade and the difficulties and disputes existing between the two countries? The last time I asked the minister, no date had been set. Has a date now been set or is a date under discussion?


Jean-Luc Pepin: No date has been set for formal resumption of the discussions, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Is a date for the resumption of those discussions being actively sought by Canada?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I have said before that the fact that there are no active negotiations does not mean that the whole exercise has come to a stop. As my friend knows, we have, for example, an embassy in Washington and maintaining contact is the usual type of work we can expect of an embassy.


Mr. Speaker:: Again I see that a number of hon. members are seeking supplementaries. For the moment I will recognize the hon. member for Waterloo on a supplementary and then the hon. member for Edmonton West.


Max Saltsman: My question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, Mr. Speaker, and refers to his earlier statement that studies are being conducted on the Mackenzie pipeline route. In the economic studies that are being conducted is the effect on the Canadian dollar being taken into consideration? If such a study is being made, when will the minister
Inquiries of the Ministry
let the House into his confidence on the conclusions of that study?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, and in due course, Mr. Speaker.



INCOME TAX


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: My question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue, Mr. Speaker. Bearing in mind that the new Income Tax Act came into effect on January 1, 1972, will the minister tell the House and the business community when his department is going to publish the regulations dealing with the capital gains tax, taxation of corporations and the complicated business of taxation of partnerships?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I shall take the question as notice and endeavour to provide a reply when next in the House.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Is the minister implying that he does not know whether he has authorized these regulations and whether they have been published yet?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Certainly not, Mr. Speaker.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, I shall put my question to his parliamentary secretary.
Since maple sugar producers are experiencing difficulties in finding the required manpower, would the parliamentary secretary say whether it is intended to change the unemployment insurance regulations in order to allow the unemployed to work during the sugar season, without losing their entitlement to benefits?


Mr. Ray Perrault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: This matter will be taken under consideration, Mr. Speaker.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


George Harris Hees: I have a question for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Would the

April 13, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
Prime Minister advise the House if the meeting originally scheduled to start next Monday between the cabinet and 60 very important international businessmen was cancelled because the government is not yet in a position to announce its foreign investment in Canada policy and, if not, why was this very important meeting cancelled?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the meeting on Monday with a business group has not been cancelled. There must be some misunderstanding.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for South Shore.


Mr. Crouse:: Mr. Speaker, I also wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister-


George Harris Hees: It wasn't cancelled? For Christ's sake!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for South Shore.



FISHERIES


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the serious depletion of our fishery resources on the east coast, will there be any discussions between the Prime Minister and the President of the United States directed toward establishing a joint fisheries conservation policy between Canada and the United States on our continental shelf?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.



HARBOURS


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. With reference to a recent announcement by the Prime Minister concerning the development of a northern Canadian seaport and the suggestion that this could take place within the next decade, has the Prime Minister considered that by capital expenditures of a rather moderate nature at the port of Churchill this could be achieved within a year or two?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have serious doubts about the way the question is asked. The hon. member is asking for an opinion on whether something might be realized in a year or two. In those terms the question is not in order.

Perhaps the hon. member might like to rephrase the question.


Robert Simpson: On a point of order, with due deference, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether you got the implication of my question. I just asked the Prime Minister if he would consider this matter.


Mr. Maclnnis:: He doesn't know where Churchill is.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: He is dead, Mr. Speaker.



MANPOWER


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration I would like to direct my question to the acting minister. Can he now say how many jobs have been created under the Local Initiatives Program?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question as asked should be put on the order paper or considered during the adjournment proceedings. The hon. member might like to rephrase the question.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I will direct an alternative question then, Mr. Speaker. Can the acting minister tell the House what type of follow-up program he has in mind after the Local Initiatives Program expires?


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, as I reported earlier, the question of any direct employment program is under consideration, and if any program comes forward it will be announced.



ON-JOB TRAINING-REJECTION OF STELLA LUCAS FOUNDATION PROJECT AFTER VERBAL ACCEPTANCE-AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS

Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Is it the policy of the minister or at least of the government to honour verbal as well as written assurances regarding subsidization of on-job training programs?


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the hon. gentleman means by verbal assurances. If he has any specific instance in mind I would like to hear about it in those terms.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Would the minister look into the situation concerning an organization in Hamilton, the Stella Lucas Foundation Ltd. which was given verbal assurance to go ahead with a particular program employing some 13 people but after it went ahead its program was rejected by way of a letter negating the original verbal assurance?
April 13, 1972


Mr. O'Connell:: Mr. Speaker, I would be very glad to look into that case, and if the hon. member has any additional information would he please let us have it.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask one last supplementary question. Is the minister aware of the fact that there are some 250 to 300 applications under the on-job training program in the Toronto-Hamilton area, and are there enough funds to honour these applications? In other words, are the funds overdrawn or will these applications be looked into and honoured? Is there enough money available?


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Mr. Speaker, the government is all too well aware that there were several hundred very good applications that could not be accepted because the financial limits had already been passed. The program was increased from $20 million to $50 million during the course of its life to try to respond to the flood of applications that came in.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Am I to understand from the answer the right hon. gentleman made to my colleague from Prince Edward-Hastings-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -that the meeting reported to have been arranged with members of the cabinet to enable U.S. businessmen to make representations to members of the cabinet, a meeting arranged by an organization known as Business International Executive Services, is in fact to take place and that the report in the press attributing the cancellation of that meeting to a member of the Prime Minister's staff was wrong?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, I am not
saying that, Mr. Speaker, and I am afraid that this question is not the same one. I also hope the hon. gentleman will make sure that the profanity of the hon. member remains on the blues.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Prime Minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member might wait until he is recognized. I am not sure but I thought the Leader of the Opposition had a supplementary question. If not, I will recognize the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Prime Minister was: was the reason that the meeting originally scheduled to commence Monday between members of the cabinet and 60 impor-
Inquiries of the Ministry
tant international businessmen-was it cancelled that the government is not in a position to announce its policy on foreign investment in Canada, or was it for some other reason? Would the Prime Minister answer that question?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the question was not asked in the same terms, as we will see in the blues which I am sure will be complete. I can only go on to say that my meeting on Monday with international businessmen has not been cancelled.


George Harris Hees: As a supplementary question, is the meeting to be held with members of the cabinet or not?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there is some misunderstanding here. I am sure the hon. member must be talking about a meeting which had been scheduled for Tuesday and which has been cancelled, but there is another meeting on Monday between businessmen and myself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I hope this matter can be concluded soon because we should move on to another question.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether the foreign businessmen in question are going to have another opportunity to make their representations about the policy of this government before the government announces its policy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well now, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is talking about the meeting which has been cancelled, and it was cancelled by them-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Cancelled by them?


George Harris Hees: By them?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Cancelled by them. We have always taken the position that we are prepared to discuss our policies with important visitors from abroad, and we still are.



NATIONAL REVENUE


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask what I think is an important question of the Minister of National Revenue. Is he aware of an interpretation bulletin issued by his department in October or November of last year which had the effect of enabling the Toronto Star to deduct from taxable income the $10 million paid by that organization for the subscription lists of the Toronto Telegram? If he is aware of that, can he indicate to the House the circumstances under which such a bulletin was issued by the department, which saved the Toronto Star over $5 million of tax money in connection with that situation?

April 13, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I am precluded by law from discussing the affairs of individual taxpayers, but I will be happy to look into the matter to see what type of further answer I can properly give to that question.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


David Lewis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member rises on a point of order. I will recognize the hon. member for York South on a supplementary afterwards.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, the minister claims he is precluded from discussing the tax affairs of any individual. Many precedents have been established within the last few months in this House when tax concessions to oil companies and others have been discussed.


Mr. Speaker:: Of course, that is debate. I would not think that is a point of order on which I ought to rule. The hon. member for York South is recognized for a supplementary.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister if he is aware that an interpretation bulletin was issued in October or November dealing with the acquisition by anyone of a list of customers under certain circumstances? If so, would he inform the House of the circumstances under which such an interpretation bulletin dealing with the deductibility for tax purposes of the purchase price of a list of customers was issued by his department?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased, as I said, to look into the matter and see what further information I can properly give.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a further supplementary question. Would the minister be prepared to table a copy of this interpretation bulletin which should, of course, be a public document, and at the same time also table any correspondence between the Toronto Star and his department or any notes of any conversations between members of his department and others speaking for or on behalf of the Toronto Star, including Hon. Walter Gordon?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: Here we go! I smell something coming up.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to consider the question of tabling such material as may be proper under our rules.
(Mr. Lewis.]



MANPOWER


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister of Manpower and Immigration is away, I would like to ask the Minister of Labour if funds made available to certain municipalities under the Local Initiatives Program will be earmarked for other projects in those same municipalities or whether they will simply be returned to the federal treasury?


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, in the case of the funds made available to municipalities for local initiatives programs there was a certain limited amount of overbooking or overfunding in the knowledge that some municipalities would not carry out their projects and that the total of funds would fall back to the limit. That seems to be happening.



WHEAT-INQUIRY AS TO LEGISLATION RESPECTING TWO-PRICE SYSTEM-MAILING OF CHEQUES FOR THIS YEAR

Mr. Craig Stewart (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, my question was for the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board who is supposed to be here today. In his absence I will direct it to the acting minister. Will legislation pertaining to the two-price system for wheat be introduced and proceeded with before the end of the present session?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I will take this question as notice. It will be answered the next time the minister is in the House.


Donald Craig Stewart: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the acting minister tell the House when the farmers' cheques will be mailed for this year?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. There are a number of questions on grains that I can answer today, but unfortunately this is not one of them.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It concerns the arrangement, apparently approved by the Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs, of conferring upon Business International Executive Services of the United States the exclusive right to have its clients make representations to a substantial
April 13, 1972

number of ministers of this government. I ask the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement clarifying this whole sordid affair?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: If so, will he explain in the course of that statement why the arrangement was approved initially and then disapproved when it became public knowledge?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I certainly will not make a statement, but I will answer any question that the hon. member wants to ask about this affair, which is only sordid in his own mind, I am afraid.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, is it the practice of the right hon. gentleman to confer upon a management service company the exclusive right to have its clients make representations to members of the cabinet of this country? Would the Prime Minister also indicate why this was approved in the first instance and then disapproved quite promptly after it became public knowledge?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On the first question, Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. Of course we did not confer any exclusive right-


George Harris Hees: Mitchell Sharp did.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -to any particular group to talk to the government. I said earlier that the government is open to representations from any important businessman, Canadian or foreign, who wants to have business with the members of this government and there is no exclusive-


George Harris Hees: Mitchell Sharp did.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: George, keep your cool.


George Harris Hees: I said, Mitchell Sharp organized the meeting.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must bring to the attention of hon. members that, even though the question period is 60 minutes, we will soon be running short of time. A number of hon. members have been waiting to ask questions since the beginning of the question period.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Would the right hon. gentleman agree to table all correspondence between the particular firm or business people themselves and his office, including, perhaps, a copy of the agenda? Would he be prepared to table this tomorrow?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I certainly would be prepared to table any correspondence between my office and such group. I will see if there has been any correspondence. There may not have been any correspondence. All I know is that this group asked for an appointment and that the appointment was granted to them on the basis that they had met many heads of government and ministers from many important countries, including their own, in the past few years. We accepted to receive them; however,
Inquiries of the Ministry
the publicity they had about the proposed meeting and the expectations they raised on behalf of the people they were soliciting for of course were of their own making, and they were not in any way known by the Canadian government.



HIGHWAYS


Mr. Robert Borrie (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might have an answer to the question I put to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development as recorded in Hansard at page 1266. In part the question reads:
In light of the statement by the government of British Columbia that an immediate start is to be made on the construction of an all-weather road in British Columbia linking Fort Nelson, B.C., and Fort Simpson, Northwest Territories, can the . . . minister advise when we may expect work to commence on the Northwest Territories section and when we may expect the completion of the road?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member asked this question. We had to suspend the building of the road from Fort Simpson to Fort Liard because we were not getting anywhere and because the government of British Columbia was not proceeding with its northbound road. But now that they have decided to proceed with this northbound road, we are resuming the building of our road. As to dates, we are studying the matter at the moment and shall inform the hon. member of this in due course.



ALASKA HIGHWAY-SUGGESTED RESUMPTION OF NEGOTIATIONS WITH UNITED STATES ON PAVING

Gerald William Baldwin: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Minister of Public Works if he will immediately resume negotiations with the United States government with regard to a joint arrangement for paving the Alaska highway?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, there were two meetings last fall called by officials of the United States government, at which officials of my department attended. They wanted to obtain some information, some data, with reference to traffic. That data was provided and American officials drew their own conclusion, namely, that they would not participate in a joint venture at this time.


Mr. Nielsen:: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Was it not the Canadian position that the Americans should bear 80 per cent of the cost and the Canadian government 20 per cent of the cost? Is that the Canadian government's idea of a joint venture?

April 13, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will appreciate that the question as asked is argumentative. Perhaps he could redraft it.


Erik Nielsen: I will rephrase it, Mr. Speaker. Is the Canadian government not prepared to embark on a joint venture with the American government for the paving of the highway on a 50-50 basis?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: No, Mr. Speaker. The negotiations did not reach that stage.



INDUSTRY


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. A number of my constituents are badly worried because the Skil Corporation, power machinery division, of which they are employees, has announced that it will close down its Vancouver operation in July. In view of the very serious unemployment situation, will the minister discuss with this company the prospects for keeping their Vancouver plant in operation?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, that was done about a year or two ago. We managed to convince the company to stay and continue to produce in Vancouver for a while longer, but they now find they cannot go on any longer. As a matter of fact, this subject is scheduled for debate at ten o'clock. I or my Parliamentary Secretary will try to provide a "Skilful" answer at that time.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Will the minister consider making a statement on motions as to what alternative employment can be provided for these workers who are going to be displaced?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr, Speaker, this subject will be mentioned in my answer.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question with regard to the presidential visit tomorrow. I do not want to raise any false expectations, but having regard to what the Prime Minister said in reply to a previous question, that there is no agenda of specific items to be discussed and the conversations between the Prime Minister and the President are to be of a general nature and private, can the House assume that a joint communique will be issued after the meeting of

these two gentlemen outlining where we agree and where we disagree on some of the basic issues between the two countries?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, no plans have been made for a communique. It would be much too long if it were to outline the areas on which we agree.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Can we assume from the absence of the Secretary of the Treasury from the American delegation that there will be no serious discussions between Canada and the United States on some of the basic economic problems affecting the two countries? Also, who initiated the omission of the Secretary of the Treasury, Canada or the United States?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On the first question, Mr. Speaker, I assure the hon. member that he is free to assume what he wants. On the second question, I imagine it is the President of the United States who decides who will accompany him. I might see if he will entertain a question from the hon. member.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. I support him in everything he is doing-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: -to ensure security during the visit of the President of the United States. A great responsibility rests on the Prime Minister in that regard. I ask the Prime Minister whether a rumour that is going around has any basis in fact and whether the tradition of this House of Commons, which in the tradition of the British Parliamentary system has never permitted anyone to have arms within this institution, is going to be maintained tomorrow?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I believe that what happens in the House of Commons is under the jurisdiction of the Speaker. However, I believe it is possible for me to answer part of the question that is in the mind of the right hon. member by saying we made it quite clear to the Americans that the security of the President while he is in Canada is the business of the Canadian security forces, particularly the RCMP, but while he is in the House of Commons his security will be in the trust of the most excellent security staff of the House of Commons under the direction of the Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister admit that there will not be anyone, security force or otherwise of Canada or the United States, permitted to be in the galleries of this House during the visit to the House by the President?
April 13, 1972


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I assure the right hon. member that the government does not have control over who enters the galleries and who does not.


John George Diefenbaker: Any control of the House of
Commons?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I rather think Your Honour would agree with me that it is not the business of the government to determine the security measures to be taken in the House of Commons. I can only say the government has taken upon itself to make clear to the American government that the security of the President of the United States will be well handled by the Canadian security forces, both in the House of Commons and outside.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby has been trying for quite some time to ask a supplementary to a question asked some time ago. I will recognize him for that purpose.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, it is supplementary to an earlier question with regard to the visit of President Nixon. My question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that in the past American officials have had a legitimate criticism of our government's failure to achieve price parity for automotive products on both sides of the border, and in view of the fact it was recently revealed that the price differential between Canadian cars and American cars is now anywhere from $250 to $1,250, in short, back to the pre-auto pact level, can the minister inform the House to whether he has discussed this question in recent days with leaders in the Canadian sector of the industry and, if so, what were the results of those discussions?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I would not like it to be understood that the situation described is one that resulted from faster increases in prices in Canada than in the United States. The accentuated price gap is due to the revaluation of the Canadian dollar. As far as principles are concerned, most people in Canada feel there is an inevitable price disparity between the cost of automobiles in Canada and the United States. The question is how wide the tolerable gap should be. We analyse these things all the time. We are now making a deeper analysis.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby for a short supplementary. I hope he will receive a short reply from the minister.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I am not accepting the nonsensical premise of the answer. In view of the fact the revaluation of the Canadian dollar should, in fact, have caused a decrease in the price of products in this industry, has the minister taken any action with regard to at least getting some further reduction?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, in view of the nonsensical remark made by the hon. member, I feel compelled to remind him that there is an export and import aspect to trade in automobiles between Canada and the USA.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have the impression there is now a debate between the minister and the hon. member.



PENSIONS


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In light of the increased cost of living and concern by senior citizens of our country, is the government going to introduce legislation to increase the basic age pension and provide for a full cost of living escalator?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, on the premise of the question, the hon. member might want to know that the increase in the cost of living in March was one-tenth of 1 per cent, which is not a bad performance.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: With regard to the second part of the question, if there is any announcement we will make it in due course.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it the intention of the government to take any action to improve pensions for the elderly before this parliament is dissolved?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I can only say that if there is any announcement to make we will make it in this House.

1976 OLYMPIC GAMES, MONTREAL-POSSIBLE REQUEST FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. Three weeks have now passed since the right hon. gentleman made his last confession to the House in connection with the Montreal Olympics. Will he tell the House whether he is now aware of what is expected from Ottawa in the way of established programs for the Montreal Olympic games in 1976 and what the cost to the Canadian taxpayer will be?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, there has been no further step taken since I answered the question of the hon. member on this subject.

April 13, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry


Steve Eugene Paproski: Is the Prime Minister satisfied that Montreal will not call on Ottawa for money?



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I will bother him for some money. Will he cap his distinguished public career by promoting as vigorously as he can an early decision to construct a modern veterans' hospital in Halifax, perhaps tied in with the Department of National Defence?


An hon. Member:: And located in East Hants.


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I expected you to say that this was a representation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

1976 OLYMPIC GAMES, MONTREAL-PAYMENT OF GRANTS FOR CERTAIN WORKS


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a
question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion?
In view of the facilities that will be necessary for the Olympic games in Montreal, will this city receive grants for the building of such facilities, which would create many jobs?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, Montreal is not included in a special area, and I am not therefore empowered to grant any assistance for infrastructures.



TRANSPORTATION TO WEST COAST-COMMITMENT BY RAILWAYS TO SUPPLY EQUIPMENT

['Mr. Speaker, we received many representations until April 4 last. We have started looking into them and, in due course, will advise the House of the decision of the government. I can assure the hon. member that, in the course of this study, we will take into account the danger to the environment in that area.']
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the minister in charge of the Wheat Board and the Minister of Agriculture, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. It arises out of a meeting which took place in Winnipeg on April 6 between representatives of grain handling interests and the transportation companies. Was the government given any undertaking by the railroads that they would supply rolling stock and motive power to meet the emergency situation which now faces grain shipment to the west coast?
[Mr. Trudeau.)


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will be pleased to take notice of the question on behalf of the minister responsible for the Wheat Board.



Alfred Pullen Gleave: In view of the statement last week that a major northern port is to be developed in the future, may I ask whether any discussion took place in Winnipeg concerning immediate action to develop the port of Churchill so as to double or even treble grain movement from that port?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not
know whether such a discussion took place. I will refer that question also to the minister responsible. I might remind the hon. member that the port of Churchill serves the Atlantic Ocean and points east, whereas the northern port I have in mind would serve the Pacific Ocean area and points west.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: A further supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. We have just about run short of time and I think the Chair might be allowed to recognize a few more hon. members before orders of the day are called.


FISHERIES
Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries. It concerns a petition which was forwarded to the minister by a large number of fishermen in Placentia Bay having to do with the need for conservation measures to protect the herring resources of that area. Does the minister intend to take any action to conserve the herring stocks of the bay in line with the recommendations made by the fishermen?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister oi Fisheries):: The answer is very definitely yes. We have recently set up an Atlantic herring management committee. This committee is studying the problem and similar problems, and I hope it will soon be making a recommendation so that I can take the necessary action in that area.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have a difficult decision to make. We have just about reached the end of the question period. I would hope that we might eliminate supplemen-taries so as to allow time for direct questions. Perhaps the hon. member for St. John's West might be allowed one supplementary, and then I will recognize the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys.


Walter C. Carter: Can the minister tell the House whether it is his intention to announce new salmon fishing regulations to become effective during the forthcoming salmon season?

April 13, 1972

Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL PARKS


John (Jack) Davis: We have no new regulations to announce. We shall, however, be repeating those made last year to make sure that the fishermen fully understand the announcement made in 1971 with regard to 1972 and future years.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the persistent and staggeringly high rate of unemployment on the island of Cape Breton, would the minister be good enough to have experts from his department proceed to the island and offer their assistance and co-operation, and work in concert with the officials of the Cape Breton Development Corporation who are apparently encountering extreme difficulty in their efforts to create employment and induce new industry to move into the area?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am glad to hear an acknowledgement of the qualities of the officials of my department. They have been at the disposal of the Cape Breton Development Corporation since the inception of that corporation.


Robert Muir: They do not seem to be meeting with very much success.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the minister in charge of the environment. It arises out of a question I posed to the minister on March 29, as reported at page 1263 of Hansard, concerning the responsibility of the federal government in the area of crop damage caused by migratory water fowl. I might say that this causes the farmers of western Canada considerable financial loss. Is the minister now in a position to make an announcement to the House with respect to the details of such a program and, if not, why not, since parts of an announcement have already appeared in the press?


Mr. Speaker:: The first part of the question is in order and perhaps the minister might reply briefly.


John (Jack) Davis: This matter has been discussed with the responsible ministers in the prairie provinces and a recommendation has been made to the government. It is now under active discussion. I believe all parties agree. However, I am unable to announce the result until the discussions here in Ottawa are complete.


LAKE LOUISE PROJECT-REQUEST FOR DELAY TO STUDY ECOLOGICAL IMPACT
Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might put two short questions together and address them to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. They concern the proposed Esso Lake Louise Village project. I would ask the minister whether his department has reached a decision following the recent public hearings. If not, will he consider placing a moratorium on the Lake Louise Village development until a thorough study of the ecological impact has been carried out by competent ecologists and evaluated at a public hearing?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we received many representations until April 4 last. We have started looking into them and, in due course, will advise the House of the decision of the government. I can assure the hon. member that, in the course of this study, we will take into account the danger to the environment in that area.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Gerald William Baldwin: May I ask the President of the Privy Council to outline the government business which the House will be dealing with next week?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: On Monday we would continue to deal with the Canada Labour Code legislation which is now before the House if it is not completed today. After that we would continue discussion of the family income security plan and of the amendments to the Criminal Code in the name of the Minister of Justice, including the hijacking and privacy provisions.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from March 29 consideration of the motion of Mr. O'Connell that Bill C-183, to amend the Canada Labour Code, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
1296
[Stage Direction]
April 13, 1972
Canada Labour Code
Mr. Arthur Portelance (Gamelin):: Mr. Speaker, it seems to be particularly pertinent to have today this opportunity to discuss a bill respecting industrial relations in Canada.
All hon. members are currently watching the province of Quebec where a major conflict is paralyzing the public and para-public services. I am quite aware that the Quebec jurisdiction is the only one involved but the citizens cannot be prevented from wondering about the validity of our industrial relations system. This unfortunate event once more emphasizes that labour relations are a major problem in Canadian society and this problem will prevail until new structures are adopted to keep to a minimum the impact of industrial conflicts.
The public discussion of these unfortunate developments is caracterized by two main concepts: first, we have the reactionaries who are advocating the use of the whole legal machinery to impose solutions to these conflicts, starting with compulsory arbitration and up to labour relations lectures.
In this connection, the experience in New Zealand and Australia, where they have compulsory arbitration, proves beyond a doubt that it is not the solution. Industrial conflicts are not solved by making them illegal. When an illegal strike breaks out, the conciliation services of the state are not available. Despite everything, some people maintain that strikes must be declared illegal, that the strikers must be forced back to work, through illegal interventions.
At the other extreme we find those whom I would call adventurers, that is, those who claim that unions do not have enough power, that the state should give them the necessary tools or means to fight for the interests of their members. In practice, those people ask the state to take a stand in favour of union members while, traditionally, the state has played the role of mediator.
Half-way between these two trends of thought, a good many Canadians, while recognizing the positive part played by the trade unions on the one hand, and the dynamism shown by employers on the other hand, admit that public interest should prevail in such conflicts.
At the present time, the province of Quebec is passing through dramatic hours since hospital, school and other public services are almost paralysed. Such a state of affairs, apart from the blame to be assumed by the parties, simply shows that the present system is faulty and that time has come to correct it.
Also, I should like to point to a situation indicating that the present system, if improved through the amendments now before the House, could promote the development of sound relations between employers and employees.
Some ten days ago, the Montreal dockers ratified a contract, signed by their representative, guaranteeing labour peace for three years. Since a large number of the workers affected by this settlement live in my riding, I hastened to get in touch with some of them, in order to obtain further information on this situation; contrary to the first instance I have quoted, it unfortunately did not make headlines in this country's papers.

The history of the port of Montreal is one of trouble, uneasiness and walk-outs, in which mingled violence and organized crime. Since the creation of the specialists system by industry, the Department of Labour has promised to correct the situation and, for the first time in the history of the port of Montreal, a collective agreement has just been signed, without any work stoppage nor compulsory arbitration being imposed on the parties involved.
I wish to insist on that fact because the shipping industry is a pioneer in the field of technological development and serves, as it were, as a laboratory for modern techniques of transportation. Consequently, there is greater insecurity among and lower productivity by the workers concerned, both major causes of labour disputes.
How is it that in such circumstances the parties involved are able to voluntarily sign a contract which will be binding upon them for the next three years? How is it that in the present situation, which is favourable to the development of labour relations problems giving rise to strikes and often to violence, we should see the industry rationalize its relations and conclude this pact which is to the advantage of all parties concerned? This contract is the result of a constant dialogue, an almost stubborn dialogue between the two parties which, every day for the last three years, have met and tried first of all to identify their problems, to explore all possible solutions and to chose the best one. Labour and management at the port of Montreal are used to talking with one another, to confronting one another, to negotiating and to coming to agreements. It is therefore not surprising that in such circumstances they can come to a peaceful solution of their problems.
This collective agreement is clearly geared to job security. That question was recognized as the primary issue at the port of Montreal. In fact, the salary increases are negligible: 2 per cent the first year, 4 per cent the second year and 4 per cent the third year. How was it possible when we see settlements of 10 or even 15 per cent a year? The settlement became possible because the parties concerned did not hesitate to tackle the problems which they faced. On the other hand, the employer has frankly considered the issue of employment security and taken all possible means to find an answer. The union, for its part, has refused to resort to blackmail in connection with the other clauses of the collective agreement which did not give rise to any important problem. Their agreement probably includes the best plan for security of employment in the country and the employer finds it profitable. The agreement eliminates traditional practices to restrict production, increases standardization of working hours, provides a better definition of each job, in short gives a professional status to the longshoremen. This agreement deals with the whole problem of the effects of technological change. These provisions allow the employer to rely on the stability of his personnel for the next three years.
The purpose of the bill now before the House is to extend to all industries under federal jurisdiction the concept of early negotiations concerning problems which recur during all negotiations. Technological change cannot be ignored. It is a condition for the survival of the employer. Failure to mechanize equipment, introduce new
April 13, 1972

machinery and streamline operations makes it impossible for him to compete, not only on international markets, but locally. Nor can the workers ignore technological change. They see it as a threat to their livelihood and are prepared to make any sacrifice to prevent lay-offs which usually follow its introduction. It is suggested that the parties meet around a negotiation table to discuss these matters and arrive at an agreement.
It seems to me that we have there-and the case of the port of Montreal proves it-all the conditions favouring industrial peace. Some employers were reticent about our proposals, alleging that we were giving greater power to the union, the power to control the introduction of technological changes. Some union members claimed that we were not going far enough, that the union should be absolutely free to introduce these changes. I think that the solution suggested here is a happy compromise taking into account the employer's obligation to follow the progress of modern technology and respecting the worker's right to minimum security through collective bargaining.
As for so-called public interest disputes, the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) has suggested the establishment of a commission which would be asked to investigate in that field. I find it difficult to accept that on so vital a matter as that regarding disputes of public interest the first responsibility be given to a non-elected and independent commission which, to all intents and purposes, has no more power than the minister of labour (Mr. O'Connell). In my opinion, in circumstances such as these, the one who must assume the responsibility for the settlement of these disputes must be a member of the government elected for this purpose. I don't think the Minister of Labour should shun his responsibilities by submitting disputes to a third party.
Mr. Speaker, the bill would also provide the right of bargaining rights for professional employees, owners and drivers of trucks and fishermen; it also aims at reconstituting the Labour Relations Board into a full time organization with increased powers, to reinforce the clauses pertaining to unfair practices in order to further protect employers and the union members; it also provides the Minister of Labour with a greater number of instruments to enable him to settle disputes.
As long as we are willing and co-operate, we will achieve this objective and overcome the difficulties brought about by the automation era.
(English)


Mr. Charles H. Thomas (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-183 now before us for second reading is of such importance and far reaching magnitude it is surprising to me to note the haste with which the government has presented it to the House in an attempt to rush it through. After all the months of consideration of the Woods and various other reports on labour-management relations, along with the introduction of the infamous bill C-253 which came to such a dismal end, I should have thought that when the government introduced the revamped and watered down Bill C-183, it would have given the House a greater opportunity to study the changes in order that a reasonable assessment of the worth of these changes may be made.
Canada Labour Code
Bill C-183 was given first reading on March 27 and was brought into the House for second reading on March 29, at which time very few members had ever seen the bill. It was impossible for us on this side to make a reasonable assessment when we had not even seen it. I thought the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) did an excellent job in presenting his and our views, even though when working largely in the dark because he had only had the bill before him for a very few minutes. I agree with his statement that we on this side feel revisions to the Labour Code are long overdue. We agree with certain changes and with the need for an overhaul of the code, but there are certain clauses in the new bill about which we still have reservations. We will examine them more thoroughly in the committee.
It was encouraging to have the minister give his consent to the suggestion of the hon. member for Hamilton West that those people who have representations to make on this bill be heard. I hope this will be done in the committee as it will give us a much better opportunity to assess all the implications of Bill C-183, and the changes from Bill C-253 which was so abnoxious to so many people. In case I am accused of exaggeration in referring to the fact that the previous bill, on which this bill was modelled, was abnoxious to people, I should like to refer to a letter I received from one of my constituents who happens to be the general manager of one of the largest employers in the area. He said that the bill was so one sided it gave one the impression of having been drafted by a labour fanatic.
The Labour Code needs to be amended, certainly, but where are the amendments we as Canadians, not just employers and employees, really need? What about legislation dealing with public interest contracts and making the unions legal entities? How long do we have to put up with the use of power by unions because of the present imbalance of power? When are we going to differentiate between a wildcat strike and a long study session, and when are unions going to be responsible for personal property damage caused by so-called lack of administrative control?
While I hasten to inform the House that this letter refers to Bill C-253 and not the bill presently before us, it is a good indication of the feelings of a great body of Canadians today. The Canadian public is worried about the obvious breakdown in relations between management and labour. When the member who spoke earlier began his remarks, he referred to the unhappy situation in Quebec and indicated that this whole matter is one of urgent and pressing concern to all Canadians. It is time the government took some action to resolve this conflict between labour and management.
At the time Bill C-253 was introduced, it was interesting to read a comment by Mr. David Peach, assistant professor of the school of business administration at Western University. The article by Mr. Peach, which appeared in the Financial Post, reads in part:
The government, in my opinion, has introduced a piece of absurd legislation, and its implications should be of real concern to managers everywhere, even though the immediate application of the legislation is limited to the federal jurisdiction.
He goes on to refer to the provisions in the first bill which would allow collective agreements to be reopened
25104-23'.

April 13, 1972
Canada Labour Code
during the life of a contract. I realize that this has been altered in the present bill. The article continues:
Presumably, the government wants to encourage the development of contract provisions which would provide workers with protection against the effects of technological change. The proposed legislation will not achieve this aim. If the government is serious in its intent, it appears the legislation will have to be changed.
A strong case can be made for eliminating the proposed provisions on technological change altogether.
Without agreeing or disagreeing with Professor Peach, I quoted from his article in order to illustrate the great concern Canadians generally have about this type of labour legislation. Is this the best way to create harmony between management and labour? Surely, this is the key to the whole problem. Without that harmony we can legislate from now until kingdom come and nothing will be accomplished. We must have that harmony between management and labour. We should be trying to decide the best way to develop that harmony.
Professor Peach went on to refer to the earlier bill. He said this was the wrong way to develop harmony, that it would only create further antagonism and lead to more strikes and lockouts. He went on to say:
However, there is a better way of going about this than what Mackasey proposes. The solution lies in the 1968 Woods task force report on labor relations.
These few remarks are intended as a background to the concern I wish to express on behalf of myself and those on this side of the House about the chaotic state of labour-management relations today. It is not my intention to point the finger at or place the blame on anyone. However, in discussing this bill I should like to make perhaps four or five specific suggestions concerning areas of the bill which I believe are undesirable and should be changed.
I shall refer to some of the things the bill does not do. While I agree with my colleague from Hamilton West that changes in the labour code are desirable, I wish to enter a caveat that we will consider each of the clauses in the bill in committee and reserve the right to suggest amendments as we see fit. What are the things the bill purports to do or does not do? To start with, the bill, admittedly, represents a considerable improvement over Bill C-253. The technological change clause has been watered down, but here again we will not know the effect of it until we have had an opportunity to study the clause in depth after hearing representations from representatives of management and labour. The wording of the clause is obscure. The minister's opening statement left a bit of doubt concerning how far this change would go. The point is not clear and, therefore, should be discussed extensively in the committee.
The bill is unimaginative and weak in respect of reducing the incidence of strikes and lockouts and their effect on the public interest. I cannot see any provision in this bill that would in any way alleviate the chaotic conditions which exist today. I suggest that some of the provisions in the bill possibly could aggravate present conditions. Those who drafted the bill failed to take advantage of many of the suggestions contained in the Woods report of

1968. I will refer to one or two of these later. The hon. member who spoke previously mentioned that we advocated, or that the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) advocated, a suggestion contained in the Woods report which he felt was an excellent suggestion.
As I read it, Bill C-183 affects some 530,000 employees in the public service which covers people in the fields of transportation, pipelines, communications and many other federal services. The bill, however, does not affect collective bargaining in respect of public servants who are members of NABET and employees of the CBC, or those who are covered by the Public Service Staff Relations Act. I know members opposite and the minister might say the bill is not intended to do this because those employees are covered by a separate piece of legislation. I agree. However, it seems to me that one of the greatest concerns of Canadians today, whether or not they are hockey fans, is the continuing frustration caused by the fact that a few members of a relatively small union are able in effect to throw the whole country into disruption, anger and disgust. It seems to me this is one of the aspects we should be looking at in respect of this bill or in respect of some clauses which might be added to it.
Another subject which interests members on this side- and this was referred to by the hon. member for Hamilton West-is the Canada Labour Relations Board. The bill will set up this board much along the lines suggested by the Woods report with a chairman, a vice-chairman and four to eight members who would be appointed full time by the Governor in Council. What disturbs us is the fact that the method by which members of the board would be appointed would do nothing to make the board representative of management and labour. We feel there should be an amendment which would ensure an advisory role for management and labour in respect of the appointment of some of the members of the board. This is one suggestion we would have for the improvement of the bill.
The bill also extends bargaining rights. Many more employees will be brought under the umbrella of collective bargaining. The bill would extend bargaining rights to certain professional and supervisory people. Here again, however, the wording of the bill is fuzzy. It is unclear just who would be included under this particular provision. At a time when there is such a great deal of dispute between management and labour, there is also the question of whether it is wise to extend these rights.
I might refer to a brief presented by Domtar Limited in respect of Bill C-253, in which the following point is made:
The extension of collective bargaining rights to professional and supervisory groups at a time when collective bargaining appears to be creating serious economic and social problems is questionable. Existing problems, including the impact on inflation, should be better understood before collective bargaining is extended to new areas. It is suggested that the confines of collective bargaining be kept within the present boundaries until we have learned how to cope with existing problems.
Again, by extending collective bargaining to professional groups, we could very well be faced with a closed shop for professional people.
The Woods Report, at page 149, reads:
. . . that, in a unit for which a union is the bargaining agent, a member must pay the regular and reasonable
April 13, 1972

dues of the union whether he takes out a membership or not, as an "agency fee".
This is widely known as an agency shop, and is recognized in the bill. However, the bill goes beyond this to provide legal acceptance of the closed shop, which has been regarded as increasingly indefensible by the Woods Report and has been criticized by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). Section 161 expressly states that the collective agreements may contain a clause requiring, as a condition of employment, membership in a specified trade union or preference in employment may be given to members of a specified trade union. This section, along with section 125(3), creates the possibility of the very kind of closed shop the Prime Minister has been urging provinces to move against. Taken together, these provisions allow professional employees, doctors, lawyers, engineers, scientists, accountants and so on to establish separate bargaining units and to exclude from employment other professionals who are not members of their union. The government is inviting the kinds of uneconomic and unjust employment restrictions that are far too prevalent at the provincial level at this time. The taxpayers ~nd university graduates need fewer, not more, impediments to employment. I think we should discuss these clauses very carefully in committee and possibly suggest some changes.
I think this bill does not go far enough in another area which I mentioned earlier. In fact you could say that, as written, the bill does very little to promote industrial peace. All of us are concerned about this today. Strikes and lockouts are on the increase. On this side of the House, we feel that it is time the government took remedial action to correct the situation.
Allied with industrial peace is the whole problem of the effect of strikes on the public interest. This aspect has been discussed many times, and the Woods report arrived at some fairly realistic conclusions about it. However, unless and until the government is prepared to offer a solution on how to handle strikes which affect the public interest, the chaos which exists today will continue. Many of the provisions in the bill will serve the public interest by providing machinery to reduce the likelihood of strikes and lockouts, but the bill fails to protect the public in the event of strikes and lockouts in essential services.
One proposal of the Woods task force which was referred to earlier today, and was endorsed in principle by the Progressive Conservative party last year, is as follows:
A Public Interest Disputes Commission should be established to determine special procedures for resolving industrial disputes for essential services. If the commission is unsuccessful in its efforts it should report to parliament on the situation which would thereby have a more comprehensive and informed basis on which to exercise the power it now has to legislate an end to a strike or lockout.
The question of a public interest disputes commission has been discussed many times. 1 think it is a logical solution, a sort of court of appeal in labour relations. Certainly, it is worth a trial and possibly such a provision should be included in this legislation. It is not a departure from the principle of free collective bargaining which
Canada Labour Code
should remain the cornerstone of industrial relations in Canada. Machinery is provided for finding new ways for collective bargaining compatible with the public interest, as well as assisting parliament in rationally and competently exercising the authority it now has to protect the public interest.
I believe the clauses in the original bill, C-253, which caused the greatest concern and the greatest protest, were those which dealt with technological change. This is a difficult subject. How does one arrive at a tidy balance between the necessity for industry to be competitive by improving its methods, while at the same time ensuring that not too many people suffer loss and deprivation as a result of change? I know the minister is well aware of this, and I was interested to hear him refer to it in his opening statement. He pointed out the necessity for Canadian industry to compete successfully with foreign industry by keeping up with the times, but on the other hand he realises that the result of such changes on workers must be minimized by realistic legislation.
In all this talk of technological change, whenever a company modernizes machinery or introduces new production equipment, we hear the cry that it is all very fine but it is going to throw people out of work. It is the old cry which was heard back in the days of the industrial revolution, the machine would lead to great production but everybody would be out of work. Anyone who has studied economic history would question the veracity of the statement that technological change is necessarily bad. I was interested in a submission by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce in which it is stated:
Contrary to fears expressed by some people some years ago that technological changes would result in a substantial net reduction in the number of jobs, the fact is that advancing technology has created more new jobs than have been rendered redundant because of it. Thus, any impediment to technological change helps restrict new employment opportunities.
I do not accept that statement 100 per cent because it is a grey area. Figures can be produced on either side but, on balance, it would be very difficult to show that technological change has been bad for all industrial nations. I think it would be much easier to show that without technological change the great nations of the world would not have advanced to the position they are in today. Let us not get caught up in emotion and say that technological changes are necessarily bad and must be controlled, otherwise people will be thrown out of work. I suggest to the House that it is not as simple as that. Technological change is not necessarily bad and we should be very careful not to introduce legislation which might discourage companies from making such changes as are necessary if they are to compete in the world today.
The importance of this must be evident to this House in view of the fact that for the past year and a half we have had agitated debate on the difficulties faced by Canada when competing in world markets. We recall what happened last August when the United States took retaliatory measures to correct their adverse balance of trade. We know what is happening in the markets of Japan and Germany, as well as in the rest of the world, with the economic conditions that exist today. In view of the state of world currency, it becomes more and more important for Canadian industry to keep abreast of scientific,

April 13, 1972
Canada Labour Code
modern production methods so that we can sell our goods at a competitive price. The question of gearing up production has become more important in the past few years because of several trends. The rise in value of the Canadian dollar has increased foreign competition and required Canadian industry to search for more efficient and recognized means of production.
On the other hand a high level of unemployment, government initiated and therefore out of control, prevents the re-absorption of displaced semi-skilled and unskilled occupational groups into the Canadian labour force. Where Canadian industries have failed to take advantage of technological advances, as in the pulp and paper industry, labour lay-offs have resulted. Many of the problems we are now experiencing in New Brunswick, with lay-offs in the pulp and paper mills, are largely due to the fact that mills did not keep pace with modern production methods. As a result, they find themselves unable to compete with modern plants which use improved methods of production.
Obviously labour and management are directly concerned and interested in technological change. But it is equally obvious, although not generally recognized and admitted, that the Canadian public has an interest. There are reasons for this. In the first place, the Canadian public has an interest as the beneficiary of an efficient and technologically competitive industry, or as the financial victim of an inefficient industry that is protected by tariffs or bolstered by subsidies. In the second place, the Canadian public is interested as the tax source whose taxes are used to assist industry to make technological changes or to assist employees to weather such changes. In the third place, the Canadian public is interested as the victim inconvenienced by industrial strife arising out of the failure of management and labour to reach agreement on technological change.
This public interest is not one of convenience or inconvenience but of responsibility, for the public is responsible for the economic, fiscal, tax, tariff and trade policies of the government of the day. These policies may encourage or discourage an industry in making technological change, or encourage or discourage labour from cooperating in such change. It is reasonable to conclude that the public has a vested interest in the problems of technological change and, arising out of that interest, a right and a responsibility to be a third presence with management and trade unions in contributing to the solution of such problems.
If I have dwelt over long on that particular aspect of the bill, Mr. Speaker, I have done so deliberately because that is something which needs repeating. Since Bill C-253 was introduced, it seems that all we have heard has been the views of the two opposing sides, one saying that technological changes will put workers out of jobs, and the other upholding management by saying that technological changes must be made in order for industry to stay alive in the business world. The present minister has made an attempt to water down the technological change provisions in this bill in order to make it acceptable to both management and labour. His predecessor absolutely refused to do this. But we on this side do not know if the

changes made in this bill are exactly what they seem to be on the surface. How far do they go? This is what we must discuss in committee. With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, the wording is fuzzy and vague. Perhaps we have not had time to sit down and read these provisions closely ten or 12 times, although I doubt that repetitious reading would make the words any clearer.
I question if the bill has been modified to the extent that the newspapers would have us believe. However, I want to approach the matter with an open mind. If the minister can convince me of this in committee then I will say, "More power to you; we are all for it." But it is important that we not be stampeded by one side or the other, by business into saying these changes are bad or by labour into saying these changes must be made. It is time somebody started thinking of the Canadian public caught between the two groups.
Just before sitting down, I would like to refer to another aspect of the bill which disturbs me. I suppose hon. members on the other side of the House become tired hearing me talk about this matter time and time again. When the unemployment insurance bill was before the House I said over and over again that it was too complicated and would be impossible to administer. I said the wording of the clauses was fuzzy and too much was left to be filled in by ministerial regulations. The minister and his officials pooh-poohed my contention. They said anybody could understand the bill. We all know what the result has been. I am afraid that this bill will leave itself open to another administrative mess as bad as or worse than anything we have seen under the Unemployment Insurance Act. Here again, I refer to Professor Peach's remarks in reference to Bill C-253, but which are still valid so far as this bill is concerned because there is no basic change with respect to the administration of this measure. Professor Peach said:
I have not yet mentioned the administrative difficulties the act presents. What criteria are the government, the Labour Board, or the parties going to use to define just what constitutes a technological change? What is meant by a "significant" number of employees?
The minister or the Governor in Council can decide this.
In short, the act is an administrative nightmare.
The proposed revisions constitute a piece of mischievious legislation, one that can logically cast the government as a latter day Luddite. And to what end? Is the legislation really needed?
In the aggregate, technological change does not hurt anyone. The substitution of machine power for man power has been a constant factor in man's development. Despite the increasing rate at which change is occurring and despite a number of gloomy prophesies, a full-employment economy can be a reality today.
Ideally, the government, I think, should limit itself to providing the proper fiscal and monetary policies that will maintain a level of aggregate demand sufficient to provide full employment.
The government is unlikely to restrict its role in this manner, but if activism is to be the rule of the day, a better alternative exists in the Woods Report recommendations.
Hopefully, the government will change its mind in regard to this legislation. If not, we can be thankful that the federal jurisdiction is not the only one in Canadian labour relations.
Business should be aware of the traps that exist in legislation of this kind, and work to keep provincial law free from contamination by this kind of fuzzy thinking.
The professor may have been a little harsh and too critical. I am willing to be convinced. I hope the minister
April 13, 1972

will be able to convince me and my colleagues in the committee that he has made significant changes in this bill. I also hope that some of the other matters I have raised today will be discussed in the committee. If the changes made in this bill prove to be undesirable, I hope that the minister will accept amendments, if not from this side of the House at least from his own side. We accept the fact that the Labour Code needs revision. We are quite prepared to let this bill go to committee where we will examine it carefully. We have reservations with respect to certain clauses, and we hope that in committee the minister will give a frank and full appraisal of how the bill is an improvement over Bill C-253.


Mr.   Iean-R. Roy@Timmins: Mr. Speaker, in speaking on this bill to amend the Canada Labour Code I will at this stage try to keep my remarks general, and related to the principles of the bill and of labour-management relations.
As I look at labour-management problems in this country, and in many others, I wonder if we are progressing very much by introducing legislative measures such as the one now before us, measures which are designed to solve one or several very particular problems, but in many instances are only adding to the irritants which, to my mind, create the great difficulty in labour negotiations. These irritants seem to be endless in number and make adversaries of the parties involved. It is not really the basic principles which cause the serious controversies between labour and management but, rather, the small items which become so important by virtue of their numbers.
Relations between labour and management are like those between a husband and wife who cannot get along, Mr. Speaker, not because they disagree on their basic responsibilities in marriage, family and such, but because of the constant small peckings of one or the other and the wall that the great number of these minor peckings builds between them. I wonder if measures such as the one we are debating do not add to the irritation and do not just build that wall higher and higher between the two parties. How unfortunate it would be if that were so. Every time we add another law, Mr. Speaker, another regulation and another clause in this area, we restrict the basic principle that the preamble proclaims in this bill, the principle of collective bargaining.
I have to chuckle a little every time I see that phrase, "collective bargaining", which, in theory, represents an ideal vehicle for resolving mutual problems between parties. As the theory is put into practice, it would be more appropriate to refer to it as "collective pressure bargaining", since the major, meaningful factor in these negotiations is simply the pressure that one party can bring to bear upon the other, most often not to obtain a proper and equitable agreement but to obtain for that party whatever that pressure can get. Imagine, Mr. Speaker, a system for solving the problems of two parties under which each party tries to hurt the other party to gain its own advantage, whereas the theory of the system implies mutual participation and co-operation.
I continue to be amazed that, with all the wisdom we have, the technological advances we have made, the
Canada Labour Code
advances in the social sciences that have taken place, and so on, we have not yet developed methods for solving problems that are superior to the strikes that are harmful to all, including the always innocent third party, the public. I think it is pure fantasy to say we believe in the collective bargaining process and then place all sorts of restrictions on that process, such as the clauses included in this legislative measure. If we are sincere in saying collective bargaining works, then we should let it work freely, as the principle implies, rather than impose all sorts of restrictions. If we need these restrictions, I think we should have the courage to admit that the system does not work as we feel it should, and governments should have the courage to look at something else.
It is said that the clauses in the bill before us regarding technological changes incorporate a new and important principle. Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is a new principle. It may be a concept; certainly, it is not a principle. If it were a principle, it would have the same basic importance for all and would have equal meaning to all parties concerned. I submit that it will have no such balance in meaning and justice. The concept is simply another restriction placed on the true principle of collective bargaining. It is another concept that will become, in numerous cases, one further irritant. It will not apply to all parties alike. It will mean different things in different situations and will have different results in different cases. I like to think principles are more universal and more basic than that, and if the government feels compelled to bring in such concepts, why does it not develop measures and standards that will apply to all workers and not just to the organized people who have the power to negotiate their own agreements? I hardly think it akin to good federalism for a federal government to be enacting measures that discriminate between organized and nonorganized labour.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That is divisive.


Mr. Roy (Timmins):: There is no justifiable criterion for that sort of distinction, especially by a national government. If the preamble to this bill means that we are entrenching a principle in law that does not now work well and if we are saying that its effectiveness is unquestionable, then I am opposed to that preamble; for, obviously, the principle it enunciates is not the be all and end all in this area. If it were, why would we be bending and altering it by such restrictions as we find in this piece of legislation? Why must we so often be looking at legislation which-is presented simply to solve specific short term problems and to render administration more efficient and easy, instead of recognizing and applying the principles and policies of right and justice.
If the government, Mr. Speaker, feels it is necessary to initiate measures such as those in this bill, I say there is a long list of practical measures that could be implemented to eliminate the dreadful irritants of labour-management relations. They are not included in this bill and they, I feel, would be more helpful. Why not identify clearly and describe the responsibilities and privileges that are imposed or granted to both parties involved in strikes and lockouts, so that those responsibilities and privileges clearly mean one thing to everybody and not ten different things to ten different people? Why not establish a clear

April 13, 1972
Canada Labour Code
distinction between the private sector, which can use an economic factor as a measure of pressure, and the public sector, which can use no such measure. The public sector is sometimes thought to have available to it a bottomless pit, from which both parties to the negotiation can obtain, or give out, unlimited benefits. Surely, there is a good case to be made for having two different governing principles for these two completely different sectors. Why not include the national interest and the interest of innocent third parties as a recognized and valid factor in all such matters.
When we see the present situation in Quebec caused by the common front of public service employees who are openly recommending an illegal disregard of court injunctions applying to those employees, who are flouting and confronting the legal governmental authority, and therefore the citizens themselves-in all probability for political reasons-we realize, surely, that the bounds of responsibility towards the public are being cast aside for the benefit only of a certain group. Why not do something about preventing the dropping of legal charges as part of a settlement, once these charges, which might involve civil or criminal proceedings, have been laid for acts of violence, illegal strikes or lockouts, or fraud and all other such reasons. Surely, permitting such practices ridicules the laws of the country and encourages the continuation and propagation of such illegal acts.
Why not look at the practical, discriminatory situation which allows organized employers to refuse employment to a non-union member but prevents a non-organized employer from requesting non-union employees from Canada Manpower Centres. Is it not time finally to consider making labour organizations legal entities, with full capacity to sue and be sued? Surely, any labour body which is sincere and honest would not object to accepting its full responsibility in our society. Surely, there is no need to excuse these organizations from legal responsibility in order for them to fulfil properly their function in society. Why not review the ridiculous situation caused by illegal strikes, lockouts or slowdowns that now have become normal practice and for which there seems to be no effective remedy? Surely, there is no justification for such practices and our laws and labour boards should not condpne, but condemn these actions very severely. All of these, Mr. Speaker, and there are many more, are irritants in the labour-management process. All of these prevent the co-operation and mutual respect between management and labour that is essential for the smooth, effective relations that are necessary for the development of industry and the recognition of human values which all contribute to the prosperity of this country.
I certainly hope, Mr. Speaker, that the measures in this bill have not been introduced simply as a sop to Mr. MacDonald and his Canadian Labour Congress, since I cannot think of any person or organization whose presentations or opinions would be more biased or tainted with the political clap-trap of the NDP which that organization finances, for which they labour and whose political interests they always promote and reflect in any of their representations.


Mr. Peters:: And who, very likely, will defeat you.


Jean Robert Roy: It is really farcical to see this gentleman come and chastise the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and discredit the government year after year. He does that for his own NDP, socialist political self-interest. He is trying to score propaganda points for that party, and is always pretending he reflects the views of the labour movement membership of Canada.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Now, the hon. member is getting mean.


Jean Robert Roy: I am of the opinion that Mr. MacDonald's views are not synonymous with those of individual, organized members and when he speaks from his political soap box, he does so to the embarrassment and detriment of many of the members for whom he claims responsibility.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Are you going to vote for or against the bill?


Jean Robert Roy: I, personally, Mr. Speaker, have received many representations regarding this bill since its introduction nearly one year ago.


William Arnold Peters: The hon. member does not speak for nonunion labour.


Jean Robert Roy: A few of the representations were very shortsighted; however, most of them included some very worth-while comments and recommendations. I am convinced that the minister now responsible for this bill has given full consideration to these representations. I have enough confidence in his objectivity to feel that he will give further consideration to all further recommendations. I also know that the minister will not judge suggestions made by their source but, rather, their merit.
Some observations made about governmental affairs are sometimes very surprising, and especially so when one considers the authors of those observations. For instance, when Mr. McLaughlin, as president of a large Canadian chartered bank says his bank will continue to finance American take-overs of Canadian companies because if it does not some other bank will, he demonstrates a restricted concern for Canadian society and enterprise that is close to being unbelievable. Of course, somebody else will finance such take-overs. I doubt very much if Mr. McLaughlin's bank would finance such deals if they were not sound enough to be attractive to someone else. Canadian bankers are well noted for their conservatism in lending, but surely the point is not who would finance such deals but whether that bank should not be using its funds to provide Canadian industry with the money it needs. Surely, a Canadian Chartered bank has a national and social responsibility which Mr. McLaughlin completely ignores here. Surely, industry, commerce and finance are elements of society and their function is to serve that society, not the other way around. The leaders of industry and commerce have a social responsibility which they cannot ignore, and ignoring it begs governments to step in and impose measures that satisfy that responsibility.
The free enterprise system itself will not endure if the private sector refuses its social responsibilty. Every time a
April 13, 1972

government must initiate another program or regulation to serve the needs of our citizens, a further erosion occurs. We regularly hear the opposition parties and uninformed individuals attribute total responsibility for unemployment, the creating of jobs, the expansion of the economy to the government, but in a free enterprise system it is industry and commerce which create jobs, expand production, and find markets. If industry, with the assistance it can reasonably and rightfully expect from government, does not look after the unemployed, the invalids, the needy, then it should not chastise the government for doing so, thereby fulfilling the responsibility that a society has toward its individual members. Governments set out the goals and aspirations that remain targets for the nation, but flowing from those goals there should be a periodic, clear indentification of the areas of responsibility for government, industry, labour or the general public. Once these are established, all sectors should accept their share of the responsibility for the common good.
Indeed, not only should these responsibilities be accepted, but understood and agreed upon. Such understanding and agreement can only come from meaningful consultation and participation by all, as opposed to tokenism. Sometimes, Mr. Speaker, we ask for representations, discussions and participation, but pay little heed to the observations and recommendations received. Full, sincere consideration must be given to the observations and recommendations presented. It is unworthy to ask for recommendations, receive them, then go around chastising the authors of those recommendations for having expressed their point of view, especially if it differs from our own. In this respect, I have confidence the minister will accept valid and beneficial amendments to the bill at the proper time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, in my ten years in this House, I doubt whether I have ever heard such an anti-labour, anti-union and anti-worker speech as that just made by the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Roy). Knowing that constituency, knowing how many workers in that area are organized into unions which they have freely and voluntarily chosen and how they will react to the kind of clap-trap which the hon. member for Timmins has just spouted, I can only assume that the hon. member has no intention of running in the next election. I offer my condolences to the Minister of Labour (Mr. O'Connell) because with friends like the hon. member for Timmins, he does not need enemies.
I do not suppose there could be a worse time to discuss a bill dealing with labour-management relations than today. Over 200 thousand people are on strike in the province of Quebec. Civic employees in both Toronto and Vancouver are also on strike. I point out to the hon. member for Timmins that in the province of Quebec, the party which I represent, the New Democratic Party, does not have much support. The hon. member cannot blame us for that strike. I also point out to the hon. member that the Canadian Labour Congress and its affiliated unions are not the main organizations leading the strike in the province of Quebec. The majority of the workers on strike in the province of Quebec are affiliated with unions organized by the Federation of National Trade Unions.
Canada Labour Code
This labour federation was for many years led by the present Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand).
The hon. member for Timmins and all other members should be worried about the strikes in the province of Quebec, Vancouver and Toronto. We should all be asking why these strikes are taking place. For almost 100 years labour unions were comprised almost exclusively of blue collar workers, workers in the manufacturing and transportation fields. Of the strikes which took place, 99 per cent were in industry and transportation, the blue collar field. Why do we suddenly have strikes by groups of workers who were not even organized 10 years ago? Until recently these groups refused to admit they belonged to unions, although they sometimes had large organizations which they called associations. We now have strikes of teachers, hospital employees, baseball players and transportation technicians. Why do we have these strikes?
An hon. member from the official opposition spoke earlier today. He compared the difficulties in Canada with the relative peace in terms of labour-management relations in such countries as Japan. For years we have been told that we ought to look at Sweden. Why are there not many strikes in countries like Japan and Sweden? I am sure the Minister of Labour knows for a fact that one of the reasons they do not have strikes is that they have had almost continuously, at least since the end of World War II, virtually full employment. If a company develops a new process, technology or system of operation and a worker or group of workers will be laid-off, the worker knows that the economy of the country is working in such a way that he will get another job. That worker is not likely to be too concerned. He is not likely to go on strike or to demand guarantees that his particular job will be protected, because he knows the economy is working in such a way as to allow him to get a new job if he is laid-off an old one.
The situation in Canada is unfortunately entirely different. For a dozen years or more we have witnessed large-scale unemployment. Under the present government the number of unemployed has doubled in the last four years as compared with the last four years of the Pearson Liberal administration. For almost two years, with the exception of last month, unemployment has been running at the rate of 6 per cent or more on a seasonally-adjusted basis. As hon. members know, NABET members are in dispute with the CBC. Let me make it clear that I am not at the moment saying they are justified in making all the demands they are putting forward. But these workers know there have been major changes in technology, that a great deal of automation has taken place in the field of television, and that a great deal more will take place in the near future. When they see this happening, and realize that hundreds if not thousands of jobs in their industry will disappear, they say: we do not want to bear the entire brunt of this change; we want some protection, certain guarantees. I cannot blame them for doing so, and I do not think the Minister of Labour will blame them either, particularly since the company, in this case the CBC, has virtually refused to discuss the question. In these circumstances, one cannot blame workers for being upset.
1304

April 13, 1972
Canada Labour Code
Significant changes are taking place in the field of education. I realize that education is not a federal responsibility, but the illustration I propose to use will make it clear why people are concerned about the basic principle in the bill before us. Year after year, for many years, more and more people have been attending schools. As a result, cities and provinces were hiring more and more teachers. Today, for various reasons, the trend is reversed. I am told, for example, that in my own City of Winnipeg there has been a reduction of 2,000 in the student population in the last two years. And this is just a beginning. Teachers will be unemployed. No labour organization I know of has suggested that any person should have the right to keep a job for the rest of his or her life. But people naturally want an assurance, especially if they have worked in an industry or service for a number of years, that they will receive some measure of protection-that the effects of unemployment will be cushioned by early retirements or by keeping people on until sufficient retirements have taken place to ensure that staff reductions are minimized. This is what concerns the workers. This is one of the main causes of the labour unrest we are experiencing now and which we are likely to experience in the future.
The bill we are discussing today looks good. I want to say that the minister made a very sound presentation in introducing it. However, we, together with a great number of ordinary working people, are concerned about the fact that the measure introduced by the minister's predecessor met with such a hostile response from business interests that changes were accepted and embodied in the legislation we have before us. There is a great deal of concern lest these changes may in fact result in weakening the provisions of the legislation, in particular those which have to do with protecting the rights of workers who are adversely affected by technological innovation. Let me put on record just what the minister had to say when he was referring to what had happened since the bill was introduced last year by his predecessor:
In the intervening eight months my predecessor and I, and senior departmental officials, have received representations from-and consulted with-most groups in the country representing management and labour.
Well, I do not think the minister received many representations of an adverse nature from labour organizations. He certainly received a host of very strong representations from management. I want to tell him that, though we approve the bill as it appears on the face of things, and though we like the speech he made, those of our members who will sit on the committee entrusted with examining the measure clause by clause will tend to take a very careful look at the detailed provisions in order to make sure that the ostensible aim as outlined by the minister will in fact be reflected in the legislation. The minister made some comments which seemed to imply important reservations. He said, and I quote again from his speech:
The technological change provisions have been clarified and establish clearly that the collective agreement cannot be re-opened where the employer gives notice of the intended technological change before the agreement was entered into, where the agreement establishes procedures by which the effects of the change may be negotiated and settled, or where there are substantive provisions contained in the agreement that the parties specify are intended to assist the employees affected by the change. Under

these circumstances the collective agreement cannot be re-opened. The technological change provisions would not apply to existing collective agreements but only to those made after the bill comes into force.
Mr. Speaker, how many tens of thousands of workers may be faced by the consequences of important technological changes introduced by their companies before this bill comes into effect? Experience in negotiations between labour and management, and more particularly in arbitration and in court cases, clearly shows that many judges and many arbitrators still cling to what I consider to be an out-dated belief that what is not written into an agreement is the sole prerogative of management to decide, because of the inherent management rights of employers. The concern I have expressed up to now arises from what I consider to be a glaring gap between what this bill provides-what the minister said it provided for in his introductory remarks-and what a man who cannot be called partisan or political by anyone in this House or elsewhere said when he made what I believe to be the most serious, the most honest and the most far-reaching study of this whole question of technological change. I refer to the report made by Mr. Justice Samuel Freedman in 1964 entitled The Report of an Industrial Inquiry Commission on Canadian National Railway Run-Throughs.
For the benefit of members who were not here at the time or who have forgotten let me briefly recapitulate what happened. The CNR announced unilaterally that, effective as of a certain date, certain runs of their freight trains would be virtually doubled in length. In view of the very adverse effect that this change of policy would have, there was a work stoppage. It was unauthorized. I suppose the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Roy) would say- probably one of the few times he would say something that is correct-that it was an illegal stoppage. But the *ailway workers knew what they were doing. They knew hat probably such as stoppage was a breach of their xisting contract and that it was illegal; but so seized were they of the importance of stopping the company from taking such unilateral action that they were prepared to carry through this illegal stoppage.
In order to get the workers back to work and to get the railways running again, the government of the day proposed the setting up of a one man commission, chaired by Mr. Justice Freedman, to look into the whole question and to make recommendations. On the basis of this proposal by the government, the railway workers went back to work. Mr. Justice Freedman held a number of hearings and looked into the whole question of technological change and its effect upon the work force. He studied the subject in great detail and made a report which I think is a landmark in the history of Canadian labour-management relations. I wish that members of the official opposition, when looking at the record of studies that have been made, would look more to Mr. Justice Freedman's report than to the report made by the Wood commission.
I should like to take a few moments to quote from the section of his report entitled "Technological Change: An Economic and Human Problem". I want to put on the record what Mr. Justice Freedman had to say about the crux of the situation as it affects both management and
April 13, 1972

labour, and the proposals he made which I think are imaginative, far seeing and practical. I hope that when the committee meets to discuss the provisions of this bill, the Minister of Labour and his officials will convince my colleagues on the committee that I am wrong and that the bill really will do the things that Mr. Justice Freedman proposed should be done. We are dealing with perhaps the most fundamental issue dividing workers and management today, an issue that will become more important in the years to come as a result of the tremendous pace at which technological changes are taking place.
If I may just put on the record a few paragraphs from the report by Mr. Justice Freedman, page 132 reads, in part:
Taking a broad, national, long-range view and looking at employment in its totality the economists may be justified in contending that technology does not cause unemployment.
May I digress for a moment to say that this was the argument put forward by one member of the Conservative opposition who spoke earlier this afternoon. It is true that technology and industrialization have meant more production and more work. But this is little comfort for the worker who is displaced, who loses his job because of technological change. It may be that one month, or six months, or even a year or two from the time he is laid off he will have another job, perhaps a better one; but in the interval his situation is pretty grim.
Returning to what Mr. Justice Freedman was saying: Within the total picture, however, technology may bring about individual cases of difficulty and hardship, cases which will be multiplied if the general demand for labour is slack.
Mr. Justice Freedman went on to say this:
But what happens when a technological change releases a factor of production called labour? Clearly it poses problems not so easily written off or disposed of. The old concept of labour as a commodity simply will not suffice; it is at once wrong and dangerous. Hence there is a responsibility upon the entrepreneur who introduces technological change to see that it is not effected at the expense of his working force. That is the human aspect of the technological challenge, and it must not be ignored.
To digress for a moment, that is precisely what labour unions have been saying, no more, no less. I do not know of a single labour organization that has opposed technological change per se. What the labour organizations have said and are saying is that workers affected must not carry the entire brunt or even the major brunt of technological change all by themselves. Then, Mr. Justice Freedman continues:
There are responsibilities upon labour as well. Perhaps chief among them is not to use its organized strength in blind and wilful resistance to technological advances. Labour must recognize the constructive role of technology in the general welfare and economic strength of the nation. Nor should it insist upon unreasonably high rewards or excessive safeguards as the price of its acceptance of change. Stubborn opposition to measures of progress can only hurt the nation, labour not least of all.
If I may again digress, there is probably not an industry in Canada that has, since the end of World War II, seen such a sharp reduction in the total labour force as the railway industry. Not so many years ago the railway unions were negotiating for something in the neighbourhood of 125,000 workers. Today they probably negotiate on behalf of less than 80,000 workers. In other words, there has been a reduction of more than one-third in the
Canada Labour Code
railway labour force at a time when the railways are moving more tons of goods over more miles than ever before. So, no one can say that the railway unions have held out against technological change. What the railway unions are saying is that the ordinary worker must have a modicum of protection.
Then, Mr. Justice Freedman went on to ask whether the CNR had the right to institute the run-throughs which caused the stoppage, and he concluded that they probably did, both on the basis of residual rights and on the basis of the contract as it existed at the time. Then, he went on to say, and I think this is the question at the heart of the legislation we are dealing with today:
Should it-
That is the CNR.
-continue to have that right? The question here raised lies at the heart of this Inquiry. The Commission is satisfied that it must be answered only in one way. The institution of run-throughs should be a matter for negotiation. To treat it as an unfettered management prerogative will only promote unrest, undermine morale, and drive the parties farther and farther apart. In that direction lies disorder and danger.
What was Mr. Justice Freedman's recommendation in this respect? It was a very simple one. It was that where there are major changes in the work force or in working conditions brought on as a result of technological changes, the workers and their unions should have the right to bargain collectively on those changes and have the right to strike, if that is necessary. There is no member of this House who would deny the fact that a strike of railway workers, or of postal workers, or of airline employees, causes difficulties and inconvenience for the whole population. But as Mr. Justice Freedman said so well in his report, surely the workers have the right to protect their own interests, to protect their jobs. In many cases, protecting their jobs means protecting their homes and the communities in which they have lived practically all their lives. That is the crucial issue which supposedly is dealt with in this bill. Mr. Justice Freedman's recommendation was crystal clear; that workers should have the right to bargain collectively when their jobs are seriously affected by changes as a result of technological change and automation brought in by management.
I am sure the minister will agree that this proposal of Mr. Justice Freedman, as well as the one made last year by the former minister when introducing this bill, which would have to some extent implemented the proposals of Mr. Justice Freedman, were met with horror by most employers. They looked at this as another infringement of their God-given right to manage their businesses and plants as they always had, making the major decisions themselves. One cannot blame them for this. As long as this country has existed they have had the right to make major changes without interference from workers, without interference or real question by unions and certainly without interference by government. The employers were horrified and they made their objections clear to the government and, I am sure, to every member of parliament. I do not question their right to their point of view. I should have been amazed had they not taken that view. When this right or privilege has been held as long as the employers
1306

April 13, 1972
Canada Labour Code
have held this privilege of managing their enterprises without question, they begin to regard it as a natural right. If it appears that there is to be interference, it is no wonder we hear a tremendous outcry from the business community.
I hope the provisions of the bill as drafted and presented by the minister will not prove to be a capitulation, even in part, to what I consider to be unwarranted fears on the part of the employers of this country. I hope this bill will do those things it seems to do, and which the minister indicated it would do when he introduced it. I hope when the bill is passed, as I am sure it will be, those workers caught in the trap of management changes, unemployment, short-time work and having to move from one city to another, will have the right as federal employees covered by this legislation to bargain collectively with real power with their employers. I do not make this suggestion with any idea of stopping technological change or automation because, as I have indicated before, I do not know of a union which really believes it can stop technological change or, for that matter, one that really wants to do that. I make the suggestion because the workers have a right not to have to carry the whole burden resulting from the changes.
I do not suppose there is a city in Canada which has a higher percentage of railway workers than the city from which I come. There is not a member of parliament from the metropolitan Winnipeg area, whether an NDP, as three of us are, or a Liberal, as three other members are, who has not met people in Winnipeg who are railroad workers who have lived for 10 or 15 years in northern Ontario towns which were virtually wiped out as a result of the introduction of the diesel engine replacing the steam engine. No one questions the fact that the diesel engine is an improvement, is more efficient and economical and that the railways had to bring them forward, but what happened to the thousands of workers in these northern Ontario towns? Not only did they have to move from Kenora, Rainy River, Nakina and a host of other towns to Winnipeg, Thunder Bay or other major centres, as a result of these changes taking place, they lost their equity in their homes and they received virtually no recompense.
That is the kind of thing these people remember. That is the kind of thing the workers know about today and about which they are so concerned and upset. Unless we pass legislation to give them the right to deal fairly with their employers to blunt the brunt of this kind of dislocation, this is the kind of thing which will lead to illegal strikes, about which the public and members of parliament are equally concerned. I hope when this bill gets to the committee, where it will be discussed in detail clause by clause, the minister will make it clear that the doubts and fears I have expressed on the part of workers in Winnipeg and other cities will be allayed. I hope we will then have a bill giving that kind of protection to workers to which they are entitled in the 1970's.


Mr.   Gaetan-J. Serre@Nickel Belt: Mr. Speaker, while listening to the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), I could not help but recall that in the four years I have been in this House this is the first time I have heard an NDP member approve of a piece of our legislation. I

will have to reflect on this for a while before I decide whether it is good or bad.
Before rising to speak on this bill, I realized that one theme was predominant in my thoughts on industrial relations. That theme is the evident conflict between organized labour and management. This conflict is evidently accentuated by the common idea that employers and employees are historically situated at opposite ends of the industrial spectrum.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
SUBJECT MATTER OF QUESTIONS TO BE DEBATED [Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: I regret having to interrupt the hon. member, but pursuant to Standing Order 40 it is my duty to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Hai-dasz)-Health-Mobilization of resources to combat cardiovascular diseases; the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis)-Health-Family planning- Possible consultation with provincial officials; the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall)- National Defence-Rent increase for married quarters- Suggested delay until parity with Public Service achieved.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions for production of papers, private bills and public bills.
It is the understanding of the Chair that the House will proceed to the item Public Bills. Is it agreed?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


Mr. Jerome:: It is the understanding that we would proceed to the item in the name of the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Mather).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey-White Rock) moved: that Bill C-14, respecting boating safety, be read the second time
April 13, 1972

and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the bill I have the honour to bring to the attention of the House this evening is a simple one. I believe it is evident there is both a growing need and ample opportunity for action in this regard. As stated in the explanatory notes, the purpose of the bill is to promote recreational boating safety and reduce the growing number of casualties from recreational boating. The essential clauses of the bill, of which there are two, state, first:
The Minister of Transport shall establish a Boating Safety Advisory Council composed of one officer of the public service of Canada who shall be chairman and four representatives of boating safety organizations to advise him on matters relating to recreational boating safety.
Then, secondly:
The Governor in Council may make regulations respecting minimum safety construction standards for boats and associated equipment, and licensing and efficiency standards of pleasure boat operators.
There are two things of which hon. members I believe should be aware if they are not at present. First, there is a continued increase in the use of pleasure boats in many areas of Canada. In the province from which I come, British Columbia, there are thousands upon thousands of people who operate boats for pleasure. It is becoming in some respects as hazardous, or perhaps I should say as responsible, an activity to operate a boat on water as it is to drive a car on the highway. The same is true to a lesser or perhaps greater extent in other parts of the country. The four-day week in industry is not some far-out dream for 20 years from now. The increase in leisure time means more people in more boats and unless there is an increase in the organization of safety procedures and legislation there will be more accidents and more deaths. In the United States, there are 45 million people involved in pleasure boating. The Canadian figure runs into the millions. So, there is a growing need for improved boating safety legislation and organization. I hope hon. members can agree with me on that.
The second point with which we should be familiar is that in the Canadian Safety Council Outdoor Recreation Committee there is to some degree already in existence a boating safety advisory council. The present set-up provides that there be a representative of the ministry of transport who is to attend committee meetings of the Canadian Safety Council Outdoor Recreation Committee as an observer. In my view, this was a good step when it was taken some years ago. But times change. Traffic increases and there is need for such an agency as proposed in the bill before us with more power to protect the public. In my opinion, the public must be more intimately concerned with recreational boating safety legislation. For example, I believe we need better results then have been obtained from the resolutions submitted to the Minister of Transport back in 1965 by the then National Safety League of Canada, which is now a division of the Canada Safety Council. A letter from that body states:
It is to be regretted that to date, that is to last winter, we understand that little or no progress has been made in discussions between federal and provincial authorities.
Canada Boat Safety Act
There is another body concerned with boating safety. It is the Allied Boating Association of Canada made up of boat manufacturers who have a certification program based on safety standards for power boat design and reliability of equipment. This group also has some contact with the government through the federal Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, regarding certification program promotion. I do not say this with any idea of downgrading the Allied Boating Association which I believe to be a worthy body, but in a way this arrangement would be rather like turning our program for auto safety over to the car manufacturing industry, with some contact with the minister in charge of transport, or in the present case, with the minister in charge of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I think, obviously this is not enough today in Canada.
If I may, I should like to quote from an article which appeared in a number of Canadian newspapers last November. It may bring into sharper focus the goal of public safety at which I am driving or sailing. I shall quote from the article which appeared in the Lethbridge Herald. It reads:
Barry Mather (NDP Surrey-White Rock) says the tipsy sailor, whether he's in a small rowboat on a lake or a large sailboat or motor vessel in coastal waters, is becoming just as much a menace as the drunken driver on the highways.
It's time to put a stop to this and other abuses of boat safety, says Mr. Mather, who has just introduced his private members bill on boating safety-in Parliament.
Not only would the bill lead to strong regulations on drunken sailing, but it could also establish legislation compelling people to put their boats through safety checks and to take special operators' tests to ensure that they are skillful enough to be put in control of a boat.
Mr. Mather suggests it would be very similar to regulations governing motor vehicle operators now.
The bill calls for Transport Minister Don Jamieson to set up a boating safety advisory council. The council would be made up of one senior civil servant and four representatives of boating safety organizations. They would advise him on what regulations are needed to promote recreational boating safety.
It would establish legislation governing minimum safety construction standards for boats and associated equipment and licensing and efficiency standards of pleasure boat operators.
The article continues:
Mr. Mather admits that there will probably be substantial opposition to his proposals. But he points out there was plenty of opposition when driver testing car safety checks and breathalyzer tests were first introduced.
In a letter from Mr. E. G. Shorter, president of the British Columbia Safety Council, the writer wishes the MP every success in this worthwhile endeavour and points out his own concern about boating safety. Again the article reads:
Says Mr. Shorter: I consider that operating a boat requires many more skills than are needed to operate an automobile on the highway. It seems desirable that all boat operators should be subject to a test and be licenced.
The council president says he has been interested in boating for many years. However, because of the lack of training and knowledge of navigation of the "multitude of boat operators" he has given up the activity.
He also says that he considers alcohol just as much a problem in boating as it is in cars on the highways.

April 13, 1972
Canada Boat Safety Act
That is the end of the quotation from the article in the Lethbridge Herald of November 6, 1971, Mr. Speaker.
I do not expect this bill to pass but, in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would strongly urge hon. members to allow it or the subject matter to go to the appropriate committee of the House for further detailed consideration and, no doubt, improvement. I think the committee would be the Transport and Communications Committee.


Mr. Jerry Pringle (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I have no difficulty in complimenting the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Mather) for proposing a bill of this type. I have listened with a great deal of interest to his remarks relating to it, and to the recreational boating industry. I suppose that the private ownership of all sizes of boats, from the dinghy to the large yacht, has become more popular than any other type of recreation, including sky-diving and some of the later developments.
All across the country, the lakes are filled with boats. Manufacturers have done a great deal of research to develop new types of boats, and the engine and outboard motor manufacturers have designed reliable engines and outboard motors. Some people like to take their boats on a trailer to the lake or river of their choice, while others who own larger boats like to leave them in one place and perhaps live on them. Boating is a big recreational industry in Canada and the United States, as well as many other parts of the world.
I certainly agree that we may not have given sufficient attention to the safety measures relating to the handling of boats, but this does not mean that we have been completely negligent. Ships are probably one of the oldest types of transportation and come in all types and sizes, such as light boats, long boats and canoes, all designed for certain specific purposes. There are many navigational systems. There is the buoy system on the open sea, where one keeps the red buoy to starboard when going toward the sea and the black one to port when coming from the sea. There are various warning devices such as the bell buoys used to direct boats. These all form part of the safety system. In later years came the channel system devised by marine operators and organizations, such as the yacht clubs, who are continually endeavouring to work out safety methods. This type of thing is going on in relation to other types of recreational activity but unquestionably boating is one of the largest recreational activities in the country today, so we should be considering some type of legislation with more teeth than any we have at present.
The Canada Shipping Act is concerned with pollution. Usually we think of pollution of the seas in connection with large freighters but a tremendous amount emanates from small boats. I refer to the spillage of gas, pumping out the bilges and normal domestic waste. These problems are coming to the attention of the authorities and a great deal of interest is being generated by the many organizations involved. There are safety regulations respecting small vessels and these are doing a reasonable job. but one facet we may have neglected is the education of boaters. Anyone can operate a boat under 65 feet in length, but over that length a master's papers are required. Anyone can apply for a licence for a smaller boat and is immediately a boater. Up to now, the people
(Mr. Mather.]
involved with sail boats have been much more cautious than those who operate with the advantage of an engine.
Another point which should be given more consideration is the relationship between the size of the boat and the power of the engine. It seems that once a young fellow gets the thrill of speeding through the water he wants to increase the power, to go faster and get even more thrills. We know what has happened with snowmobiles and the danger from powering a vehicle beyond the ability of the individual to handle it properly. This is a point that should be considered. What I am trying to say is that while this bill is a small start, it does not go nearly far enough in providing the essential safety measures.
The establishment of a safety advisory council, comprised of one official of the Public Service of Canada, shall be chairman, and four public representatives, so far as I am concerned is a satisfactory suggestion. However, I would point out that we have many similar types of organizations in various parts of the country. I just wonder if we have reached the stage where there are four or five people, presumably in Ottawa, who could formulate recommendations to the Governor in Council with respect to boating safety, covering all parts of the country. I suggest that we might appraise the whole safety problem relating to small boats through the use of a task force, that could recommend one piece of legislation, one statute, that would provide the necessary protection for both boat owners and the public.
We must consider the problems associated with search and rescue. We have a continually deplorable situation on the west coast with small boats venturing forth on to seas that are too heavy for them. This has led to many accidents. This has nothing to do with the safety of the boats themselves or their licensing. It may not even relate to the ability of their operators. But it is a fact that when gale warnings have been hoisted, boat operators just do not pay attention to them. Only a week ago we had a very sad accident off Vancouver Island. We should consider providing a penalty for people who venture forth on to high seas after gale warnings have been hoisted.
We must also consider smaller lakes in inland areas where water skiing takes place. Here, there is a danger to swimmers. Municipalities are searching for methods to restrict the possibility of negligence on the part of those people who engage in this sort of recreation. In light of these facts, Mr. Speaker, we certainly need the type of legislation suggested in Bill C-14, but I have difficulty in giving this bill my full support on the basis that it would be sufficient to do the job.
We must realize that various regions of the country will require different types of laws and regulations. To the average person this may seem rather ridiculous, but if one talks to yachting enthusiasts one finds that those who engage in the recreation in Ontario are unable to talk the same language in respect to boat handling as is spoken by those who sail in salt water areas. We must also consider the law of the sea. We should not pass legislation covering small boats that could conflict with the law of the sea.
Another factor that must be considered is the horsepower of the engine used in relation to the type of boat. I find
April 13, 1972

it difficult to believe that this bill would be adequate to cover all these matters. I am concerned that we would be establishing another type of bureaucracy without giving sufficient attention to the whole problem that exists right across the country.
The ministry of transport already has relationships with certain water safety and boating organizations. I know that submissions are being prepared by various yacht clubs. From speaking to these people, I know that they want a minimum of government interference. The Allied Boating Association of Canada, as mentioned by the previous speaker, is an organization of boat builders. Already the ministry assists in the annual testing of new models of pleasure craft, and is also assisting in the formulation of construction standards. These tests form the basis of the calculations from which the recommended maximum load and the horsepower of the engine for each model are obtained.
The Canadian Power Squadrons is an association of yacht clubs which gives correspondence courses and lectures on boat handling, navigation and safety. The ministry vets new and amended examination papers for accuracy. This is an important area where we could certainly lend some assistance. We should help the yachting associations in various areas to run schools where people who own boats could go for some education.
Of course, the Canada Safety Council receives a grant to sponsor boating safety week. This is a very worth-while cause but I do not think the program is sufficient. What the council does cannot be compared with what could be done if a reasonable grant were given to the various yachting associations across the country. Also, Mr. Speaker, there is the Canadian government specifications board, a government body which develops standards with the help of expert committees. One such committee in which DOT is the moving spirit is the life-jacket committee upon which many boating organizations are represented. The Canadian Red Cross, as we all know, has for many years-and I am sure it will continue this work-attempted to teach in every way possible-not only boating safety-but safety in water.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but I must advise him that his time has expired.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, first may I take this opportunity of congratulating the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Mather) for again bringing this matter before the House. I say "again" because this type of project was my first project in the House back in 1954 or 1955. I have had the pleasure of bringing it forward on a number of occasions since that time. I am very pleased that the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock is pursuing this matter further, because conditions have changed greatly in the coastal waters, Great Lakes and other waters of Canada since I first raised the question.
I think it is necessary to make many more improvements in the regulations. I find it difficult to understand why the previous speaker objects to sending this bill to committee for study, because the very points he raised
Canada Boat Safety Act
and the questions he asked could well be investigated and dealt with in committee.
Over the years there have been a number of improvements to the regulations. One always 'ikes to think that one's own efforts are responsible, although I do not flatter myself in that regard. However, after the matter was first raised back in the early 1950s the minister of transport in the St. Laurent government, Mr. Marler, made a number of amendments to the Canada Shipping Act. A booklet was produced at that time, a copy of which I have, entitled "Safety Afloat". It set out a great many safety regulations and other matters and greatly increased safety on the navigable waters of Canada.
After Mr. Marler the minister of transport was the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees). He made more changes in the law and brought in improved safety measures, navigational measures, and so on. Since the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings ceased to be minister of transport I do not think many changes have been made in this area, although from time to time amendments have been made to the regulations under the Canada Shipping Act. For example, it is now required that life preservers be supplied and worn in boats and certain firefighting equipment is now essential. Those two instances are an example of some of the improvements in safety regulations applying to small boats.
There is one matter I have been curious about. When the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings was minister he arranged for two ships to be constructed for operation on the Great Lakes. They were to be equipped with helicopters and were to be used for search and rescue purposes. I do not know what has happened to those boats since then. One of them may still be in operation on Lake Huron. Perhaps someone on the government side could provide us with information in this regard.
I have already said that despite the many improvements in safety regulations for small boats since 1955 conditions have changed greatly. There has been an enormous increase in the number of small boats not only in our coastal waters but on the Great Lakes. It is with the Great Lakes and connecting waters that I have been concerned in my observations and speeches in this regard over a number of years. It must be self-evident, Mr. Speaker, that in the Great Lakes area, particularly of Ontario and Quebec, and the adjacent waters you will find the largest percentage of the population of Canada. I am speaking not only of the Great Lakes and adjoining waters but of waters in Ontario such as the Muskoka lakes, the Lake Saint Louis area near Montreal and many similar waters. On these there are a great many small boats of all sizes and shapes and all sorts of power.
The summer months are almost here and we will not have the safety regulations and the search and rescue operations that are very necessary. There will be delays in this area. Although I have not had time to check, it seems to me that either in the previous Criminal Code amendments or in those now proposed there is a provision that the careless driving of a speed boat constitutes an offence. For that I commend the government. It is not often I commend the government, but in this case I do. I also commend the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock for

April 13, 1972
Canada Boat Safety Act
bringing forward for discussion a subject that is very important.
There are other steps that I think might be taken in this area and I will offer a few suggestions for further, immediate improvement to the Canada Shipping Act. I do so now because I am sure that if this bill is sent to committee for study, by the time the study is finished another summer will have gone and more lives will have been needlessly lost. I think that regulations should be added to the Canada Shipping Act to make sure that life saving equipment such as life-preservers and firefighting devices are carried on boats. I think, in particular, that life saving devices should be compulsory in boats even as small as rowing boats, canoes and the like.
Certainly there is constitutional authority for this to be done under the Navigable Waters Protection Act. As I recall it, in a discussion two or three years ago a navigable water was described as any body of water, however small, that would float a canoe. That is one improvement that could certainly be made. Another is that operators of power boats of ten horsepower and up should be obliged to undergo an examination and qualify for a licence. There should also be age restrictions regarding the operation of power boats. I also think that on larger bodies of water, which could easily be defined under the regulations to include waters such as the Great Lakes and other inland waters such as the Muskoka lakes, boats of any size should be required to carry flares and other warning devices.
There is another matter, in conclusion, that I think might be helpful. It may be a little too late to do it this year, but better late than never. I am referring to search and rescue operations. I have already said that on the Great Lakes and other inland waters of Canada, not to mention our coastal waters, there are a great many power boats of all shapes and sizes during the summer months which extend from about May, in Ontario and Quebec, until October or even November when the duck shooting season is on. The number of small boats in the area of the Great Lakes is enormous. There are hundreds of thousands of them, and often when an accident takes place it is difficult to inform the organization concerned. In these cases time is of the essence and some way must be found to get word to the proper rescue organization.
At present, Mr. Speaker, we know that the Canadian Air Force provides assistance in search and rescue. In Ontario and in Quebec the provincial police help. As well, various boat clubs, power squadrons and the like perform these operations. If an accident takes place in some of the larger areas, somebody phones the police and there is a certain amount of co-ordination in rescue activities. In any resort areas of Ontario and Quebec, as well as in many other areas, there is no great problem in this regard because you can usually call someone. However, if something happens in one of the smaller places no one seems to know who should be contacted.
In other words, what is wanted is a co-ordinating authority with whom one can get in touch immediately and who can act perhaps in concert with a search and rescue operation whether of the air force, the provincial police, a power squadron-the power squadrons have their names listed-or other appropriate agency. It seems
[Mr. Nesbitt.)
to me that it would be very useful if the government were to employ university students to do this work. Goodness knows, there have been enough complaints in the country about lack of employment for university students. This would be a seasonal job and a two or three-week course would be adequate.
A large number of university students could be provided with a useful occupation. In addition to acting as co-ordinators they could supply information to agents who perform search and rescue work. They could provide meteorological information and put out storm warnings. In very congested areas near large cities they could oe supplied with duty boats to constantly patrol beaches in areas near Toronto, Hamilton, parts of Lake Erie and parts of the St. Lawrence River in the Montreal area. Student operators or co-ordinators might be given certain powers with which to prevent small boats going out in very stormy weather or when a storm is impending. They could also be given the power to regulate speeders. They could impose fines on speeders and other motor boat smart alecks who endanger swimmers, children and others.
These are some of the things students could be doing. They would be healthfully and usefully employed, instead of working on projects such as those under the Opportunities for Youth program and the Local Incentives Program, sometimes known as LIP, which are given large sums of money to carry out some rather questionable projects. This type of project would be a very useful method of providing summer employment for a large number of students and could save many lives.
I hope these suggestions will be looked into by the appropriate agencies of the government and that the bill will be sent to committee where these points can be reiterated and commented upon by myself and other supporters of the legislation.


Mr. Ovide Laflamme (Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to add a few words to the remarks the hon. members for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) and Fraser Valley East (Mr. Pringle) have just made in reply to the proposal of the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Mather).
Mr. Speaker, the sponsor of the bill before the House has suggested that we should be able to set up a Boating Safety Advisory Council. This council would be composed of one officer of the public service who would be chairman, and four representatives of boating safety organizations who would advise him on matters relating to recreational boating safety.
The hon. member for Fraser Valley East mentioned the fact that the Canada Shipping Act already contains provisions that should dispel the fears expressed by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock.
In fact, clause 7 of the Canada Shipping Act essentially imposes the obligation of registering any boat or yachtes of 10 HP or more; this means that, generally, all those boats are registered.
Once those pleasure boats are registered, their owners are given the guide on boating security that is published
April 13, 1972

and liberally distributed to the interested parties by the federal Department of Transport and in which indications and general rules are given on navigation wherever those small boats may navigate.
In addition, with regard to small boats, their builders will inevitably do what is necessary to ensure their safety if they want to keep a market for their production.
The previous speaker, the hon. member for Oxford, has given us, in my opinion, a true picture of the problems which we have to face when he mentioned that people may, under our navigation legislation, have their boats registered without having an adequate knowledge of the general navigation regulations.
The problem about clause 3, as suggested by the hon. member, is as follows: permits should obviously be issued. I understand my colleague suggesting that permits be required to operate those boats, but then the efficiency of a federal jurisdiction would be questioned with respect to all the pleasure boats which do not operate in Canadian navigable waters, that is which operate only up and down rivers and lakes which in effect come under provincial jurisdiction.
Basically, this proposal reflects the explicit concern caused by the ever increasing risks involved, more specifically in Canadian navigable waters, particularly in areas where pilotage is mandatory.
I know that in my own region, on the St. Lawrence river in the province of Quebec there is a proliferation of pleasure boats being operated and it sometimes really seems that some operators have acquired no prior notions as to security in the operating of these vessels.
This could be achieved within the framework of a well-timed campaign, fully supported by the Department of Transport, arranging for more courses or lessons being offered in navigation in the country's navigable waters and more specifically stressing consequences related to the operation of a pleasure boat, load distribution, reaction on the water, weather forecasts, in short, many elementary details of which not only the owners of pleasure craft, but the population as a whole should be aware. Actually, it often happens, in areas where yachting is practiced, that the operator does not always have the foresight or the time to explain to those on board such vessels-perhaps for the first time-the elementary standards or general rules of navigation.
I believe that such generalized publicity and the teaching in schools of elementary notions can really allay whatever concern the hon. member may now feel as to the risks involved in navigation.
Careful study of the safety guide to boating published by the federal Department of Transport would of course impart all the really necessary data to ensure boating safety.
Of course, I do not really think that at the research level in this field the establishment of an advisory committee could permit a wider distribution of information at present, or prevent pleasure craft accidents, because these are generally caused by negligence or lack of knowledge.
Canada Boat Safety Act
I think that these accidents may quite easily be prevented given a wider distribution of information concerning general standards, the operation of a pleasure boat, and navigation in general.
Mr. Speaker, I do not feel that we should dwelve too long on pleasure crafts with adequate equipment. Today, high-powered yachts operate on major waterways and on the Great Lakes. Their equipment is just about as up-to-date as that of ships providing transoceanic transportation or cruising on all the major waterways of the world.
But I am thinking of the small pleasure crafts that we see almost everywhere, which are readily available, and often enough belong to people who know little about navigation. In my view, those are the boats which may create real problems for navigation, especially when cruising in navigable waters.
There again, I do not see how the federal government could extend its jurisdiction to boating in navigable waters. On the other hand, if the owner operates in navigable waters, the Canada Shipping Act compels him to register and, at the same time, if his boat is registered, the owner has access to all essential information relating to boating in order to prevent any accident liable to endanger the lives of the owner or the passengers.
But one of the essential points to which the attention of the House was particulary drawn is the problem of pollution caused by recreational boating. When one considers, for instance, that in the St. Lawrence, the volume of maritime freight is ever increasing, there is every reason to worry about the movements of some pleasure boats that keep too close to ocean liners or ships coming from the Great Lakes.
There is need for closer supervision in this connection, I think, because even small recreational boats can cause serious maritime disasters.
On this point, Mr. Speaker, I think there should be more patrolling in order to deal with those who disobey the elementary rules of navigation.
But I do not believe yet that the proposal made by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock concerning the establishment of an advisory council could make the existing statutes more efficient. As a matter of fact, when we read the legislation on Canadian navigation, particularly as regards small boats, we find almost everything there. However, it is enough to ensure that the legislation is well enforced and to see that those who break the law lose their boating licence or are subjected to a fine.
Far from me, Mr. Speaker, the idea of wanting to minimize the importance of the problem raised by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock, because I agree with him that there are increasingly more people who are cruising in our waters for pleasure. Obviously, we should put more emphasis on publicity and information directed to the young people. As a matter of fact, the provincial education departments have done a lot of good work in this area. We should seriously consider giving young people boating courses similar to the present car driving courses. By simply providing basic information, we would effectively tackle the causes of accidents.
In concluding my remarks, I would say, as the hon. member for Fraser Valley East has pointed out, that there

April 13, 1972
Canada Labour Code
is already a considerable number of associations and yacht clubs. The Allied Boating Association of Canada, the Canadian Power Squadrons and the Boating Safety Council of Canada co-operate to insure better knowledge of navigational hazards.
I acknowledge that the idea behind the hon member's bill is sensible and might attract public attention to the matter of greater safety. Indeed, the questions that are raised would be more appropriately served at the provincial level, particularly in the field of education, and in view of the circumstances, this bill should not be passed since its provisions seem to indicate a lack of effectiveness.
A similar bill has already been tabled in this House. I think the hon. member has again taken advantage of private members' hour to raise a question which should attract the general interest of the public and its attention regarding the serious consequences of the growing popularity of boating. In view of the circumstances and considering all these facts, this bill should be referred to the Standing committee on Transport and Communications.


The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Honey):: Order. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business has expired. I do now leave the Chair until 8 o'clock p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. O'Connell that Bill C-183, to amend the Canada Labour Code, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
Mr. Gaetan J. Serre (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, before private members' hour I had risen to speak on Bill C-183 and I was saying that I realized one theme predominated my thoughts on industrial relations. That theme is the evident conflict between organized labour and management. This conflict is evidently accentuated by the common idea that employers and employees are historically situated at the opposite ends of the spectrum of interests. This diametric opposition could have no other result than an upsurge in the wave of labour unrest and strikes which we witnessed in the mid-sixties and are witnessing now.
(Mr. Laflamme.]
As a representative of an industrial area which prides itself on its strong labour tradition, I hasten to endorse the spirit and content of Bill C-183. In parenthesis may I say that the miners of the Sudbury nickel basin were undoubtedly the first to organize in labour unions. Many of my constituents remember the first years of the labour movement's activities. The two major unions involved in the nickel industry, United Steelworkers of America and the Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers, represent over 22,000 working men. I would venture to say that some 80 per cent of our work force is represented at the bargaining table by trade unions.
The basin's entire population is conscious of labour-management relations. All are affected by labour disputes, strikes, walkouts or lockouts. It is on that basis that any legislation which improves labour-management relations benefits the nickel basin residents in every walk of life. Both labour and management will profit by these amendments.
Although the labour code as such has not been revised since 1948, the Canadian population and labourers were well protected. It is in the light of our twentieth century economic structure and growth that amendments such as those proposed by this government have become essential. Bill C-253, which was introduced in the Commons last June, 1971, incorporated a substantial number of amendments intended to update the existing legislation. As a result of a great number of representations from both labour unions and management, the present bill contains further revisions which are much more acceptable to both management and labour.
For the record, I would like to go over some of the major modifications introduced in that bill. They involve clarification and recasting of certain sections dealing with technological change, withdrawal of the section that would have restricted an employee's right to picket, and amendment to the section dealing with an employee's voluntary revocable check-off. Also, major amendments were made to the sections dealing with technological change, making it more acceptable and workable to both parties. I must say that this section interests me the most and is of very great interest also to the mining people and railroaders of my area whose lives are being more and more affected as a result of automation and technological change.
Also for the record, I would like to remind everyone that in reference to the section on technological change this bill includes provisions which require an employer to whom the technological change provisions apply to give the bargaining agents concerned 90 days notice of such change where the change affects a significant number of employees. In defined circumstances an agent would be empowered, during the term of an agreement, to negotiate provisions designed to assist employees in adjusting to the effects of technological change, with the ultimate right to strike in the event an agreement could not be reached.
In order to exercise this power the union would have to obtain from the board leave to serve notice to bargain. The board would be authorized to grant such leave only if it were satisfied that the change in question was likely to have substantial and adverse effects on the conditions or
April 13, 1972

security of employment of a significant number of employees.
It is unfortunate, indeed, that Bill C-183 is limited to Crown corporations or employees of the federal government. It is evident that this government is again giving proof of its foresight. If such legislation were in existence at the provincial level, the hardworking miners of the International Nickel Company and Falconbridge Nickel Mines would receive fair warning that technological changes in the mining industry would demand massive layoffs. As a result of the layoff that recently took place in Sudbury, young men and older people, some with young families, now find themselves in the ranks of the unemployed. Without warning they have been forced to seek work in other fields. Many of these workers had left other provinces to become good citizens of our area.
Mining operations are becoming more and more automated and we can expect that a greater number of employees will be either demoted, displaced or laid off in the very near future. I certainly hope that the provincial governments, under whose jurisdiction mining companies fall, will follow suit and introduce legislation very soon. Negotiations for a new contract are presently under way in Sudbury. I hope that the company will adopt similar provisions to those we find in Bill C-183 concerning technological change, even though the present provincial legislation does not require them to do so. This would certainly reduce the great anxiety which now exists among the workers and would help create a better climate of confidence by ensuring economic security in our area.
While I am on the subject of negotiations taking place in Sudbury at the moment, may I be permitted to mention that I fully endorse the request by the union, in particular, that employees be permitted to go on pension after 30 years' service. I feel that an employee in the mining industry, which is so detrimental to the health of its workers, should have the option to retire at least after 30 years' or perhaps after 25 years' service. Such an employee who has worked hard all his life could enjoy a little leisure time while his health still allowed him to do so. He could also find some type of light duty work which would allow him to live a more decent life. This would also leave more room for our younger generation which is now seeking employment. Therefore, I am very much behind an early retirement for the workers of the mines and would strongly urge the company to accept such a request.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear!


Gaetan-Joseph Serré: I see I have the approval of my friend, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). These new amendments to the labour code affect directly the employees of Canadian National Railways in my area. As a result of automation, most of the population of Nakina in northern Ontario who were employed directly or indirectly by the CNR were forced to vacate an area in which they had been lifelong residents. This unfortunate situation which took place at Nakina a few years ago played a major role in bringing about revisions to the labour code in respect of technological change. Just last year many office employees who had settled in Capreol
Canada Labour Code
were forced to move to Toronto as a result of centralization or automation. This decision was taken unilaterally by CNR management without prior consultation with the employees involved or prior notice to the community. This legislation will prevent such displacement without first conducting proper negotiations and will have the effect of bringing about a more satisfactory solution for all parties concerned.
I feel that this new labour code is long overdue and eagerly awaited by the workers of this country. The provisions dealing with technological change introduced by an employer during the life of a collective agreement is most innovative and important. When the former minister of labour was replaced by the present minister it was immediately speculated that the switch meant the government had given in to big business and manufacturers pressure to kill the controversial clause. Employers hoped that is what had happened and employees feared that it had happened. I am pleased to see that our new and able Minister of Labour (Mr. O'Connell) has kept that clause in the bill, but with a limited right to strike, making it more workable and acceptable to management and labour. At the same time, the right of management to increase efficiency through technological change will be protected by the new code just as much as job security and the continuation of pay cheques for workers affected by such change.
This is sound legislation and it is becoming better understood by chambers of commerce across the country as well as management and unions. I support it because I feel it will give more security to the workers and more stability to the economic and social life of the community, especially communities such as Sudbury in which the workers depend on one major industry for their living.

Mr. Speaker, the age of technology is disquieting for many workers. This bill will give more protection and ease labour-management relations.
That is the reason why I highly commend the Minister of Labour for having so brilliantly introduced this new Labour Code.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on Bill C-183 I find it very difficult to be as enthusiastic as the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Serre). However, to be fair, I think the bill does represent some improvement over its predecessor. I only wish the new minister had moved a bit further to correct some of the errors and weaknesses which remain untouched. However, in general the bill does represent a constructive improvement. I should say that in addition to its omissions, it is weak and does not really do anything in so far as giving us hope that the incidence of strikes and lockouts will be decreased and their effects on the public diminished.
I think another area of weakness is that the bill does not take advantage of many of the reforms suggested in the Woods report of 1968. The greatest weakness of the bill lies in the fact that only about 530,000 workers in Canada will be affected by it; that is to say, it is limited to industries which fall under federal jurisdiction. When one con-

April 13, 1972
Canada Labour Code
siders that we are dealing with only 530,000 out of 2.1 million people who belong to labour unions, it is evident that we are actually missing out on the 4.5 million workers who do not belong to labour unions. I think this is a very important point.
Certainly, in regard to the danger inherent in strikes which we face at the present time, the bill does nothing to affect the collective bargaining of federal public servants such as air controllers or the CBC NABET members who are covered by the Public Service Staff Relations Act. So I am concerned about this, because really we are not dealing with a bill that is as comprehensive as it is said to be. I think it is intolerable that in Canada we still suffer many strikes and a tremendous loss of man-days year by year. It is interesting to note that in 1970, the last year for which complete statistics are available, we had 542 strikes with a loss of more than 6,539,560 man-workdays. While this represented a slight decrease from the previous year, the fact remains that the strike situation and loss of man-workdays has been increasing at a very rapid rate.
In 1950 there were 160 strikes and lockouts with a loss of 1,387,500 man-workdays. In 1960 there were 274 strikes or lockouts with a loss of considerably less work days, 738,700. In 1970 there was the tremendous loss to the economy of 6,539,560 man-workdays. I do not think the economy can stand to lose the tremendous amount of dollars and value that this represents. There ought to be a better way to settle contracts between labour and management. I think the machinery or methods represented in these statistics belong to an age which should have passed a long time ago.
I only wish this bill would go much further to settle some of these problems. I wish it would bring in something new that would really give some hope to both management and labour, not to mention the third party, the public, who suffers and has to pay most of the bills. Surely there ought to be a better way. While tonight it is not my purpose to enlarge on this aspect of the bill, herein I believe is the major weakness in our whole labour structure so far as collective bargaining is concerned. When labour leaders such as George Meany talk out on this very thing perhaps it is an indication that organized labour itself is beginning to understand that the present approach is not the answer. So far as I can see, this is not the situation in Canada, whether on the labour-union side or on the government side.
I think there are a few basic points we should remind ourselves of in dealing with a bill such as this. We must remember we live in a pluralistic society which allows for the expression of more than one ultimate life principle. In our country we are raised from birth in the tradition that it is right and proper for people to march to the sound of different drums, compelled by their respective convictions honestly arrived at. Indeed, the notion that harmony need not be imperilled by diversity is one of the objectives of the Canadian experience. This very principle ought to be more evident in the organized labour situation as we see it today. The tradition is accepted in the areas of politics, education, church affiliation and virtually all other areas of activity, and I can see no reason why the 
objectives should be different when men and women go to work.
The freedom to work, the freedom of association and the freedom to support the political party of one's choice are of more enduring importance to Canada than a particular set of labour relations statutes or a code of labour relations such as we have in this bill. All freedoms must be viewed in the context of the civil right to freedom of worship which embraces both the right to hold religious convictions and the right to translate those convictions into the fabric of everyday life in the factory or wherever the place of work might be.
In a free society men should not be forced to accept uniform patterns of life and organization. There ought to be a real opportunity provided so that men can freely form those organizations and institutions which give expression to their legitimate aspirations. This does not mean that our society should be divided into unrelated fragments. In diversity, a generous amount of co-operation is possible provided an attitude of true respect and good will is present. If this is true in the very basis of the political structure of the country, why does it not apply also in the area of work?
It seems to me that the Bill of Rights of Canada and the Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations define very clearly that the right to work is one of the basic freedoms of people. The right of association and freedom of association is equally one of the basic freedoms fundamental to our way of life. If freedom of association is a fundamental part of our way of life, then surely freedom to disassociate should also be part of our way of life. It seems to me this bill does nothing to even begin to approach the problem of which I am speaking. I regret that we have not gone further in this regard.
Actually, what is happening today is that we are pitting labour and management against each other. It is the adversary system that is wrong in trying to meet the problem of labour relations. There ought to be a genuinely co-operative area in which the evil spirit of economic conflict will not be the basic reality which exists, as it does today. If we go along in the system and attitude expressed in this bill, management and unions will continue to be deadlocked in bitter disputes which are but the logical result of the tense, warlike atmosphere in which many contract talks are conducted. No one wants to give. Everybody wants to take. It is like a tug-of-war where the strongest wins and the winner takes all.
I say that this bill could meet the problem more realistically than it does. For a variety of reasons, I think in this debate we should be considering whether the present collective bargaining system based on the individualistic employer by employer, trade by trade majority rule concept, including the right to strike and lockout, can cope with the new problems thrust upon the work force, and whether the capitalist-oriented employers organizations and politically-oriented trade unions even try to rise to the challenge of finding a substitute for what the royal commission headed by Ivan C. Rand rightly branded "the crudely developed bargaining, conciliation and strike ritual."
April 13, 1972

I think the House and the committee which will study this bill would be well advised to look at the collective bargaining system in depth, especially in relation to the alienating effects of today's work situation, and to recommend that the government and all who are responsible for the just development of societal life tackle this mammoth task before we are faced with either a workers' revolt that will make a shambles of our present, wholly inadequate collective bargaining schemes, or the public is forced to take action against this situation in a way that none of us want. I sense that public opinion will not stand for what is going on or for the palliative type of methods that we are trying to express in this bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Norman Thompson: I do not think that a man's daily work should be considered a mere economic necessity or a commodity like wheat or steel, to be sold to the highest bidder in the marketplace. I believe that work is an integral part of a man's lifelong mission to develop and create. Both organized labour and the efficiency experts should stop repudiating these basic principles which belong as a right to every individual, and they include his right to choose his work. I think it should be recognized that the workers ought to be consulted and should have qualified representation which will have a real, co-deciding voice in regard to the system of work.
I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that there are certain basic rights which belong to the union worker but which he is not being given today. I think the worker should insist that the machine be tailored to meet the needs of man, instead of our system trying to fit the man to meet the needs of the machine. That is what is happening today. We in this House should demand that something fundamental be done as far as correcting the situation in the whole collective bargaining system. I think it is wrong that labour should be forcing the workingman to be cut to fit the bed instead of the bed being designed to fit the man. They should not just benefit the few but should be universal in application, because when they are not they are repressive and cease to be just. It seems to me that the government has a long road to travel before it can say that Canada is truly a place in which to stand, to choose and to work in freedom.
I think this principle is vital as far as bargaining rights are concerned. Let us go back briefly to the Woods task force report which says at pages 138 to 140 that the bill extends collective bargaining rights to professional employees who do not perform management functions or are employed in a confidential capacity in matters relating to industrial relations. Section 125(4) states that the Canada Labour Relations Board may decide to include in a bargaining unit employees "whose duties include the supervision of other employees." While the extension of bargaining rights to groups previously exempted as supervisory and junior managerial employees has been generally well received, and while there will be wide discretion on the part of the Canada Labour Relations Board, this bill does not improve the definitions that were criticized in its predecessor, Bill C-253.
The government should attempt to sharpen such potentially ambiguous and contradictory definitions such as
Canada Labour Code
those contained in section 125(4) which allow collective bargaining for "employees whose duties include the supervision of other employees" and section 107(l)(b) which excludes a person "who performs management functions or is employed in a confidential capacity in matters relating to industrial relations".
One suggestion of the Ontario Relations Institute regarding professional employees has been included in this bill. It allows the CLRB to establish separate collective bargaining units for professional employees. I suppose there has been improvement on some of these points, but we are still just scraping the surface and not getting down to the problem with which we pretend to deal.
Now we come to the closed shop question. The Woods report, at page 149, urges that in a unit for which a union is the bargaining agent a member must pay the regular and reasonable dues of the union, whether he takes out membership or not, as an "agency fee". This is widely known as an agency shop and is recognized in the bill. What I am concerned about, Mr. Speaker, is a person who does not meet the requirement to belong to a labour union. To say that a person does not have the right to work because he does not carry a certain membership card is to deny that person a right that belongs to him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Norman Thompson: I am thinking particularly of a nurse who for personal reasons refused to become a member of a union. She was employed in a hospital in St. Catharines and was forced to give up her job because she did not carry a union card. Where is the right or freedom to work for this young woman that is so carefully outlined in both the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Human Rights? This troubles me.
This bill goes beyond what was recommended in the Woods report and provides for legal acceptance of the closed shop principle which is regarded as increasingly indefensible in the Woods report and has been actively criticized by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). Section 161 expressly states that collective agreements may contain an agreement requiring, as a condition of employment, membership in a specified trade union or preference of employment to members of a specified trade union. This section, along with section 125(3), creates the possibility of the very kind of closed shop which the Prime Minister has been urging the provinces to move against. Therefore, it is inconsistent with that which the Prime Minister has been advocating in his speeches.
This bill will allow professional employees-doctors, lawyers, engineers, scientists, accountants, etc.-to establish separate bargaining units and to exclude from employment other professionals who are not members of their union. The government is therefore inviting the kind of uneconomic and unjust employment restriction that is far too prevalent at the provincial level. Taxpayers and university graduates need fewer, not more, impediments to employment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Norman Thompson: While no action has been taken by the federal government or provincial governments to roll

April 13, 1972
Canada Labour Code
back the present legal support for closed shops or to act on the recommendations of the Woods report-I refer to page 150-that where hiring halls operate in industries as the effective means to employment in those industries they should be operated by the Canada Manpower service with the assistance of employers and unions through a joint labour-management committee, at least section 161 of this bill should be removed.
Mr. Speaker, unless we face up to some of these problems I am afraid that organized labour, management and government that condones this kind of practice will find themselves in a situation which may bring about a change which they will not be happy to accept as an alternative.
In the United States a poll was taken recently and the result was announced on Labour Day, 1971. It was conducted by the Opinion Research Corporation of Princeton, New Jersey, and it clearly showed that a right to work law is favoured by the American public by a two-to-one margin, including a majority of union members' families. The situation is not really different here in Canada.
What is happening as a result of this situation? The country is being put into an economic straitjacket. It could be that the fault lies not with the labour union leaders but with the imbalance of the law that makes the abuse of union power inevitable and the suppression of that abuse by government also inevitable. This is what I am concerned about. Where are we going? The answer is pretty plain. Unions have priced more and more Canadian goods out of international trade, and having made foreign imports economically acceptable are beginning to argue for the necessity of higher protective tariffs and quotas in order to give the uneconomic the necessary assistance. The consumer will not accept this situation indefinitely.
This is what is happening throughout the country today. Wage and price controls are being demanded all across the country, to the extent that I believe if a poll were taken today the majority of the people would express a view in favour of such controls. If this comes to pass it is the end of the free market and of free wage negotiations, the very things we want to preserve but which we do not really have today.
What is the cure? I do not think any organization, union or otherwise, has the right to believe it has the power to compel a worker to join a union he may not want to join in order to hold down a job. This is one of the weaknesses of this bill: it does not deal with that matter.
A short time ago I was surprised to read a report from David Archer, president of the Ontario Federation of Labour, who agrees with this contention of mine but who laments the fact that the government of Ontario does not permit agricultural and other workers to bargain collectively. He thinks it is nonsense to deny that right to any worker and contends, I think rightly so, that the proposed changes in the labour code should guarantee the right of all workers to organize in unions of their choice. I might add that these views of his were reported in "Voice of the People" of July 2 as follows:
However, until we replace the adversary system by a radically different, genuinely co-operative arrangement, the evil notion of
class hatred and conflict will continue to be a reality. Management and union will continue to be deadlocked in bitter disputes that are but the logical result of the tense, warlike atmosphere in which many contract talks are conducted. No one wants to give; everyone wants to take.
There is one exception that I would like to draw to the attention of hon. members. I think it is worth noting. It relates to the recent agreement between the International Longshoremen's Association and the Maritime Employers Association, which produced some startling concessions by union and management. The union agreed to end featherbedding that forced management to use 16 men for jobs which sometimes could be handled by eight men. Management agreed to job security and to provide nearly $4.5 million in pension funds over the life of the three-year contract. Without going into further details of this agreement, I point out that it is significant that it was arrived at quietly, in a setting that is not typical of most of the bargaining processes. Here management and union worked for the benefit of both. They did it in an atmosphere of harmony and co-operation. This bill should provide for that kind of framework and regulations should encourage this type of approach.
This has not been the pattern in the past. The decades of grinding struggle have left their mark on both labour and management. What has happened is that the trenches have been dug very deeply. We find ourselves locked in a seemingly inevitable struggle for power or counterpower. This is survival of the fittest, and it is this concept about which I am concerned.
There is just one other aspect that I would like to mention in regard to the bill. It concerns the Canada Labour Relations Board. I think it is a good thing that this board will no longer be made up of certain individuals who represent specified organizations. This is a step forward. But I believe the bill should be amended to ensure that the representative nature of the board be guaranteed by providing realistic consultative and advisory roles for labour and management in the appointment of some of its members.
It is true that several liberalizing suggestions of the Woods task force have been introduced, such as the secret ballot. The bill also includes provision to recognize bargaining rights acquired by voluntary recognition. Nevertheless, in spite of some of these positive aspects, which also include the provision that a certification ballot include the provision for no union, I believe that in relation to unfair practices the bill should have been further strengthened. Here again, the Woods report made positive recommendations on the civil rights of workers, such as the legislative guarantee of the right of union members to audited statements of union financial affairs.
Furthermore, while the bill does provide for complaints on a range of matters to be made to the CLRB, the limitation of the hearing of such complaints is unreasonable and would seriously discourage many legitimate complaints being made. Clause 187 (3) should be amended at least to read "within two months." There is no reason why a person should have to wait six months to receive justice from his union. Why should there be that kind of delay?

April 13, 1972

An editorial in the Globe and Mail of April 4 covers the last point that I wish to make regarding the technological change provisions. I quote:
The new bill establishes three circumstances involving technological change in which the bargaining process with its ultimate possibility of strike or lockout may not be employed.
First, where the employer has given notice in writing of the proposed change during the open period (at least 90 days) which precedes each new set of negotiations. Here it will be presumed that the technological change, like any other change proposed by either employer or union, can be bargained at the usual negotiating table, with the usual give and take.
Second, where the collective agreement already sets out procedures by which the effects of a technological change may be negotiated and settled-usually by binding arbitration.
Third, where provisions are contained in the collective agreement to assist employees affected by technological change, and it is specified-something some unions may be reluctant to do-that the extraordinary procedures for between-normal-bargaining negotiations do not apply.
These changes have two obvious advantages over the previous bill prepared by the former minister of manpower. Again I quote:
They relieve that part of industry which has conscientiously tried to agree with labour on the proper approach to technological change from the insecurity of not knowing if it may be hit again in the middle of a contract. They will encourage industries to enter into negotiations with unions on the subject-because if they don't do it willingly they may find themselves doing it unwillingly, in unnecessary mid-term negotiations.
This is one area where the bill has been improved. However, in my opinion it must be kept in mind that the technological change provisions must be criticized and assessed in regard to their being a remedy to the problem. The problem is simply this: How do we encourage technological change so that Canadian industries can compete with foreign industries in domestic and foreign markets and, at the same time, minimize the adverse effect of such changes upon members of the Canadian labour force and, as well, protect the public interest and carry out our public responsibility?
The present urgency in seeking a solution to this problem is twofold. The kinds of technological change Canada has experienced in the last decade or so have been introduced at a more rapid rate than in previous years and current technological change has far reaching effects on industry's manpower requirements. In this regard, therefore, the bill we are discussing does not go far enough. The effects of accelerating technological change and a high level of unemployment, such as we have now, upon highly unionized industries have contributed largely to uneasy industrial relations in Canada. I think there needs to be some softening in this area.
Obviously, industry and unionized labour have an interest in technological change. It is equally obvious, although not so generally recognized, that the Canadian public has an interest as well: in the first place, as the beneficiary of an efficient and technologically competitive industry or the financial victim of an inefficient industry that is protected by tariffs or bolstered by subsidies; in the second place, as the tax source whose taxes are variously used to assist industry to make technological changes or to assist employees to weather such changes; and in the third
Canada Labour Code
place, as the victim inconvenienced by industrial strife arising out of management's and labour's failure to reach agreement on technological change.
It is reasonable to conclude that the public has a vested interest in the problem of technological change and, arising only from that interest, a right and a responsibility to be a third presence with management and trade unions in contributing to the solution of these problems. So in closing, Mr. Speaker, may I say that the technological change provisions in Bill C-183 are an example of general legislation directed to a comparatively minor aspect of one of the problems engendered by technological change.
This is no doubt an assertion of the public interest into management-labour union relations. In light of the examples previously mentioned, it might be termed a minimal assertion of the public interest. One can admit the sacredness of private contract while proposing a profane but superior right of parliament to protect the public purse. So what is at issue here is whether the provisions of the bill are an adequate solution to this problem. For that reason I submit that these provisions and any counter proposals should be thoroughly considered in committee, for I regard the committee study to be one of the most important aspects of our work on this bill. I end with the hope that the minister and the government are willing to concede that the bill can be made much better with a few logical amendments.


Mr. Robert P. Kaplan (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, most members of parliament come to this place with a perspective on Canadian society which is narrower than the total picture. Region, education, social background, family situation, former job, work environment-these are all factors that influence individual judgment about the national problems we are dealing with here. As my regular hecklers across the floor have often noted for the record, this applies to me as well. Coming to this place and being here gives a man an opportunity to see other points of view and, more important, to learn the reasons for the other points of view. In this process my own views have changed in many ways. One area has been in the field of industrial relations, the subject of the bill before us. I should like to take a few minutes tonight to talk about this subject.
There is no area of the Canadian economy in which the structure is so defective as the area of industrial relations. On a day like today, when about 300,000 members of the Canadian labour force of over eight million are on strike, many in critical jobs, this observation needs no support. The mail that I get, and undoubtedly the mail of most members of this House, is full of criticisms of these structural problems. This criticism is unusual in two ways and is not like the usual sort of criticism one receives in the mail. Firstly, it is unlike most general criticism, which tends to be rather complicated. The criticism regarding industrial relations is clearcut. We hear about good guys and bad guys. For some, it is management that is good and the greedy workingman who is bad; for others, the opposite is true. For some, the government is the principal villain; for others, it is American unions or the NDP which are at fault. The various publics of the Canadian population tend to have a very simple view of the causes of the problem.

April 13, 1972
Canada Labour Code
The second unusual feature of the public debate on industrial relations is that everyone has a simple solution. Again, not everybody's solution is the same. However, none of my correspondents seems to have much difficulty in delivering to me a clear prescription for solving the problem, and this is unusual when one notes the public reaction in other areas of Canadian life where all our energy seems to be used simply in trying to define problems in a clear way.
People write to me, Mr. Speaker, saying that the time has come to break the power of big unions; that they have outlived their usefulness; that we should consider making strikes illegal because they are a feudal throwback and out of place in today's society; that we should make all strikes by public servants illegal, because they are employed by the bottomless purse; that we should make strikes in essential services illegal, either in the public sector or across the board; that we should establish compulsory and binding arbitration as a substitute for the right to strike; that we should insert a government representative into all arbitrations so that we can avoid sweetheart deals and represent the consumer and public interest in settlements; that we should provide guidelines for fair increases across the board and permit no increases beyond the guidelines; that we should appeal to Canadian nationalism; that we should ask Canadians to tighten their belts, as they did willingly during World War II; that we should limit increases to productivity gains, either in particular industries or across the board; and that we should resort to sectoral bargaining. This last proposal has actually been implemented in Quebec and, partly, in Ontario. This has created problems which I hope to return to before I end my remarks.
Each of these solutions could be described as a proposal for structural change and each is quite different from the others. Each one has been subject to much public discussion. I do not want to repeat tired arguments tonight, but I should like to make a few points. Firstly, let me say a word about the power of big unions. It is currently believed both by the population and by many economists that the price-wage spiral is being stoked by increases demanded by big industrial unions which make outrageous demands in every contract renewal that is negotiated. This, for example, is the premise on which John Kenneth Galbraith works. He thinks that big union contracts should be price controlled. This is also the theory behind phase II of the "Nixonomics" presently in effect in the United States, under which controls apply only to the big or key sectors. However, I have investigated the figures and have concluded that the premise is false both in the United States and in Canada.
In the United States, between 1965 and 1971 unionized hourly wages in the manufacturing sector, the so-called "commanding heights" of capitalism and union strength, increased by 36 per cent. In the same period, the lowly and generally non-unionized service sector experienced wage gains of 43 per cent, and the gains of United States federal public servants in the same six-year period were 51 per cent.
On the Canadian scene, although I have had some difficulty with Statistics Canada's products and, hence, difficulty in getting similar information, it seems that a par-

allel exists. Between 1965 and 1971, the hourly wages of unionized employees of corporations employing over 500 people rose by 55.8 per cent, but over-all for all industries of all sizes the hourly wage increase was 63.9 per cent. Noting that unionized labour constitutes less than 25 per cent of the total, it would seem that in the Canadian situation the wages of unionized employees in big unions have gone up substantially less than the national average. So much for the so-called monopoly power of the unions.
Second, I would like to say a word about strikes. I used to believe that there was an element of immorality about a strike. Certainly a strike is a waste of time that could be used for production of wanted goods and services; but how immoral is it? In a legal strike a group of employees have fulfilled their contract, working at agreed wages until the contract expires. They then seek a satisfactory contract to continue their work. Often patiently, they may continue on the job at the old rates while negotiations go on. In this area, incidentally, no employees in Canada have been more patient than federal public servants. However, the time comes when they feel negotiation is futile and they stop coming to work. Remember, they never agreed to work at the salary they are being paid. In this situation, who can blame them? So much for the morality of it.
For his part, the employer is not without recourse. He does not have to shut down. He is perfectly free to find other workers who want the jobs at lower rates and are prepared to cross picket lines. In fact, the police will assist any new employees to come to work. However, it is a measure of the extent to which Canadians approve of strikes that the strikebreaker or scab is looked down on. I would, therefore, have difficulty accepting the general principle that strikes should be illegal.
I think that if the employees can agree not to strike as part of the collective agreement, that is fine. In this area no group is more progressive than federal public servants, where out of more than 200 collective agreements to which strikes might have applied all but a dozen contain agreement to arbitrate on the breakdown of negotiations. I cannot accept a general illegalization of strikes.
Let me add, as well, that making strikes illegal does not eliminate strikes. In the United States, where strikes are illegal in the public service, there have been, I believe, two postal strikes in the past three years. In Montreal, where police strikes are illegal, the police have been on virtual or actual strike several times in the past four years. So have the jailers in the province of Quebec. One could ask, what is the solution when laws like that are broken? It is surely not putting people in jail.
In Australia, where arbitration is compulsory, there have been five times as many illegal strikes as there have been legal strikes in Canada in similar periods over recent years. I conclude from this experience and these comparisons that making strikes illegal is no panacea, nor is banning other disruptive kinds of presently legal activities. This applies as well to strikes in so-called essential services. For the argument about essential services, a problem of definition arises. Some people's idea of essentiality is different from that of others. For example, the
April 13, 1972

largest group of complaints I received about recent strikes related to the Saturday night hockey game.
To take another example, we thought the air traffic controllers supplied an essential service, yet Canadians were able to cope with a fairly lengthy strike. For short hauls there were other modes of transportation. For longer hauls there were usually international routes available. I am not saying this is convenient, but it makes the dubious benefit of making strikes illegal a little less compelling. In the final analysis, when a strike proceeds too long and damages the public interest there is always the recourse of special action by Parliament to end the strike. And this special action may well attract compliance from striking workers more easily than a more routine procedure for ordering them back to work.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Would the hon. member permit a question? I was listening carefully to his remarks. Was he implying by his statement that the air traffic controllers were unimportant to the transportation industry of this country? If they had not voluntarily gone back to work, the strike would have continued costing Canadians something like $15 million a day. To my way of thinking this is a very large amount of money. Therefore, does the hon. member not agree these people are very important to the transportation industry in Canada?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, much of what I intend to say applies to that question. The $15 million was the daily cost of continuing the strike. But what would the cost have been to award the 60 per cent increase for which they were asking? What would that have cost the Canadian economy? What would the signal effect be on other negotiations, of having that increase as one of the increases federal public servants were awarded? I will come back to that question at the end of my remarks.
About a year ago I spoke on this subject and stated, as a disadvantage of changing the system, that I believe if strikes were made illegal and compulsory arbitration were substituted in their place, society would have to pay an economic price for it by giving workers higher settlements than they would have obtained by collective bargaining with the strike option. In the interval I have searched for a way of testing this theory. I have some labour statistics from Statistics Canada which tend to support what I said at that time. In 1969, for all provincial employees, contracts settled by arbitration averaged increases of 13.4 per cent. For those settled without arbitration, the increases were only 7.9 per cent. For 1970, the figures are 10.1 per cent and 8.7 per cent. For 1971, the figures are 8.5 per cent and 8.3 per cent. In every case the public got a better deal without the arbitration route and in the absence of arbitration.
For all contracts of government employees at all levels, the comparisons for 1969 were 12.4 per cent under arbitration, and without arbitration only 7.9 per cent. For 1970, the figures were 9.3 per cent and 8.3 per cent. For 1971, there was a slight and explainable shift; the figures were 7.3 per cent and 7.9 per cent. Although these figures apply only to public employees, there were a lot of contracts involved. They prove that a system of compulsory arbitration is more expensive and more inflationary than negotiation with the strike option.
Canada Labour Code
There are other implications of compulsory arbitration of which proponents of that regime may not be aware. Most businessmen who recommend it do not recommend it for themselves but for other industries, usually the big ones. These industries for which they recommend it are in fact the very ones which have enough market power to pass any increases awarded on to their customers. How would these businessmen like to have compulsory arbitration in their own plants, to have some, hopefully and at best, disinterested third party tell them in a binding way what their labour bill will be for production for the next, say, three years? I believe most businessmen would want to reserve the right to hear any award, to take it or leave it but not to be bound by it.
One of the other themes that presents problems is that labour in a sector where there are productivity increases should not be entitled to the whole of that increase but only to the portion that represents the national average productivity gain. The justification for this is obvious. A secretary or line-assembler in an industry which is making productivity gains, computer production for example, is usually no more productive personally than his or her counterpart in a more stagnant industry, a municipal government, for example. To allow the former to receive the whole of the gain is inequitable and will signal less productive sectors to claim equal increases, often through the same union. On the other hand, there is no mechanism for transferring unclaimed gains of the productive industries to other industrial workers across the board, with the result that if the workers in the productive industry do not share the gain, the owners of the industry get what might be seen as a bonanza. I do not see how this dilemma can be resolved. 1't is usually the activities of the entrepreneurs which have achieved the gain in the first place. The only way I know to settle this is by market forces and this, of course, brings us back to strikes.
X10)
Another issue of industrial relations which is over-simplified is the tendency to seek solutions to industrial problems in terms of money. Management believes that an unsatisfactory work situation can be made palatable by offering an increase in pay. Often, labour agrees. But having watched a few years of industrial settlements go by, I observe that industrial peace cannot be bought by means of a money settlement for any reasonable period; the issue inevitably is raised again either during the con-term or later negotiations. Occasionally it involves a particular industrial condition. More often, it is a question of job security. I believe it is unrealistic for either side to try to buy its way out of a difficulty which is, in essence, non-monetary.
Those who criticize the government on the grounds that the bill before us is inadequate, or that it goes too far, would find themselves on more solid ground if there were a country somewhere in the world, or theorists somewhere in the world who had produced a better answer, one which the government was failing to copy either out of ignorance or because of political pressure. But there is no structure elsewhere which is substantially different from ours and which produces better results. Sweden, which seemed to be doing better than us, with a system of

April 13, 1972
Canada Labour Code
nationwide centralized bargaining, has suffered a breakdown as colossal as were the early successes. Japan has fewer strikes, it is true, but wage increases have been much greater, especially in the current period.
As far as the theorists are concerned, I remind hon. members that a task force on industrial relations was commissioned by the government as long ago as 1966 in the hope that some better structure could be found. It returned with a thoughtful package containing no great innovations. The bill before us really is a response to the many legislative proposals contained in that report.
I would suggest that the solution to industrial relations problems does not lie ultimately in structural changes such as making strikes illegal or calling for voluntary or compulsory arbitration. As I ventured to say at the outset, the attitude toward industrial relations which most of us hold is too simplistic; we are inclined to think in terms of good guys and bad guys, moral activities and immoral activities, patriotism and selfishness. To me the situation, like most other situations in Canadian society, is more complex. For example, student unrest in universities is not dealt with by passing laws and creating new structures, by putting people in jail or kicking them out of school. Similarly, drug problems are not settled merely by introducing legal reforms, banning drugs and catching the pushers or legalizing drugs and setting up a government selling agency. Fundamentally, we are dealing with a behavioural question and not, at least in the first instance, with a structural one.
We find in Canada today a massive alienation from traditional institutions and values, a wave of protest challenging institutions to justify themselves to the rebels, usually the young. What other interpretation can one place upon the growing and dangerous unwillingness of the rank and file of the unions to ratify the reasonable settlements obtained by their leaders? Clearly the institution of the union, like other institutions in our society, is increasingly losing touch with the rank and file of its membership, and is less relevant to them. So, for that matter, are the corporations. Does the working man believe that the company or the union has his best interests at heart, or does he regard the union as being just another business pursuing its own goals? Does his small, single voice really mean anything in the vastness of the typical industrial situation? Does his voice mean more when he says no than when he says yes?
Parliament faces this same problem vis-a-vis the voters of Canada. As an institution in an age of alienation from established institutions we have to justify ourselves to our constituents by showing an evident concern with the anxieties which are felt by them. Anyone who believes that participatory democracy is fully meaningful to our constituents or even, for that matter, to all members of parliament, does not really understand the developing alienation which was so well described in the Speech from the Throne.
We have before us a bill with many parts. It is not the ultimate solution but it does provide certain structural changes which could, if accepted by the parties affected, relieve some of the concerns which lead to breakdown of the process. Job insecurity caused by the continuing technological revolution is clearly an important ingredient in

industrial disputes. To this extent, the bill is a positive step and I commend it to the House.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, exactly one hundred years have gone by since parliament passed the Trade Unions Act which established some orderly industrial relations machinery for Canadian trade unions. Shortly after that, representatives of trade unions came into my area, in the early days of the silver boom, and fought for many things besides wages and improved working conditions. It surprised me today to listen to two hon. members whom I consider to be reactionary enough to have belonged to that age of the 1800s rather than to the 1900s or, more particularly, to 1972. One of them was the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) with his talk about the right to work.


An hon. Member:: Oh, come on!


William Arnold Peters: To me, the right to work is the right to scab, the right to starve, the right of management to rule.


Robert Norman Thompson: On a point of order, I should like to ask the hon. member where he got that out of my remarks. To say that kind of thing is unfair and it is not correct.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I have listened over the years to management, chambers of commerce and other organizations violently opposed to unions, who talked about the right to work. To me, the right to work means the right to scab, the right of management to rule. It relates to an act which is still on the statute books of Canada, an act governing the relations between master and servant.
The hon. member for Red Deer quoted a figure which I thought was very interesting. He told us that 700,000 man-days had been lost through strikes. Mr. Speaker, I did a rapid calculation and I find that this year we have lost about 150 million man-days through unemployment. If the hon. member had talked about unemployment being a waste of manpower, if he had talked about the right to work in terms of unemployment, he would have been on better ground. What about the right to work of those half million persons who have been excluded from the active labour force, not because they want to be but because there is no work for them? The right to work-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. Is the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) rising on a point of order?


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to remind the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) that the figure I used, to which he refers, was for 1950. As far as this year is concerned, I was talking of more than seven million.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters).


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to accept the correction of the hon. member and apologize for misinterpreting him. He has now indicated that the figure is seven million man-days lost through strikes in Canada. But there have still been 150 million man-days lost through
April 13, 1972

unemployment. Anybody who makes the fuss that he made over seven million man-days lost through strikes and at the same time ignores the 150 million man-days lost through unemployment, seems to me reactionary to the extreme.
In similar vein, the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Roy), displaying the bias he has shown for many years in his own business enterprises in the Timmins area, indicated how terrible unions were, how bad the whole union process was and how wrong the minister was in introducing this legislation, which frankly is not that far advanced. I think the minister will agree it is legislation that is necessary now and the need for it is immediate. However, the hon. member for Timmins indicated this is a terrible piece of legislation which gives in to the unions and gives them certain rights under the law. The legislation does not seem to me to be exceptionally generous and it is in keeping with the labour practices in some of the enterprises that he operates.
Other members have, in my opinion, been reasonable about the changes that are necessary in our labour legislation. There is no doubt that everybody in this country is concerned with the question of strikes. Certainly no one in this country has failed to ask himself why 200,000 or more workers, mainly in the public service, in the province of Quebec are now on strike. No one in this country, when trying to catch an aeroplane, did not ask why civil servants in the transport field were on strike. I am sure that those of us from Toronto who have to put our garbage in plastic bags and leave them in our cellars ask the same question. But I think we should look at the question in terms of whether this legislation will solve the problems. I think in many cases it will not.
Personally, I am not in a position to suggest what would solve these specific problems, but I think that the willingness of this government to examine representations made by both management and labour, those in the management and labour fields who are interested in collective bargaining only, will probably provide some of the answers. I suggest that the minister should look very closely, in terms of federal legislation, at fields where the federal government conducts operations and where negotiations are conducted with Treasury Board. It seems to me-I may be wrong, but I think this is something the minister will have to consider-that in all cases where unions negotiate with a Crown corporation or a department of government they are not eyeball to eyeball with those who are going to put up the money to meet the pay increases of improved conditions that are being demanded. For example, we often find that those who are negotiating with civil service organizations, whether it be a union or an association, reach the position where they can make no further offers and the only alternative open to the workers is either to accept the offer or to call a strike.
I was very interested in the remarks made by the previous speaker. I think we owe him a vote of thanks for having done research in this field, because he pointed out that in cases where the union or association saw fit to accept, at the final stage of the negotiations, the decision of an arbitrator, sometimes the arbitrator made a greater award than the amount previously offered. Immediately we should ask ourselves, was it because the arbitrator was
Canada Labour Code
more generous than Treasury Board would have been in direct negotiations, or was it because the initial offer resulted from a flexible position taken by the government negotiators because they felt there was a real possibility of binding arbitration? In cases where the government thought a strike would result, were they using their position as a rich employer to influence, in some cases, a fairly weak treasury in the union or association concerned?
If that is the position, then I think the minister will agree with me that he will have to look at the end result of negotiations with Treasury Board in view of the complete lack of satisfaction on the part of the unions who have dealt with the board, in several instances the dispute being referred back to cabinet for their decision.
I am reminded of the days when we used to negotiate with the gold miners. We used to negotiate with the manager and after a period of time he would finally say, "I cannot agree with you, simply because I do not have the authority to do so. Would you grant a half hour's recess while I phone my principals?" Then he phoned someone in New York or Montreal, and a board of directors we did not know about meeting in another area decided whether consideration should be given to the request being made or whether the workers should go on strike. This arrangement was totally unsatisfactory and it is one that I think is being duplicated now in terms of negotiating with the federal government.
Has it ever occurred to the minister to ask why most of the strikes taking place today are in the public service sector rather than in industry? It is true that occasionally there has been a strike in the automotive industry, or in the steel industry, and in recent years there have been a limited number of strikes in the minerals industry. True, most are under provincial jurisdiction. But leaving aside the jurisdictional question, is it not surprising to find that most of the strikes taking place today are against government, Crown corporations or government agencies of one form or another, which result in serious dislocation?
This bill has been endorsed by the labour congress, not so much because it has many good things in it but because it does not have any bad things in it, I presume. But passing these amendments to the labour code is but the first step. Other steps will have to be taken, and I am sure they will not be taken by an appointed labour relations board that is nominated by the government. This problem will not be solved merely by appointing a board composed of representatives of labour, management and interested parties. It will have to be solved, or those reactionaries who say there will be anarchy in the streets, with the workers rising against the government, will be correct. They will be correct only if we do not provide the proper machinery.
The suggested solution would be to eliminate organization, make it weak, do not give it any room in which to operate or allow it any field in which it could truly represent the workers. That is one way. But I suggest if that happens there will be anarchy throughout this country.
The labour leaders of this country have as much responsibility as most employers. It is only the small employer who causes difficulty for the unions. Most large

April 13, 1972
Canada Labour Code
companies have learned to live with unions. This fight has been going on in Canada for a hundred years, and there will never be any end to it because there will always be a desire on the part of the workers to get their share of the spoils of industry. This is only normal. And it will be the responsibility of industry to see that the workers do not get such a large share of the benefits of their labour that there is no longer any industry.
I am sure the minister and his officials will agree that organized labour has been orderly in its operations and that a great deal of responsibility and restraint has been shown by both management and labour. I suggest that Canadians have developed a fairly responsible position in respect of labour relations.
It is true that in respect of relationships with the labour relations board there has been a great deal of trust and respect on the part of both management and labour. There has always been the fly-by-night side to bargaining, and I am sure there are elements of both management and labour which would agree that the labour relations board has not done the kind of job it should have done. In the main there has been favourable reaction, as indicated by the Canadian Labour Congress in its suggestion to retain the old labour relations board rather than adopt a new association.
It has been suggested, I presume mainly because it must be, that ministers-and I say, kindly, not this one-have used patronage in appointments to the labour relations board because it has the jurisdiction of a federal court. The reason some people are fearful about this change is that there might be representatives on that board who understand the problems and know the conditions which exist, and these representatives will present their arguments on the basis of their knowledge of the problems, conditions, requirements and desires of one side or the other, management or labour. When we establish a new board with people not having the backgrounds whmh both sides have found advantageous, obviously we leave ourselves open to the possibility of having a very aggressive member, as we do with judges, who will be found obnoxious to the management side, or someone who is very reactionary and obnoxious to the labour side.
The argument that the general public has to be protected in this regard does not carry a great deal of weight. However, we await with interest the justification with which the minister will no doubt provide the committee for this particular change. This problem of protecting the public is, I believe, vastly overrated. There have been occasions when the public has obviously been affected. I have heard some of my colleagues complain bitterly about labour in relation to grain movement in Canada. What, really, is the problem in respect of the movement of grain? It is not that there might be a small strike of less than a few days but, rather, the fact that we under-oper-ate the whole transportation system. We operate this system with a minimal margin of safety.
A good indication of this can be found in our experience this winter. We had two or three snowslides, following which members of the House suggested a calamity had developed in Vancouver and on the Prairies. Labour is not so much to blame. The fact is that we operate that particular industry in a manner which does not allow for

expected or anticipated eventualities which no doubt occur from time to time when labour relations are involved.
The public often has to be protected, but at what price? If you tell the police they cannot strike, it seems to me you have to be overly generous with them. That has not been the case. Who is it who screams loudest when there is a strike at a hospital? I suggest the people who scream are those who want to get into the hospital. There is not a hospital in this country which does not pay every employee, from head nurses down, a substandard wage. The wages of our hospital employees are often disgraceful. There are many who say hospital staff cannot strike because they perform essential services. If that is so, the government, be it municipal, provincial or federal, has a responsibility to the public.
If a government suggests that garbage on the street must be picked up, then it should be overly generous to these employees. Surely under normal circumstances, if the government is generous with these employees there will be less difficulty in negotiations and less danger of a strike situation developing. When you tell an employee there will be no improvements made or, in some cases where there are negotiations, "If you sign an agreement the employee must accept a reduction in advantages under the present contract," it is inevitable that men and women will strike. In such cases a strike is just, necessary and supported by the public.
The main change in this piece of legislation is in respect of technological advancement. The minister has bowed to pressure from certain groups and has included limitations. Certainly the minister has read the Freedman recommendations, one of which states that when changes affect the livelihood of employees they must be subject to negotiation and normal bargaining procedures, and implemented only after due process of contract negotiation. The minister has made some exceptions in this measure. One hon. member speaking on this bill indicated it was terrible not to let management do what it liked. I suggest that management has always exercised the right to do what it likes. The only time this has been curtailed is when there has been negotiation.
Workers' contracts are worded something like insurance policies. They always include exceptions over which no one has control or responsibility: they include the phrase "the will of God". I have always found that God seemed to be on the side of management and never on the side of the workers. I think this is as true in technological change as it is in any other aspect of a union contract. Those things over which management had no direct control were the responsibility of God. This certainly did not provide much assistance to those who were displaced because of a calamity.


An hon. Member:: What about the Minister of Labour?


William Arnold Peters: If we could substitute the minister of Labour it would seem to me this would cause the same difficulty, because he would be involved in making decisions Solomon would have had considerable difficulty with. I might refer to such a situation. When a fire or some other condi-
April 13, 1972

tion occurs from which management could not have protected the employer, then in many cases the contractual clause would say that this was beyond the control of management and therefore was not its responsibility.
In the original bill technological changes were all to be negotiated. I think that before this bill passes, the minister will have to give very serious consideration to several changes. First, I believe he will have to give consideration to reopening all existing contracts to allow negotiations, because we will find that many companies will anticipate when this bill might be passed and will be signing three-year contracts for each the exemptions which are included in the bill. They will not be able to reopen until the open period and 90 days' notice from the employer as to the number of changes and number of people affected.
In all fairness, and in order to provide harmony in industrial relations, I believe it will be necessary to treat all contracts after the coming into force of this act in exactly the same way, so that all technological changes which are made will meet the requirements of this act although the contract may have been signed a year or so prior to the passage of the legislation. I say this in the hope that the minister will give consideration to establishing that kind of harmony, because I can see many employers making a contract available to their employees now and anticipating technological changes which will not be covered by this legislation unless it applies to all contracts.
The minister has exempted collective agreements which contain provisions designed to cushion the impact of change. I am not certain what that means. I hope it does not mean what it meant in respect of the Unemployment Insurance Act, where we found if severance pay agreements had not been negotiated which cushioned the impact of the shutdown or closure of a particular property, this was taken out of unemployment insurance. I hope this exemption of collective agreements which contain provisions designed to cushion the impact of change does not mean that anyone who has worked out any type of agreement, such as in the automobile industry or in a number of other industries, will not be eligible for the provisions of the act.
Secondly, there is reference to provisions in the collective agreement for the negotiation and settlement of problems arising from technological change. I do not see much difference in the first and second reference. If the collective agreement contains these provisions, I presume they were negotiated and that the problems were settled as they arose. It may be that some of these changes have been anticipated, as in the automobile industry. However, I believe there is a similarity in these two exemptions.
Third, there is reference to notice in writing of the change being given during the open period of the contract. I do not think one of the most difficult jobs the union negotiator would have would be being faced with the proposition of a 90-day clause indicating that an approximate number of people would be affected in a substantial way. I can see in the open period a good deal of digging up of technical changes which might be expected for the next three years, whether real or imaginary.
I am sure the minister will agree that the greatest fear and one of the difficulties which exist in negotiations is
Canada Labour Code
that of the person who does not know whether he will have a job tomorrow. It is all right to say we will retrain him and provide him with alternative employment, but when he looks around and sees a lot of people unemployed and knows that the retraining he will be given will fit him for a job for which an unemployed person is already looking, he finds he is in a very serious position. I suggest that when it is indicated there is an approximate number of people who will be substantially affected by a change, this will cause undue fear and reluctance on the part of the worker to accept anything but an immense increase in his wages.
I worked for several years in the mines. When you take out the first ton of ore from a mine, whether the Inco mine in Sudbury or a small mine at the end of the road such as the one I worked for, you are that much closer to the closing of the mine. It is always anticipated that the mine will close. However, you always had the same chance a player has when playing poker. The mine might not close next year or the year after. You know it will close, but you could play the odds that it would not close now or while you needed a job. You would at least have a fair shake. But where in one area it is decided there is to be a technical change which will obliterate a substantial number of jobs without an alternative being provided, I am sure the employees who are affected will be exceedingly agitated and will probably make exorbitant demands to compensate for the fear they have in respect of the insecurity of their employment.
Mr. Speaker, I should like the minister to tell us why management felt this provision was going to be advantageous to them. Management is as involved in industrial relations as labour. If they have an unhappy labour force, then obviously management is unhappy. If a technical change occurs in industry, it is often reflected in the front office.
It is interesting to note that in companies where there is a very large turnover in the work force because of technical change, there is also a turnover at the management level. In some of the electronics industries it is said that when the American bosses come to the plant they will almost always end up with new management and new technical people in the front office. I wonder if the minister found any particular warmth in the exemptions he made, and why it was not an advantage to leave technical changes to the normal provisions of the fact so that on 90 days' notice negotiations can commence and go all the way through the process to arbitration or strike if necessary. Would that not be more advantageous than using the open period for this type of award which will obviously get mixed up with all the other changes that are suggested?
Mr. Speaker, as other hon. members have said, the federal government affects only a small portion of the Canadian work force. I would agree that a large part of the Canadian labour force is not going to be involved in any case where there is collaboration between labour and management. I think this is a sad state of affairs. A previous speaker mentioned the right to work, which probably carries a great deal of weight with many of the entrepreneurs of this nation. A lot of people are not cov-

April 13, 1972
Canada Labour Code
ered by collective agreements, but with 530,000 employees under federal jurisdiction we have a responsibility to see that the best possible type of relations are developed.
I should like to say a word about featherbedding, a charge that is always made when there is technical change. It is being said now by CBC officials that NABET is creating a featherbedding situation, that changes have taken place, that more changes are contemplated and that NABET is reacting against these technical changes that will obviously result in the elimination of many jobs.
Mr. Speaker, they know that every time we find a senior official in the CBC who is not competent we use the Peter principle to promote him to the level of his incompetence. He is made a vice-president and put in a little office and soon has a whole string of people under him. Featherbedding can easily be eliminated at the managerial level if the government wishes to look at the situation. Why should they ask this of the little people in NABET, when they know there are at least 25 vice-presidents in the CBC raised to the level of their incompetence on the Peter principle? We know, and I am sure the government knows, that the CBC executive is crowded with incompetents. Why ask the workers to pay the penalty? Why should they be efficient? Why should they not go on strike to maintain their position, when these others cannot be fired?
Mr. Speaker, it is the same all over. The Canadian National Railways has more chiefs than Indians; everybody knows that. In my area there is the Ontario Northland Railway and every time a political figure makes a name for himself he is appointed to run the railroad. No wonder it does not run very well, because they do not have one competent person to run it. It still makes money, but that is because of the area. The CNR is the same, and I presume the CPR is too. Why ask the workers at the bottom? If there are four men sitting writing memos to each other, why not have two men running the engine? At least one could look out one side while the other looked out the other side; they would serve some function. But we try to get rid of the extra worker and do not try to get rid of the vice-presidents.
If we are really interested in facing this matter of change we should be fair to the workers, particularly those in the government, and not talk about featherbedding at the bottom until we get rid of featherbedding at the top. The mandarins are untouchable but it is easy to get rid of the people at the bottom. Mr. Speaker, featherbedding will exist and it is not the answer to technical change. If technical change is in the interest of the public, and it certainly is, then it should be possible for us to provide the worker with alternative employment.
There will always be bigots and reactionaries who oppose this type of legislation which is the minimum that could possibly be passed in the year 1972 to establish labour relations in a country as industrially advanced as Canada. These bigots will flourish when it is impossible to provide alternative employment to those displaced by technical change. It is essential to eliminate strikes, to eliminate the displacement that occurs because of technical change if we are not willing to face the problem of unemployment.

The day we solve the problem of unemployment in Canada we will also solve the problem of labour relations. Those who say that today's unemployed are lazy, are wrong. If we could provide employment for the million people looking for work, I think 999,000 would be ready to go to work tomorrow. You would not see the fear of technological change that we now see when a man is told he is no longer employable because a machine is going to replace him, and when he knows there is no alternative employment in any other field.
May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, on February 24 I took the opportunity during the question period to bring to the attention of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) the results of the alarming epidemiological studies revealing that cardiovascular disease has become in Canada today the greatest public health problem.
In 1971, cardiovascular diseases were the number one killer in Canada. In that year they took the lives of 77,000 people. Last year, heart attacks and strokes together accounted for 50,000 deaths in our country. The increase in life expectancy through the control of infectious diseases in infancy and childhood accounts for the fact that more Canadians live to an age at which they die from the complications of arteriosclerosis. Recent studies by the Canadian Heart Foundation show that today there are 21 million Canadians suffering some form of cardiovascular disease.
Absenteeism, reduced productivity, loss of wages resulting from sickness, chronic disability and deaths due to cardiovascular disease are staggering in their proportions. The estimated annual economic loss to Canada is over $200 million. The human tragedy and suffering are incalculable. To date, medical research has done a great deal to cope with some forms of these diseases, especially in the field of cardiovascular surgery. But research into these diseases is still inadequate. We need to allocate more money to find the cause, and therefore prevent the occurrence of cardiovascular disease. Only $5 million was spent on research in the field of cardiovascular disease last year, and of that total only $1 i million was contributed by the federal government.
I would like to take advantage of the occasion this evening, Mr. Speaker, to appeal to the Minister of National Health and Welfare to allocate more financial resources in order to increase the amount of research that is being done in this field. We also need to provide more money for
April 13, 1972

health services, to provide adequate care for sudden heart attack cases which are brought to the coronary units in our hospitals. Even today a majority of Canadian hospitals do not have coronary units.
We must also provide trained ambulance services which are monitored so that the coronary unit team in a hospital will be adequately prepared for an emergency case on its way to hospital. We are told that in most hospitals there is lack of medical and paramedical personnel. This means that we need more doctors, more medical students.
How can we have more medical students when medical tuition fees are so high, Mr. Speaker? Only a couple of weeks ago the treasurer of the government of Ontario increased tuition fees still further. Lack of medical personnel constitutes an emergency. I believe that we should provide free education at the university level for all those who are capable of going to university, so that all our students capable of taking a medical degree would be able to go to university whether they come from affluent or poor families.
I appeal once again to the minister to launch a special attack on cardiovascular disease, allocate more financial resources for this attack and, as I mentioned previously, institute an educational campaign to advise the general public on how to deal with medical emergencies in the field of cardiovascular diseases.


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, we would like at first to thank the hon. member for Parkdale for having called the attention of the House on that important problem.
As we know, it is generally recognized that cardiovascular diseases have several contributive factors. However, it can be stated that physical inactivity, obesity and smoking can lead to cardiovascular diseases. In addition, it can be said that there is an indirect link with pressures, stress and high blood pressure. Other conditions such as diabetes are recognized as being premonitory symptoms of cardiovascular diseases.
However, the increased number of heart conditions- especially heart attacks-in Canada has certainly induced us to pay special attention to programs aimed at preventing that kind of accidents and improving the health of the Canadian people.

At a meeting of federal-provincial ministers responsible for sport and recreation in December, 1971, the minister announced the formation of a directorate, Recreation Canada, which would be concerned primarily with encouraging greater participation by Canadians in physical recreation activities. This directorate would also have concern for programs designed to encourage the improvement of fitness levels of our citizens both through mass participation programs and by stimulating research in the field of fitness. The department itself initiated the first phase of a comprehensive research program on recreation supply and demand in Canada. The purpose of this study is to provide provinces and municipalities with factual information to enable them to plan more realistically for future recreation needs.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
In the area of obesity, a national survey, Nutrition Canada, is being conducted to study, among other conditions, the scope of the problem of obesity in Canada. Studies of the dietary intake of a sample of Canadians are being correlated with physical and biochemical indices associated with this and other conditions. When definite data becomes available, program development for this group is expected.
In addition, cigarette smoking has been variously shown to be associated not only with chronic pulmonary disease but with cardiovascular conditions, particularly coronary artery disease. The department has recently doubled the amount of financial assistance to this program in order to promote an educational campaign to warn the public of the hazards of cigarette smoking.
Further to the resources allocated through various federal research agencies and contributions made through the health resources fund, this department has taken a positive stance in attacking the problem of cardiovascular disease through measures designed to control the known precursors of heart disease and cerebrovascular accidents in the Canadian population.



HEALTH-FAMILY PLANNING-POSSIBLE CONSULTATION WITH PROVINCIAL OFFICIALS

Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, six weeks ago the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) took an excellent initiative in calling together in Ottawa a Canadawide conference to discuss family planning. He followed it up by the announcement of a grant of $385,000 to the Family Planning Federation of Canada and a much smaller amount to another organization. Those present at the conference expressed satisfaction that the federal government had given a definite lead and voiced the opinion that the major roadblocks to family planning are now at provincial and local levels.
Consequently, on March 2 I asked the minister if he would seek an early meeting with provincial ministers to launch a co-ordinated program of family planning at all government levels. The minister's reply, that there were almost daily ongoing discussions which included family planning, failed to indicate to me the vigorous campaign of federal leadership which I believe is necessary at this time.
Canada is a long way behind most of the advanced countries in this regard. Let me give some figures published by Dr. Michael J. Ball, of the University of Alberta, in the Canadian Medical Association Journal for February 5 of this year. In a recent survey, the Family Planning Federation of Canada identified a total of 66 family planning clinics across the country, divided approximately equally among hospitals, health departments and private organizations including local planning associations. This figure does not include clinics teaching the rhythm method only.
How many birth control clinics does Canada need? A ratio of one clinic to a population of 55,000 has been found to be quite inadequate in Britain and special legislation

April 13, 1972
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
was passed to encourage hospitals and health departments to open more clinics. If one clinic to a population of 30,000 were made the objective for Canada, including mobile clinics or teams for remote areas, we would need not only the present 66 clinics but 700 clinics for the country as a whole. Newfoundland would need 16 clinics instead of the present one. Prince Edward Island and Saskatchewan would have to start from scratch and establish 4 and 32 clinics respectively. Nova Scotia would have to go from 2 to 32, New Brunswick from 1 to 21, Quebec from 13 to 193, Ontario from 17 to 232, Manitoba from 6 to 25, Alberta from 2 to 49, British Columbia from 13 to 62, and the Yukon and Northwest Territories from 1 to 2 plus.
These clinics could be opened without major capital expenditures if general hospitals and health units were to open clinics in existing premises. The cost benefit in Aberdeen, Scotland-that very well known place of saving- has been calculated as a tenfold saving in health and welfare costs over the combined expenditure on contraceptive services and health education over a five-year period. Very few facilities exist in Canada so far for training health professionals and social workers in family planning. The need for them is great.
Should the minister be tempted to reply to me that we cannot afford adequate family facilities at this time, I would remind him of the warning issued a year ago at the University of Toronto by Cope W. Schwenger and published by the Department of National Health and Welfare last September in their brochure on the current status of family planning in Canada. He said:
-if sufficient family planning services are not made economically and geographically available and reasonably quickly, there is a distinct possibility . . . that abortion on request . .. may well become not only one of the leading but one of the most acceptable forms of birth control as a first line of defence against unplanned pregnancy, as in Japan and Eastern Europe.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, I need say no more to impress upon the minister the need for his dynamic leadership now in convincing provincial authorities of the need for haste and adequacy in the matter of family planning and birth control programs.


Mr. Gaston Clermont (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, on March 2 last, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Macln-nis) put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) concerning the possibility of consulting the provincial ministers with regard to the federal family planning program.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare is surprised that the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway should keep the House this evening to discuss this matter.
Unless I am mistaken, the hon. member attended some of the meetings of the National Conference on Family Planning at the beginning of March. She took part in the Conference with some other hon. members. The Conference's purpose, among others, was to advise the provincial governments and municipalities of the firm intention of the federal government of putting family planning services at the disposal of all those who want them. Not only did the media widely publicize the event, but all the provinces were informed of the objectives to be achieved in a letter addressed by the Minister of National Health and Welfare to all premiers and heads of governments of the Territories, inviting them to send representatives to the conference.
Moreover, all provinces and territories were invited to send a high official of their departments of Health, Welfare and Education and most of them made a positive response.
The ten major cities were also invited to send representatives and they were informed of the goals of the conference.
Officials of the Department of National Health and Welfare will continue to maintain liaison with the provinces in order to supply them with advice and assistance in the development of their family planning programs. As the minister put it at the national conference, amounts will be paid to provinces and other agencies in 1972-73 for specific family planning projects and, as he has often repeated, it is possible to obtain credits under the Canada Assistance Plan, federal-provincial cost-sharing schemes, medicare and hospital insurance.
I recognize the interest that the hon. member is bringing to the matter of family planning and I find this attitude very creditable. However, I fail to understand why she should hold us here tonight, for she knows very well the intense activity of the Department of National Health and Welfare in initiating the national family planning program since she witnessed these efforts just a few days ago.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What has he done since then?
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.18 p.m. until Monday, April 17, pursuant to Special Order.
April 14, 1972



ADDRESS

[Stage Direction]
of
RICHARD M. NIXON President of the United States of America
to
Both Houses of Parliament in the
HOUSE OF COMMONS CHAMBER, OTTAWA on
Friday, April 14,1972
The President was welcomed by the Right Honourable P. E. Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada, and thanked by the Honourable Lucien Lamoureux, Speaker of the House of Commons.
Hon. Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons):: I now call upon the Right Honourable, the Prime Minister to introduce the President of the United States.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. President of the United States, Mr. Speaker of the Senate, Mr. Speaker of the House of Commons, members of the Parliament of Canada:
On behalf of the people of Canada, and of their parliamentary representatives gathered in this chamber, I extend to you, Mr. President, and to Mrs. Nixon, a warm welcome to Ottawa.


Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: You, Sir, are the fifth holder of your office to honour a joint session of the Parliament of Canada. Because your colleague President Eisenhower visited this place twice, your address will be the sixth such to be heard here.

You see before you, Mr. President, Canadians from every corner of this far-flung land we call Canada. They reflect not just the geography of the country but as well the great mixture of peoples which adds such richness and variety to our national life. The different origins of many of these men and women, and the languages they speak, illustrate the diversity of Canada. Their presence in the Chamber symbolizes our unity of purpose and our devotion to our parliamentary heritage. Part of that tradition was carried from France to England by the Norman conqueror nine centuries ago. It blossomed there and found its way naturally to Canada where it serves us admirably, and distinguishes us from the many countries elsewhere in the hemisphere.

Your presence here today, Mr. President, is striking evidence of the flexible yet harmonious relationship which has evolved over the years between the United States and Canada. Our two countries and our two peoples have much in common, but they are not identical in their moods nor in their interests, and it is a disservice to a proper understanding of one another if we overlook these distinctions. Our friendship is more dynamic because of our differences, and our relationship deeper and wider. Those differences stem from a past which, parallel to yours, is distinctive; and from governmental institutions which preserve like values but by different means.
In our meetings this morning we spoke a common language, employing familiar idioms, recalling an entwined history, and discussing problems identifiable to each in terms of values we share and respect. What other two countries in the world can offer to their peoples and leaders such a contribution to understanding?
What is the effect on Canada and Canadians of the existence next door to us of the great country of America? Certainly, it is one of stimulation. There is little that the United States does that is not felt or noticed in Canada. Your lofty goals, your good natured hospitality, your successes and your failures, your accomplishments and your shortcomings, your throbbing vitality, are all deeply imprinted in the collective conscience of Canadians. Understandably, there is little that Canadians do which they do not compare with similar activity in the United States.
Our relationship with you is too complex to be described, too involved to be understood fully, too deeply entrenched to be disregarded. We are no more capable of living in isolation from you than we are desirous of doing so. For those reasons, the basic friendship of Canada in the past several decades has been taken for granted by the United States, as we have accepted yours. I assure you that that friendship will continue for it is a permanent feature of our relationship with you. It will adjust to circumstance and be made more articulate in the process, but it is not regarded by us as negotiable.


Yves Demers: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is that friendship that has contributed immeasurably to the high degree of economic well-being, physical security and general happiness enjoyed by the peoples of both countries.
It is as an expression of that friendship that we welcome you, Sir, to this special session of the Parliament of Canada.


Yves Demers: Hear, hear!


Hon. Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons):: I will call upon the President of the United States.


Mr. Richard M. Nixon (President of the United States):: Mr. Speaker of the House of Commons, Mr. Speaker of
1328

April 14, 1972
the Senate, Mr. Prime Minister, hon. members of the Parliament of Canada, distinguished hosts and friends, I deeply appreciate your kind invitation as well as your cordial welcome.

To all of you who have welcomed Mrs. Nixon and me so warmly on this occasion, I trust you will make allowance for my attempt to speak in the language I studied 37 years ago. When I tried it today, before I came, on our top linguist in the American government, General Walters, he said, "Go ahead, you speak French with a Canadian accent".


Yves Demers: Hear, hear!


George Ewart Nixon: I will have to admit that 1 am not very much at home in the French language but, as a former parliamentarian in my own country, I feel very much at home in this Chamber. I am grateful for the high privilege which your invitation represents. I am grateful, too, for this chance to return to Canada, and for the opportunity of signing here an historic agreement to restore and protect forever the quality of our Great Lakes which we share together. That agreement testifies to the continuing vitality of our unique relationship which has been described so eloquently by the Prime Minister. In discussing that relationship today, I wish to do so in a way that has not always been customary when leaders of our two countries have met. Through the years our speeches on such occasions have often centered on the decades of unbroken friendship we have enjoyed and our four thousand miles of unfortified frontier. In focusing on our peaceful borders and our peaceful history, they have tended to gloss over the fact that there are real problems between us. They have tended to create the false impression that our countries are essentially alike. It is time for Canadians and Americans to move beyond the sentimental rhetoric of the past. It is time for us to recognize that we have very separate identities; that we have significant differences; and that nobody's interests are furthered when these realities are obscured.
Our peaceful borders and our peaceful history are important symbols, to be sure. What they symbolize, however, is the spirit of respect and restraint which allows us to co-operate despite our differences in ways which help us both. American policy toward Canada is rooted in that spirit. Our policy toward Canada reflects the new approach we are taking in all of our foreign relations, an approach which has been called the Nixon Doctrine. That doctrine rests on the premise that mature partners must have autonomous independent policies; each nation must define the nature of its own interests; each nation must decide the requirements of its own security; each nation must determine the path of its own progress. What we seek is a policy which enables us to share international responsibilities in a spirit of international partnership. We believe that the spirit of partnership is strongest when partners are self-reliant. For among nations, as within nations, the soundest unity is that which respects diversity, and the strongest cohesion is that which rejects coercion.
Over the years, the people of Canada have come to understand these concepts particularly well. Within your own borders, you have been working to bring a wide variety of peoples and provinces and points of view into a great national union, a union which honors the integrity of its constituent elements. It was Prime Minister Laurier who said of Canada's differing components: "I want the marble to remain the marble; I want the granite to remain the granite; I want the oak to remain the oak". This has been the Canadian way. As a result, Canadians have helped to teach the world, as Governor General Massey once said, that the "toleration of differences is the measure of civilization".
Today, mare than ever before, we need to apply that understanding to the whole range of world affairs. To begin with, we must apply it in our dealings with one another. We must realize that we are friends, not because there have been no problems between us, but because we have trusted one another enough to be candid about our problems and because our candour has nourished our co-operation.
Last December your Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and I met in Washington and he asked me if I thought the United States would always want a surplus trade balance with Canada so that we could always export capital here. My answer then, and my answer now, is no. As I sa;d to him at that time, we in the United States saw this same problem from the other side before World War I. We then depended on European capital for our development and we wanted to free ourselves from that dependence. So, we fully understand that Canada is in that same position today.
Canada is the largest trading partner of the United States.


Yves Demers: Hear, hear!


George Ewart Nixon: It is very important that that be noted in Japan, too.


Yves Demers: Hear, hear!


George Ewart Nixon: Our economies have become highly interdependent. But the fact of our mutual interdependence and our mutual desire for independence need not be inconsistent traits. No self-respecting nation can or should accept the proposition that it should always be economically dependent upon any other nation. Let us recognize once and for all that the only basis for a sound and healthy relationship between our two proud peoples is to find a pattern of economic interaction which is beneficial to both our countries and which respects Canada's right to chart its own economic course. We must also build a new spirit of partnership within the western hemisphere that we share together. It has been said that Canada is bounded "on the north by gold, on the west by the East, on the east by history, and on the south by friends".


Yves Demers: Hear, hear!


George Ewart Nixon: bound by the great forces of geography and history which are distinctive to the New World. But geography and history alone do not make a community. A true community must be a living entity in which the individuality of each member is a source of pride to all members, in which the unity of all is a source of strength to each. And the great community of the Arpericas cannot be complete without the participation of Canada. That is why we have been encouraged by the recent decisions of Canada to upgrade its participation as an observer in the Organization of American States to ambassadorial status and to apply for membership in the Inter-American Development Bank. For both of these institutions made the abstract concept of community within the Americas a living reality.
A sound concept of community is also important in another international area that we share, the Atlantic Alliance. Just one month after my inauguration as President of the United States, I observed that a new spirit of co-operation within that alliance was essential as we began a new search for co-operation between East and West. The recent agreements; concerning Berlin, and the fact, for example, that thousands of families were reunited this Easter for the first time in many years, are among the first fruits of a new era of East-West negotiation.
But, as we seek better relations with our adversaries, it becomes all the more important to strengthen the alliances with our friends. We must never forget that the strength and the unity of the West has been an indispensable element in helping to bring about the new era of negotiation with the East. That is why we began our round of summit talks last December by meeting with the Prime Minister of Canada, and then with the leaders of other close allies. This is why our East-West conversations will always be accompanied by full and genuine consultations within the Atlantic Alliance.
This alliance began as a way of pooling military resources. Today, it is a way of pooling our intellectual and our diplomatic resources as well. Like our federal approaches to nationhood, like our Canadian-American brotherhood, like our inter-American neighbourhood, the Atlantic Alliance has achieved a creative unity in which the individuality of its members is respected and advanced.
Let us now turn to the world as a whole, for this is where the challenge of building a true community will be most difficult and most important. We, in Canada and the United States, have always been proud to live in what is called the New World. Today there is a new world coming for everyone who lives on this globe. It is our responsibility to make this new world a better world than the world we have known. Canadians and Americans have fought and died together in two world wars in this century. We live now in what has been called a post-war era. But mankind has known a long succession of post-war eras. And each one of them has turned out to be a pre-war era as well. The challenge we face today is to build a permanent post-war era, an era of lasting peace.
My visit to Ottawa comes midway between my visits to Peking and Moscow. In many respects these journeys are very different. In the People's Republic of China, we opened a new dialogue after 22 years of virtually no
communication. In the Soviet Union, there is an opportunity to bring a continuing dialogue to productive conclusions. But in their central aim these journeys to Peking and Moscow are alike. Neither visit is directed against anyone, adversary or ally. Both are for the betterment of everyone, for the peace of all mankind. However, we must not allow the fact of summit meetings to create any unrealistic euphoria.
The responsibility for building peace rests with special weight upon the great powers. Whether the great powers fulfil that responsibility depends not on the atmospherics of their diplomacy but on the realities of their behavior. Great powers must not treat a period of detente as an interlude between periods of tension. Better relations among all nations require restraint by great nations, both in dealing with each other and in dealing with the rest of the world. We can agree to limit arms. We can declare our peaceful purposes. But neither the limitation of arms nor the declaration of peaceful purposes will bring peace if, directly or indirectly, the aggressive use of existing weapons is encouraged. The great powers have a responsibility for the aggressive actions of those to whom they give the means of embarking on such action. The great powers must use their influence to halt aggression, not to encourage it. The structure of world peace cannot be built unless the great powers join together to build it. Its strength will grow only as all nations, of all political and social systems, come to accept its validity and sustain its vitality. This does not mean the great powers must always agree.
We expect to continue to have profound philosophical and diplomatic differences with the Soviet Union and with the People's Republic of China in a number of areas. But, through opening new lines of communication, we hope to increase the chance that in the future we shall talk about our differences and not fight about them. As we have prepared for both these journeys the experience of Canada has been most helpful. I am grateful to both the Prime Minister and to the Opposition Leader, Mr. Stanfield, for sharing their insights with us as we embarked on these endeavours. As we continue together our common quest for a better world order, let us apply the lessons we have learned so well on this continent: that we can walk our own road in our own way without moving farther apart; that we can grow closer together without growing more alike; that peaceful competition can produce winners without producing losers; that success for some need not mean setbacks for the rest; that a rising tide will lift all of our boats; that to go forward at all is to go forward together; that the enemy of peace is not independence but isolation; that the way to peace is an open world.
And let us remember too, these truths that we have found together, that variety can mean vitality; that diversity can be a force for progress; and that our ultimate destiny is indivisible.
When I spoke at the St. Lawrence seaway ceremonies in 1969, I borrowed some words from the monument there which I had joined Queen Elizabeth in dedicating just ten years before. That monument, as its inscription puts it:
bears witness to the common purpose of two nations whose frontiers are the frontiers of friendship, whose ways are the ways of freedom, whose works are the works of peace.
25104-25}

April 14, 1972
The truth to which the inscription testifies is of profound importance to people everywhere in this world.
For the ability of our two nations, Canada and the United States, to preserve the frontiers of friendship, to walk in the ways of freedom, and to pursue the works of peace provides example and encouragement to all who seek these same objectives, wherever they may live.
There is nothing more exciting than a time of new beginnings. A member of this body caught that spirit when he spoke in Parliament about the beginnings of Canadian nationhood 100 years ago. Listen to him:
Blood pulsed in our veins, new hopes fired our hearts, new horizons lifted and widened, new visions came to us in the night watches.
May that same sense of excitement inspire our two nations as we help lead the world to new beginnings today.


Hon. Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons):: Mr. President, it is my responsibility to adjourn this historic meeting. I do so with a feeling of having participated in a most significant occasion in the history of the Parliament of Canada.
You have come to this country, Sir, as the head of state of our closest neighbour. In this capacity you have engaged in discussions with our government. It is the
confident hope of all members and senators that these discussions will be fruitful.
It gives us particular pleasure that you have also come to the Parliament of Canada. We Canadians bear many similarities to your great people and one of the most significant lies in the fact that both our countries have free and open legislative bodies where the issues of the day are discussed and decided upon.
Assembled in this chamber are the representatives of all the citizens of Canada. It is on their behalf that I thank you, Mr. President, for the great honour you have paid us by coming with Mrs. Nixon to address us on this day and for the notable speech you have delivered to us.

Mr. President, my colleagues of the Senate and the House of Commons are gratified by the cordial sentiments you have just expressed with such sincerity, vigour and eloquence.
Mr. President, we are honoured by your presence here, and that of Mrs. Nixon. The Senate and the House of Commons therefore unite to express the wish that your visit to Ottawa will strengthen the friendship which already so closely links the United States and Canada.

Ladies and gentlemen, this meeting is adjourned.

Monday. April 17. 1972