1972-06-16

ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Georges Valade (Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I meant to put a question to the Minister of Labour or the Acting Minister, but since both are absent, I shall put it to the Acting Prime Minister.
Could he give any information concerning the situation which exists at the port of Montreal, and does he anticipate any possibility of a settlement?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have no reports later than those given to the House yesterday by the Minister of Labour who I thought made it quite clear where the responsibility lies. He is doing his best to get each of the parties concerned to live up to their obligations. I hope he also has the support of the hon. member.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister.
Since the Minister of Labour has not yet come back to the House-probably because he is being held by official duties-I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the Minister of Labour will take part in the debate on the motion now before us, and whether he thinks that his colleague will make a statement likely to make the people aware of the situation which exists at the port of Montreal?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I thought the Minister of Labour answered the questions very clearly and quite adequately yesterday, and I am sure he will respond again on other occasions.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and
Commerce. Following the announcement in the Ontario legislature yesterday that the Ontario government intends to take steps to ensure greater Canadian control of foreign-owned firms, and the announcement made yesterday in the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs by the chairman of that committee that the minister would be working this weekend on amendments to the foreign takeovers bill, will the minister now assure the House that among the amendments he will bring before us next week will be one to make it mandatory for foreign-owned firms in Canada to have 51 per cent Canadian membership on their boards of directors?


Hon. lean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: No, Mr. Speaker. I explained that. I have given the reason why we thought as a general approach the screening method for takeovers was more realistic and more meaningful than a general automatic rule of Canadian participation. As a government we have explained ourselves fully on that. The hon. member is aware, however, that in Bill C-201, among the factors to be considered in the case of takeovers is Canadian participation, so obviously then participation is not pushed aside as meaningless by the government. What the Premier of Ontario did yesterday shows how right the Prime Minister was when he said that if some provinces feel that Bill C-201 does not go far enough they can always add to it. That is obviously what the Premier of Ontario is doing at this time.


John Edward Broadbent: The minister has answered that he does not intend to provide any such 51 per cent requirement. Would he, then, consider another amendment, namely, that all foreign-owned corporations operating in Canada must act in accordance with a fixed set of rules for good corporate behaviour formulated by the federal government, failure to comply with which would result in sanctions?


Jean-Luc Pepin: We already have a set of guidelines for good corporate behaviour, though they do not enjoy the status my hon. friend would like. We have a number of these rules for good corporate behaviour, they were proclaimed in 1967 by one of my predecessors who was then Minister of Trade. These automatic rules by which one prescribes for example 51 per cent of the board of directors must be domiciled in Canada, and so on, are possibly useful rules-I am not denying that-but as I pointed out in the House in the course of my speech on second reading of Bill C-201, it is possible to find ways of getting around these rules and making them, in effect, meaningless. I am not saying they are not useful. I am just saying, as I said previously, that to us the screening method for takeovers is more realistic.

June 16, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby for a supplementary, but hon. members may feel we are anticipating an order of the day. Hon. members are aware that this subject is due to come up for discussion next week. I would think that would be the time at which to engage in the debate in which we appear to be engaging now.


John Edward Broadbent: Bearing in mind the minister's feeling that none of these amendments would give greater substance to the bill, and his comments with reference to the action of the Ontario government, may I ask whether the federal government has decided, because of the high concentration of industry in the province of Ontario, that one province, namely, Ontario, is going to establish a national strategy with respect to Canadian industrial development.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that is argument and confirms my suggestion a moment ago that we were engaging in debate.



FOREIGN TAKEOVERS BILL-REASON FOR VISIT OF MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE TO TORONTO

Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister. Can the hon. gentleman tell us whether the visit of the Minister of National Revenue to Toronto today and the meetings which I believe he is holding with the Ontario government are part of the consultative process in which he is engaged in connection with Bill C-201? Or did the visit come about as a result of the developments yesterday in Toronto?


Mitchell William Sharp: It is my
understanding that the Minister of National Revenue is in Toronto on a mission of consultation. He has visited most of the governments in the eastern part of the country. He is now in Toronto. I hope he will be visiting all the provincial governments to ascertain their reaction to Bill C-201 and that we shall receive, as we expect, very close co-operation from the provinces.


John Stratford Burton: Bearing in mind the content of the Gray report which was tabled in the House, and the approach taken to Bill C-201, can the Acting Prime Minister tell us whether the Minister of National Revenue is now acting as a consultant to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce or is he acting as a consultant to the government of Ontario?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are getting somewhat far from the original question. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Fundy-Royal for a supplementary and perhaps we should then allow the hon. member for Shefford to ask his question.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: I shall attempt to return to the subject and be in order, Mr. Speaker. When does the Minister of National Revenue expect to complete his round of visits to the provinces in order that he can give the evidence we are expecting about provincial reaction before the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Legal Affairs?


Mitchell William Sharp: I will check with my colleague. I know he has been very actively engaged. I have had some informal talks with him and I gather there has been a very co-operative attitude on the part of the provincial governments he has visited so far. On the basis of my own conversations with the Ontario government, I expect the same reaction there.
He *	*



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs in his capacity as Acting Prime Minister.
This morning on the news the Quebec Minister of Labour, Mr. Cournoyer, announced that he intended to intervene as soon as possible in the longshoremen's strike. Is the Acting Prime Minister aware of offers made by the Quebec Minister of Labour in order to settle this dispute which has been going on for too long already?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of this but I do understand that the Minister of Labour may be here today and will be able to answer these questions.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and all related functionaries, may I put my question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the statement made yesterday by the minister regarding the Wiercioch case, in light of the statement made by his predecessor, the present Minister of Justice, in Montreal last December that he had no real control over his far-flung network of offices and officers and that there is often a difference between official policy and what happens in the field, and in light of the fact that for the last two sessions there was a note that legislation would be introduced to amend the Immigration Act, which note has not appeared this session, has the government now abandoned any intention to legislate in regard to this very difficult matter and is it going to continue to act by executive decree and ministerial bull in regard to these problems?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as I understood the statement of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, what he wanted to ensure was that the present legislation is carried out in the spirit as well as in the letter of the law. With this I entirely agree, and I am sure that that would be the view of my hon.
June 16, 1972

friend. The government has not abandoned its effort to amend the legislation but, as the hon. member knows, this is one of the most difficult, delicate and complicated matters that can be put before any government. We are very anxious that our immigration laws should continue to be liberal in the best meaning of that word.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I will reject the opportunity to make the obvious statement, but I should like to ask the minister this question. In light of the fact that this is a very important and sensitive matter and that the people of Canada have a vested interest in it, acting through their representatives, would he discuss with his colleagues a review of their decision so the matter might be brought before a parliamentary committee and/or dealt with by way of legislation, as otherwise there would appear to be a rejection of the right of Parliament to deal with this matter?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I deny the allegation made in that assertion. The Parliament of Canada has approved laws which are now in effect. The Minister of Manpower and Immigration is trying to ensure that they are carried out effectively throughout the whole of Canada and by all the bureaucracy. The government has been considering this matter, I am quite free to say, over a period of many months. It is extremely complicated and difficult, and I would be much more anxious to get the right answer than to rush the process.



SUICIDE OF ALICIA WIERCIOCH-SUGGESTED REPLACEMENT OF APPEAL BOARD MEMBERS BECAUSE OF REASON GIVEN FOR REFUSING APPLICATION TO REMAIN IN CANADA

Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Acting Prime Minister ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration to read the judgment of the Immigration Appeal Board which sets out the facts and the reason why the immigrant in question was not permitted to remain in Canada? The judgment sets out very clearly that the person in question was refused admittance because of her ambition to have a job and work in Canada. Will the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, who said he had misinformation from his department, take steps to remove the Immigration Appeal Board members and bring about the liberal interpretation he has been talking about?


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In reviewing this matter would the government take a look at the white paper published by the government in 1966 which contains several recommendations regarding improvement of the legislation that have not yet been brought before the House?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The right hon. member for Prince Albert.
Inquiries of the Ministry
[DOT] a 120)



AIR TRANSPORT


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. What attitude is Canada taking in reference to the prospective submission to the United Nations Security Council of the question of hijacking? What are the expectations of any action being taken by the Security Council having regard to the divided opinion among several members of that council?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as I said in the House of Commons the other day, the Canadian government would be very happy if this matter were brought before the Security Council. We are not members, but in general we have been supporting the idea. We also support action by ICAO, where we are represented, and where we believe that action which might be even more effective could be taken. I think the prospects are not too good, but we are still hopeful that some action will be taken because we would like some declaration by the United Nations or its principal agency that hijacking must be dealt with effectively and enlisting the support of all countries to deal effectively with hijackers by making sure they are brought to justice.


John George Diefenbaker: Whether or not the Security Council will act, of course, is very problematical, and it is almost impossible to anticipate favourable action. Having regard to the fact that there are deep fears of hijacking among passengers using aircraft in Canada and that each nation should take individual action in that international action is difficult, will the minister give consideration to having brought before the House before the adjournment an amendment to the law to provide that ransom or blackmail payments shall not be paid, thereby removing the incentive of the highly attractive remunerative opportunities which seem available to hijackers today?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I ought to preface my answer to that question by saying that Canada will be ratifying the international convention on hijacking now that the legislation has been approved. I expect this will be done on Monday. I have signed the necessary papers.
As to the second question of whether one can effectively legislate against blackmail, this is a problem with which the right hon. gentleman, I am sure, has been familiar in his practice. I think it is virtually impossible to prevent people from making payments in order to save the lives of those they love.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there are many laws that are virtually incapable of full enforcement, but does the minister not consider that the removal of the incentive of potential gain under the law would certainly reduce the probability of many hijacking operations such as are taking place today? Would the minister say whether this matter has ever been considered instead of giving an offhand opinion such as the one he has just given?

June 16, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I greatly respect the views of the right hon. gentleman in this field. He has obviously had much more experience in these matters than I, and I respect his judgment. From time to time we have looked at the general question, and undoubtedly we will have to look at it again in light of recent events.



HIJACKING-REQUEST THAT DISCIPLINARY ACTION NOT BE TAKEN AGAINST PILOTS WHO MAY BOYCOTT CERTAIN FLIGHTS

Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister. In any boycott by airline pilots of flights to countries that extend asylum to hijackers, will he assure the House that if Canadian pilots participate in such a boycott no disciplinary or reprisal action will be taken against them?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the hon. member will admit that his question is hypothetical.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat fearful of this question as it seems so simple to me. Would it be a good idea if those countries which do not provide for extradition were excluded from any use of international airports? Why not just exclude those countries that do not provide for extradition?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will appreciate that is a representation.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Supply and Services. I preface my question by saying it is founded upon the disclosure recently before a committee of the Ontario legislature that the Olivetti Business Machine Company provided an expense-paid trip for two public servants of the government of Ontario and subsequently sold some equipment to that government. Would the minister be prepared to make a statement in the House outlining federal government policy in respect of expense-paid trips for public servants arranged by businesses or corporations, particularly those that do business with the government?


Hon. lames Richardson (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, the reference is to paid trips for individuals who are, I understand, selling to the Ontario government. It does not come directly within the jurisdiction of my department to examine payments to anyone travelling at public expense.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to rephrase the question. I am asking the minister about federal government policy in the area of potential trips

for public servants that are paid for by business concerns. Would the minister make a statement outlining federal government policy in that area?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, this is not exclusively my area but I will be glad to consider the problem raised by the hon. member.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs in his capacity as Acting Prime Minister to find out which department or minister has responsibility in the area in question, and whoever it is, if it is anybody, would he be prepared to make a statement on federal government policy in respect of business concerns paying for trips and excursions for federal public servants?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I would think it concerns all members of the administration. If there is some particular case the hon. gentleman would like to discuss which does affect a federal civil servant, perhaps he might bring it to our attention.



AIRPORTS


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport but he is not here. I do not know whether I should direct it to his parliamentary secretary; I think I will. It concerns Mount Hope airport. In view of the fact it appears that the minister and his department have revealed no detailed plans regarding the proposed expansion of Mount Hope airport, can the minister advise whether such plans have been finalized yet and when he expects to make them public? I do not know whether the parliamentary secretary can answer that question.


Mr. Gerard Duquet (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I take this question as notice and I will relay it to the minister. I would simply say that according to the information I could get this morning, the reports in the Globe and Mail are greatly exaggerated.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I shall ask the parliamentary secretary another question which he may wish to take as notice. In view of the fact the minister assured the citizens of Hamilton and all interested parties that public meetings would be held pending the final disposition of the matter, can the parliamentary secretary advise whether in fact such a meeting or meetings have been lined up and when they will occur?


Gérard Duquet: I will take this question as notice, Mr. Speaker.
June 16, 1972


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I have one last supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I might as well get this all on the record so that I can follow it up on Monday. In light of reports indicating that land acquisition for the airport expansion will begin very shortly and that construction is due to begin before the end of this year, can the parliamentary secretary advise whether such speculation is correct and, in any event, will he immediately contact the mayor of the city of Hamilton in order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That question is out of order. The hon. member is inviting the parliamentary secretary to comment on what he himself calls speculation. Certainly a question in those terms is out of order.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact the minister is not here today even though under the roster system he is supposed to be here, and in light of the fact that this matter is extremely important to the city of Hamilton and other interested persons, I thought I would lay the whole matter before the parliamentary secretary so he could advise the minister that I will be following up the matter, on Monday.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That has nothing to do with a point of order. The hon. member has asked three questions. I suggested to him that the third question was out of order, and it will not be more in order on Monday.



POST OFFICE


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General. Now that the Council of Postal Unions has placed a demand before the Post Office and Treasury Board negotiating team calling for a 14 per cent pay boost and a 35-hour week for its
24,000	workers, will the Postmaster General be making a progress report to Parliament on the matter?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the hon. member has obtained the figures or the requests made by the unions. I was not aware they had been published. I have absolutely nothing to add except that I hope that the meetings concerning negotiation will take place more frequently from now on.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: In view of the strong opposition on the part of the postal unions, to the regional pay proposals, will the government be withdrawing this part of its package of proposals from the current negotiations?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: That is a question that has to be discussed at the bargaining table, Mr. Speaker. I think that we will have to change our position and that the union will likely have to change its own.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Is it the intention of the government to use the services of the special negotiators from the Department of Labour in order to facilitate an early settlement of this important matter?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: We are ready, Mr. Speaker, to take all necessary means to reach an agreement as soon as possible, but it is exceedingly important, I believe, to hold meetings where negotiations could be carried on.



PROPOSED MACKENZIE VALLEY GAS PIPELINE-POSSIBLE PARTICIPATION BY PANARCTIC IN CONSORTIUM

Mr. Rod Thomson (Battleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Has Panarctic joined the consortium formed recently to build the Mackenzie Valley pipeline, or will the government be encouraging it to do so?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I will bring that question to the attention of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I have not followed recent developments.



PROPOSED MACKENZIE VALLEY GAS PIPELINE- INQUIRY AS TO LEGISLATION RESPECTING CANADIAN PARTICIPATION AND CONTROL

Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question which I should like to put to the Acting Prime Minister. As there is much mystery and secrecy about this new pipeline, would the Acting Prime Minister advise us whether a special bill will be brought before the House with reference to this consortium, setting out what kind of Canadian participation and how much Canadian control we will have in this new pipeline, or is a licence just going to be granted under the pipeline legislation on the statute books?


Mitchell William Sharp: I would think that one of the relevant considerations in the application will be the degree of Canadian participation.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The Acting Prime Minister seems a little worried about the possibility of another pipeline debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member ask his supplementary question.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I will put my question now, Mr. Speaker. Would the Acting Prime Minister assure the House that before any decision is made on a licence or any consent is given to any persons or corporations a full statement will be made to the House on what policy the government is really following, because there is secrecy and mystery about the whole thing?

June 16, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mitchell William Sharp: I hope I do not look worried. I can assure the hon. gentleman that there is no secrecy or mystery about this. Apparently the hon. gentleman knows a good deal about this matter. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has made one or two statements about the proposal. We are encouraged by the fact that there is the possibility of a gas pipeline down the Mackenzie Valley to move Canadian gas and perhaps Alaska gas, as well. It is most encouraging to us that Canadians are showing a real interest in getting this gas pipeline going.



PARLIAMENT


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: My
question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Is it the intention of the government to investigate the conflict of interest charges resulting from committee hearings in the other place?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, apparently the hon. gentleman follows the proceedings in the other place better than I do. Would he explain the point?


Donald MacInnis: There is no need for the Acting Prime Minister to remark on the obvious. Everybody on this side follows matters more closely than he does.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. gentleman might ask his supplementary.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, if the minister wants a further explanation, the fact is that during committee hearings in the other place conflict of interest charges were raised against a member of the other place by another member of that other place involving special interest groups being served by members of the other place.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald MacInnis: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I say in further clarification for the Acting Prime Minister that the other place is what we usually refer to as the other half of Parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mitchell William Sharp: I was just trying to penetrate the secrecy and mystery. Now I understand it better.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, now that the Acting Prime Minister understands it, may I ask whether the government is going to investigate these conflict of interest charges that have been made?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we will certainly look at the evidence before the committee and see whether there is a basis for any government action.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege for the obvious reason that Parliament is involved, and when Parliament is involved each and every Member

of Parliament is involved. The members of this House are answerable to the public because they are elected members. Therefore any conflict of interest charge in the other place is something that the government should investigate immediately so that members of this House will not have actions of the other place held against them.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



OPPORTUNITIES FOR AGED


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I wanted to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In his absence, and I believe that of his parliamentary secretary, perhaps some minister would take note of it or perhaps answer it. Is it the intention of the government to proceed with the earlier announced New Horizons or opportunities for the aged program this year, and are old age pension organizations being involved in the planning of the program?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I believe there will be a government announcement soon.



STRAWBERRIES-STEPS TO PREVENT IMPORTS FROM MEXICO DAMAGING INDUSTRY

Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. A news item datelined Mexico City recently announced that a Mexican trade mission has released information of the sale to Canada of fresh and frozen strawberries to the value of $2.8 million. What steps will the minister take to prevent this importation from seriously damaging the berry-growing industry in all parts of Canada?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, we have a variable import levy on fruits brought in during seasons when there is no great production in Canada or when they are out of season so far as Canadian production is concerned. Although I read that press release also, I could find no evidence within Canada that would substantiate some of it.



PRICE OF RAPESEED-INQUIRY AS TO ESTABLISHMENT OF FLOOR PRICE

John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. It arises because of the fears aroused among rapeseed producers on the Prairies because the price of rapeseed
June 16, 1972

has come down from the top price during the year by about 41 cents. Can he give an explanation as to the reason for this because this is a question that is being asked everywhere?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I could do so, Mr. Speaker, but I suppose it would take somewhat longer than the time that would be given to answer a question. The price of rapeseed in Thunder Bay yesterday was $2.35 a bushel, which was substantially higher than the low point that was reached, for example, last January. It is not quite as high as it was some days last August, but it is certainly not at the low point for the year now, nor has it happened suddenly.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the minister failed to say that it is also very much lower than the price during the year on several occasions. Under the circumstances, because we are not going to be able to have the benefit of his explanation of the unexplainable, will he advise us whether the government is giving consideration to setting a floor price that will assure the farmer a fair return?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman asked that question about three or four weeks ago, and I think the answer I gave then is still valid.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question with reference to the last words of the minister that the answer today was as good as the one given four weeks ago. I would say it is just as bad.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: It is still valid.


John George Diefenbaker: I ask him now to answer the question: is the government giving consideration to providing a floor price to assure that the rapeseed farmers will have a reasonable return?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, as I replied a few weeks ago, there is a bill before Parliament dealing with rapeseed, rye and flax in the context of the operations of the Canadian Wheat Board. The right hon. gentleman knows as well as I do that the initial prices paid under the Wheat Board do in fact constitute a floor price. This bill is already before Parliament, but we do not have the authority at the moment to do this.


John George Diefenbaker: You don't have the authority? The government certainly has, and the minister knows it.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence although there are several supplementaries I would like to ask other ministers. In any event, I direct the question to him because he may be elsewhere next week. Has any
Inquiries of the Ministry
decision been made with regard to a replacement for the Argus and, if so, have proposals gone out to aircraft manufacturing companies for their consideration?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Defence):: No,


Mr.   Speaker.Mr. Nowlan@: When will there be a decision on the Argus replacement?


Edgar John Benson: The matter is being studied, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Nowlan: So are you.



REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE THAT FOURTH TRAINING SQUADRON BASED AT ESQUIMALT WILL BE OPERATIONAL THIS SUMMER

Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. During the course of the hearings of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence with respect to the defence white paper it was suggested to the committee that the fourth training squadron based at Esquimalt might not be operational this summer because of difficulties in finding the four to eight necessary engine room personnel. Since that squadron is capable of training some 500 reservists from all parts of the country during the summer, can the minister assure the House that it will be operational this summer?
Hon. E. ]. Benson (Minister of National Defence): Mr. Speaker, I will have to check on its current status and report back to the House.



DATE OF UNFREEZING OF DEFENCE BUDGET-CRITERIA TO BE USED

Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is perhaps related to the one just asked. It arises out of the mounting pressures and difficulties the forces are having in meeting their standards of training as a direct result of the prolonged frozen budget. Can the minister say when this situation will be corrected? As a supplementary, can he say whether or not any decisions have already been taken, or are at the consideration stage, with respect to the criteria that will be used in the unfreezing of the defence budget?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, as indicated in the white paper the defence budget is to be unfrozen for the 1973-74 fiscal year. As to exactly what this involves, negotiations and planning are going on with the Treasury Board.


J. Michael Forrestall: Inasmuch as the forces will be undertaking their budgetary planning for the coming year very shortly-indeed, in some instances they are already doing it-have any instructions gone out to the various commands with respect to their programs for spending under the unfrozen budget?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, with respect to 1973-74 the departmental budgetary estimates have been prepared and are now a matter of discussion with the Treasury

June 16, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
Board. Here we are talking about the forward fiscal year beyond this one.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. It concerns the small farms development program about which we have been hearing something of late. Does the government expect that there will be further discussions with the provinces on this program, and when does the minister expect that the program will be taking effect?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is yes. I cannot give a precise date as to when it will take effect. In those provinces with which we reach an agreement, obviously the agreement will specify when it will be operational. I want to repeat what I have said a number of times. I am disappointed and impatient that the provinces have not come forward more rapidly. If they do not sign pretty soon we will operate it ourselves.


Jack Burnett Murta: As it appears almost certain that at least some of the provinces will not accept the criteria laid down by the government, how much duplication can be expected with the provincial and federal programs overlapping in certain areas?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, this would be minimized to a great extent if the provinces would co-operate.


Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question with regard to the small farm rationalization program. In view of the fact the provinces have firmly rejected the present proposals of the government, would the Minister of Agriculture give consideration to bringing in enabling legislation so that there could be some co-operation between the provinces and the federal government?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how you can legislate the provinces to sign an agreement. I would not even try that. We already have authority from the House so far as federal participation is concerned.



SMALL FARM ASSISTANCE PROGRAM-RESULT OF MEETING BETWEEN FEDERAL AND QUEBEC MINISTERS

Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture.
Since the Quebec government had also made some reservations about that policy, can the minister tell the House whether he has been in touch lately with the 
Quebec Minister of Agriculture in connection with that program and whether those talks have actually given some result?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there have been many discussions with the Minister of Agriculture of Quebec. I think there is no great disagreement on the features of the program, but there is some disagreement on who will administer those features.



AIRPORTS


Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport in the absence of the minister. As the planned moving sidewalk between terminal one and the newly opened terminal two at Toronto International Airport has not yet been installed and a temporary bus system has been set up, would the parliamentary secretary tell the House the reason for the 25 cent charge which is being made for this very short trip?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have very serious doubts whether this question should be asked during the question period. If there is urgency about the charge to which the hon. member refers I would think the question should be raised at the time of adjournment. Orders of the day.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Ten o'clock.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Georges-J. Valade: This House regrets the Government's continuing refusal to this date to intervene in the impasse between the International Longshoremen's Association and the Maritime Employers' Association despite the short and long term damage to the St. Lawrence seaports, to the users of the national transportation system and to the economic well-being of Canada and despite the sufferings of the longshoremen and their families; and therefore this House, in the public interest, calls upon the Government to intervene forthwith to end the strike.
Mr. Speaker, before dealing with the matter which I have brought before the House this morning as a motion, I would like to invite the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. O'Connell) who is directly involved and responsible to the House for the administration of legislation regarding working conditions in Canada and for disputes which
June 16, 1972

may concern the federal government directly or indirectly.
I wish the Minister of Labour were present in the House but in his absence, the former Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) at least should be here as Acting Minister of Labour, because when disputes cannot be settled by the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration is often asked to step in. I am truly disappointed to see that neither of those ministers are present to reply to a most important question.
Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to start a useless quarrel but rather to acknowledge the unfortunate situation which prevails in Canada due to a most serious problem affecting thousands of workers and the Canadian economy.


Jean-Luc Pepin: The Minister of Labour will soon be here-


Georges-J. Valade: The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce tells me that the Minister of Labour will soon be here. I hope so, but it is unfortunate just the same that he is not here for the beginning of our proceedings since such a question falls under his jurisdiction.
But if the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce wants to assure me that the Minister of Labour will be here in a few seconds, I am willing-


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am taking note of your views right now-


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce advises me that he is taking note of my views, but he can also take note that in the National Assembly the Quebec Minister of Labour has blamed the federal government for his inability to intervene in this conflict in order to settle it. So, if the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce wants to take note of my comments, he might also take note of those from the Quebec Minister of Labour, who is a member of a Liberal government, and yet is well known for his unfortunate interventions in the labour disputes occurring in Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, the matter is so obviously serious that I would not want to imitate the frivolous talk of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, nor fall into the thoughtless and unreasonable reactions or remarks from the government's spokesmen.
Mr. Speaker, if the hon. members would stop yelling, I might be able to continue my remarks. For the last half hour, we have had nothing but bedlam in the House.
Mr. Speaker, the motion that I move today on behalf of my party-and I trust on behalf of all hon. members concerned with public interest-is, I think, abundantly clear.
Mr. Speaker, what has made this motion necessary is the obvious indifference shown by the Minister of Labour since this dispute started, and his refusal to give clear replies to the questions of hon. members of the House, to whatever party they may belong.
I should not like to be partisan, to the extent of saying that government members take no interest in the matter. I believe all hon. members, whatever their political colour, the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) included, have
Quebec Longshoremen's Strike
also risen in the House in an effort to force government action in this matter.
Mr. Speaker, the motion is clear and I believe-


Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker-


Georges-J. Valade: I believe the motion I submitted is clear and explicit enough, as I said earlier and it comprises five major points.
First of all, the refusal-


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker-


Georges-J. Valade: -would the hon. member please be quiet? If he has anything to say, he can do so later.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, the hon. member is rising on a point of order.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Georges-J. Valade: Not at this time, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I have clearly said that I do not wish to associate this very important matter with this sort of pranks played by some members and I regret that the hon. member does not take seriously so serious a question as that which we are discussing this morning.
Mr. Speaker, the motion contains five major items: First, the refusal by the government to break the deadlock through some positive action; second, the short and longterm damage to the St. Lawrence ports; third, the damage to the users of the national transportation system; fourth, the damage to the economic well-being of Canada and, by implication, of Montreal and Quebec; fifth, the human aspect involved in the hardship of the longshoremen and their families.
Representing a constituency which is at the heart of Montreal harbour activity and where a very substantial number of longshoremen involved in the dispute live, I had to intervene to protect the interests of my constituents and of the people of Canada as a whole.
Mr. Speaker, the ports of Montreal, Trois-Rivieres and Quebec City have been paralysed for more than 30 days because of a conflict involving both the shipping firms and the longshoremen which only a few weeks ago had come to an agreement whereby the former Minister of Labour and member for Verdun would insure order in the ports for at least the next three years. Now, both parties find themselves right back where they started about their collective agreement with all the efforts made by both sides to come to a satisfactory agreement wasted.
An exact description of this situation was recently published as an editorial in the June 5, 1972 issue of Le Journal de Montreal, editorial which I wish to quote for the accuracy of its insight. In this editorial, Mr. Paul Gros d'Aillon puts the problems in its proper perspective before public opinion, and I quote:
3208

June 16, 1972
Quebec Longshoremen's Strike
The conflict is so pointless, so subtle that no one really knows how to interpret it. No one knows either who is wrong or who is right. The employers interpreted in their own way the terms of the labour agreement on the constitution of the unloading crews. The union members countered and quit work. The employer retaliated and everyone was fired. The courts before which the case stands wonder what to do and the federal department of Labour refuses to grant the employers in the three ports of the St. Lawrence the right to take the longshoremen's union before the courts.
Arbitration should therefore be resorted to, to settle the conflict, but both sides attempt to lose themselves in a judicial jungle which camouflages the basic truths of the problem. In other words, no one will budge.
There is the gist of the problem, Mr. Speaker. Both parties are watching who is going to make the first move. In spite of the fact that either party, or both, would do well to go to arbitration, there is an accepted procedure which is contained in the collective agreement that was signed on March 29, 1972 and which is in force until December 31, 1974. This is indicated in paragraph 11 of section 1 and more specifically in paragraph 5, concerning grievance procedures.
However, as the editorial writer said, it is a matter of no one wanting to budge.
Notwithstanding this procedure provided in the collective agreement in cases of grievances, none of the interested parties has indicated its willingness to use it so far. This is ridiculous and unjustifiable.
It is a matter of mutual "pouting", Mr. Speaker, between the parties concerned, where the government and the Minister of Labour find themselves in a moral and political obligation to intervene in this conflict.


Mr.   Speaker-Mr. Guay@St. Boniface: The hon. member is hard to follow.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member has both his ears plugged and does not understand, let him sleep as he has done since the beginning.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: You are all mixed up and we cannot understand a thing.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member did not understand a thing, he certainly is ripe for defeat in the next election. He had better go back to the trough where he comes from.
Mr. Speaker, it is ridiculous that a member should act so irresponsibly in the House when we are dealing with a dispute affecting our whole economy and the well-being of longshoremen. He is not willing to-


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member for St. Boniface is rising on a point of order.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, I should like to tell the member for Sainte-Marie that at least I attend the sittings of the House, that I go to committee meetings

every day of the week, and that I have the pleasure of seeing the member in the House once a month.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The hon. member will agree that he is only raising a point of discussion and that his point of order is not well taken.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, may I ask Your Honour to direct members on the government side to allow the hon. member who has the floor to speak. They are making loud noises to disguise the fact there are so few of them in this House.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. If the hon. member who has the floor would stop making nonsensical references to members on this side of the House, he would not be interrupted.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I think we might best solve the difficulty if we allowed the hon. member for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Valade) to complete his remarks as quickly as possible.


David Réal Caouette: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is the hon. member for Temiscamingue rising on a point of order?


David Réal Caouette: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
I have known the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) for many years now. I knew him when he was the level-headed mayor of St. Boniface. But in this House, although we do not always share the views expressed by the hon. member for Sainte-Marie, I think in all fairness that the hon. member for St. Boniface should stay quiet, keep silent and listen to what the mover of the motion has to say. If he disagrees, then he will have the privilege of making a speech, but he should let us listen quietly to the hon. member who has the floor.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, I request the co-operation of hon. members. I think the hon. member for Sainte-Marie should be allowed to proceed with his comments. I do not believe that these exchanges enable us to progress satisfactorily and I would urge hon. members to listen carefully to the comments of the hon. member who has presently the floor; later on, and in turn, they will be afforded the opportunity of making their comments either criticizing or supporting what has been said. It is customary for member^ in this House not to blame each other because of absences nor to check the attendance or absence record of hon. members, otherwise we would never make any progress.


Georges-J. Valade: I rise on a question of privilege and also on a point of order.
My point of order is that I hope the time spent on totally insignificant and frivolous interjections should not be at the expense of the time allocated to me; also I wish to see the procedure and practice of this House respected. When a motion is submitted by an hon. member, he should be
June 16, 1972

allowed to speak and should be respected, and later it will be possible for hon. members to express their views.
As the hon. member for Temiscamingue and leader of the Social Credit party of Canada (Mr. Caouette) said, anyone who does not agree with me must let me know, but must give me enough time to conclude my remarks on such an important matter.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member for St. Boniface on a question of privilege.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, I should like to see the debate go on without reference to hon. members.
I should like to mention, Mr. Speaker, that I listened with pleasure to the remarks of the hon. leader of the Social Credit Party and I wish to tell him that I am happy to see him also in the House.
The hon. member who has the floor is referring to people he sees whenever he is in the House, and before making any remarks, he should know for sure who makes references-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. Again, I urge hon. members to help the Chair, and in this way, the debate will certainly progress much further. I will ask the hon. member for Sainte-Marie to go back to the matter without delay and may I ask other hon. members to stop making such interventions.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly limit my remarks to the matter under study, as I feel the latter to be far too important for anybody to waste the time of this House in replies and exchanges of that kind.
I was talking, Mr. Speaker, of a conflict which is extremely serious. I spoke about the points which I raised in the motion. There are five of them, and it seems to me that they are clear. I concluded by saying that the only solution which seems practicable to solve this conflict at present, to put an end to the deadlock, is to take it to arbitration.
Mr. Speaker, if this was only my suggestion, I think that some hon. members would have the right to challenge this conclusion. But this solution, which seems to be the only feasible one at present, does not come from me alone. I have also consulted newspapers and certain reports, certain statements by responsible men whose advice has been taken in previous strikes-among which the former Minister of Labour, the hon. member for Verdun, who recently said, concerning this strike, that the only solution left was arbitration. It is reported in the newspaper Montreal-Matin of Wednesday, May 24, 1972, that the hon. member for Verdun, the former Minister of Labour, was behind the signing of the collective agreement between the shipowners and the longshoremen. The hon. member for Verdun is reported as saying that arbitration was most advisable under the circumstances.
Last night, Mr. Speaker-whether the hon. member for St. Boniface likes it or not-the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), who is on a tour in Labrador City, made some very
Quebec Longshoremen's Strike
interesting statements. An article in today's issue of Montreal-Matin reads as follows:
-Mr. Trudeau replied that it would be a very good idea indeed, and that arbitration should be extended to all activities, "because, he said, strike is a last resort, somewhat similar to war. Eventually, everybody loses by it."
Then, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister himself is in favour of arbitration to settle disputes of that kind.
This morning also, during an interview on a Quebec radio network, the Quebec Minister of Labour accused the federal government of failing to do anything in this dispute between ship-owners and longshoremen. Mr. Cournoyer, Minister of Labour in Mr. Bourassa's Liberal government said that if the federal government was not going to do anything about it, the provincial Minister of Labour will have to intervene even if that dispute does not come directly under the jurisdiction of the provincial government. Mr. Cournoyer blamed the incapacity, the "wait and see" policy and the inaction of the federal Minister of Labour, because he is concerned just as we are about the disastrous effects of any extension of such a strike on the general economic activity in the province of Quebec. He also said that if the federal Minister of Labour did not settle the conflict, he would have to interfere himself.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, whenever such a situation develops, the matter is serious enough, I believe, for the federal government to get involved in the settling of the dispute. They should get involved because the former Minister of Labour, the hon. member for Verdun, did have his say in the drafting of the collective agreement between the longshoremen and the ship-owners.
Mr. Speaker, the minister answered various questions in this House on that subject. He said among other things that he could not intervene, that the collective agreement provided for arbitration, and that both parties had to comply with regulations. Now in answer to a question directed to him, the minister said that the Maritime Employers' Union was prepared to accept arbitration, but that it had not yet started the procedure to that effect.
On the other hand, it is reported that the longshoremen are also prepared to go to arbitration, but that they do not want to initiate it.
Here is the crux of the matter, Mr. Speaker. The problem is that according to an established procedure, if a dispute arises between the two parties, it must be settled through arbitration, but neither party wants arbitration. Then how should the government or the public get this problem solved?
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have here the collective agreement which was signed on March 29th, 1972. I shall quote now article 1.11:
Should a conflict arise concerning new methods of work, the loading or unloading of ships or any related operation that affects the health or security of the workers, the parties shall meet to solve the dispute, and failing an agreement, it shall be submitted to arbitration according to the procedure set out in other provisions of this agreement.
Now, for the information of the members, I point out that the other provisions are seriously involved in the
25319-17J

June 16, 1972
Quebec Longshoremen's Strike problem, as one realizes on reading the introduction to the chapter entitled "Grievance procedure". I quote:
Any disagreement as to interpretation or application of the present agreement is a grievance as defined within the agreement. Grievances are settled according to the following procedure-
If the grievance committee fails to settle the grievance within the five (5) following working days, the grievance shall be submitted to a sole mediator, chosen in conformity with the present agreement. The mediator shall render his decision within the seven (7) following working days, or within a longer period agreed upon by the parties.
Paragraph (d) deals with requests for arbitration, which I consider to be interesting because this is where we find the provisions actually related to the conflict. I quote that paragraph:
The request for arbitration can be filed either by the Union or by the Maritime Employers Association. The party making the request for arbitration shall make a written outline of the conflict submitted for arbitration and send copy thereof to the other party.
In the present dispute, neither of the parties has filed an application for arbitration with the other party. Each side stands by its position. The collective agreement also provides for who can act as an arbitrator in case of a dispute.
Paragraph (d) in the same section reads as follows:
The single arbitrator shall be selected from the following list: 1. The honourable Chief Justice A. B. Gold; 2. Hon. Justice Elphege Marier; 3. Hon. Justice Jacques Vadboncoeur, and 4. Mr. Raymond Leboeuf, barrister.
It is agreed that the arbitrator designated by the parties on any occasion shall be available Mondays to Fridays-
These are matters of detail, but what is important is the provision in paragraph (f) of section 5, which reads as follows:
In case the arbitrators referred to in the above paragraph should be unable to act, the arbitrator shall be chosen by the parties or, in the absence of an agreement, by the federal Minister of Labour.
In fact, we can read clearly here that the Minister of Labour and the federal government are involved in the grievance procedure concerning a dispute such as this one which now opposes the longshoremen of St. Lawrence ports and the shippers.
If the contracting parties cannot agree on the choice of an arbitrator-I understand that the arbitrator is involved-it is stated that the federal government, through the Minister of Labour, must intervene to designate him.
Now Mr. Speaker, since we are faced with two entirely antagonistic parties which have never expressed the wish to meet, in_ my opinion, it goes without saying that the federal Minister of Labour, according to the spirit and letter of that clause, could and should intervene in case of disagreement.
Mr. Speaker, I do not at all understand why each time that some conflict has risen with serious consequences for Quebec, especially for the Montreal area as well as for the entire Canadian economy, the minister has fallen into the nasty way of taking refuge by saying: The minister cannot interfere, the parties must get together and come to an agreement. We cannot interfere.
[Mr. Valade.l
Unless this negative attitude is reversed, I wonder, Mr. Speaker, how long it will take before a solution is found to this problem.
In my view, the former Minister of Labour, when he spoke to the House in 1966 regarding harbour difficulties involving the same parties was not saying the same thing. It would certainly be most interesting to read some statements that the hon. member for Verdun made on June 7, 1966, as the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour concerning the conflict existing at the port of Montreal. The hon. member for Verdun was then answering the liberal member for Trois-Rivieres, the late Mr. J.-A. Mongrain, who was asking the federal government to intervene in this conflict. The hon. member for Trois-Rivieres, for whom I had a lot of admiration and respect, said when asking the minister to intervene in the dispute at the port of Montreal, and I quote:
In view of the disastrous circumstances of the present longshoremen's strike, should the minister not take drastic and extraordinary steps so that the activity will be resumed while negotiations are under way?
The hon. member for Trois-Rivieres was making these comments in the House on account of that strike.
And the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour, the hon. member for Verdun, now Minister of Manpower and Immigration, who was also at one time Minister of Labour and who had drafted the collective agreement, replied to the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres as follows:
I noted . .. the very intelligent remarks of the hon. member for Three Rivers-
He had just talked about compulsory arbitration-And further the hon. member for Verdun said:
At the same time I realize, as do I am sure most members of the house, that some extraordinary measures will eventually have to be taken if this longshoremen's strike is to be brought to a satisfactory conclusion.
Those were the remarks made by the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour, who became later Minister of Labour and who is now Minister of Manpower and Immigration. He said in the House that extraordinary measures would have to be taken to find a solution to the longshoremen's dispute.
The situation that prevails at this time, Mr. Speaker, is almost identical to the one existing then, except that it is more urgent now, since this dispute is in its fifth week and there is no end in sight. It will soon enter in its sixth week.
Mr. Speaker, the economic implications of this strike, the effects of this deadlock on the future of the Quebec ports are obviously disastrous. One could talk of immediate and long term implications of the situation on the economy at all levels: national and local, on the future life of the St. Lawrence ports, on the families of employees who are suffering from this strike.
It is well known that harbour activities on the St. Lawrence River are the most important industry in Quebec. The port of Montreal, being the largest in the system, is more directly and strongly affected.
June 16, 1972

Moreover, this conflict has arisen in the most active part of the season, that is the months of May, June and July. Under normal circumstances, the port of Montreal can count on the presence to at least 125 to 150 ships at this time of the year. There were merely 7 of them a few days ago.
A good number of ships have returned to their port of departure or were rerouted. Some of them have been able to drop anchor in the ports of Toronto, Halifax and St. John's. But these harbours having limited facilities, many ships have set sail toward American ports. Montreal will have lost to date some 525,000 tons of cargo including
225,000	of general merchandise which is the main source of direct tax income for the federal government.
Some importers have advised their suppliers to refrain from shipping cargo via Montreal.
Some important shipowners such as McLean Kennedy Limited and Furness Withy & Co. Ltd., have already moved their harbour facilities from Montreal to Halifax.
Will shippers who, in spite of the last dockers' strike had once again relied on the St. Lawrence harbours, sever their ties with Montreal, Trois-Rivieres and Quebec? Some business circles fear this possibility.
Mr. Speaker, if we were seeking to permanently destroy the harbour system which is still vital for the maintenance of Quebec's economic prosperity, we would not act differently.
It would be right to seriously ask oneself this question in the face of a situation that was literally and wilfully left to deteriorate.
The slightest permanent decrease in harbour activities at Montreal, Trois-Rivieres or Quebec that this conflict might entail, would cause not only serious gaps in the local economy but would also be a grave threat to the jobs of thousands of workers directly or indirectly linked with harbour services.
The laissez-faire or wait-and-see policy of the government, and particularly the Minister of Labour, demonstrates such unawareness of the disastrous consequences of this situation that we must denounce it most vigorously.
The predecessor of the present Minister of Labour, the hon. member for Verdun, would certainly not have taken this matter so lightly, had he still been in office. It is unfortunate that the considerable efforts made by the hon. member for Verdun at the time when he was Minister of Labour in order to achieve the signing of the collective agreement last March have failed to ensure the promised stability.
This conflict will have a serious impact on the national economy, as the government will be deprived of the substantial revenues derived from operations in Quebec harbours.
In fact, in 1970 and 1971, the government received over $329 million yearly in direct revenues under the customs and excise acts.
Harbour operations are therefore an extremely important economic generator which the minister cannot afford to ignore, especially in the difficult times which we are going through in Canada, and particularly in Quebec, at present.
Quebec Longshoremen's Strike
It is estimated that every ton of goods handled in harbours represents an economic generation factor of between $12 and $14 per capita.
Over the last five years, operations in Quebec harbours have provided the government with revenues of $3.5 billion.
Now, it is clearly urgent for the government to take the necessary steps in order to resolve this conflict, not only because of its serious impact on the Canadian economy and the future of the St. Lawrence harbours, but above all because of the human problems which afflict the employees concerned and their families.
I said in my opening remarks that I represent a constituency which is particularly affected by this strike. I had occasion to meet with longshoremen who told me of their concern over the situation, which does not seem about to be settled.
They made me understand the difficulties their families had to face as a result of the strike, for we all know that with this conflict, the families of longshoremen on strike cannot count on social welfare-since they cannot get it under the provincial law-nor on unemployment insurance benefits, since the unemployment insurance act has no provision concerning these conditions. They are not entitled to any other relief funds, which means that the affectef families are most depressed and they can only expect to get assistance from a few benevolent societies, like the Societe Saint-Vincent-de-Paul and other organizations of this kind.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I regret to have to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired, while making allowance for the interruptions that took place at the outset of his speech.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, could I be allowed to conclude my remarks, with the consent of the House?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member knows that he can only do it with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent to allow the hon. member to carry on his speech?


David Réal Caouette: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Apparently, there is no unanimous consent. The Chair will therefore recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member for Sainte-Marie rises on a question of privilege.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member for Temiscamingue would not agree that I be given a few minutes more, in view of the numerous interruptions during my speech. I have only a few-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. The hon. member knows the rules. When unanimous consent is

June 16, 1972
Quebec Longshoremen's Strike sought, under the rules, there can be no discussion on that question of unanimity.
I might put the question once again. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member for Temiscamingue on a point of order.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, recently we were not allowed to continue our speeches. Today, I object to the hon. member being entitled to conclude his own.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I will say to the hon. member-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I would ask the hon. member to resume his seat.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member for Sainte-Marie on a question of privilege.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I think that we are creating a precedent. It has always been agreed that when the spokesman of a political party in the House initiated a debate by introducing a motion-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I am explaining my question of privilege and I suggest that you should allow me to complete my remarks.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I must point out to the hon. member that the Standing Orders, as we all know, clearly specify the length of speeches. When a minister introduces a motion concerning a bill, the Standing Orders provide that the minister may be entitled to an unlimited time period, but in this instance, since this is a motion from the opposition, a time limit for speeches must be set. The House even places upon itself sometimes restrictions which are even stricter.
So, there is no way by which we may discuss this practice established for the past few years, and I must recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
I wanted to conclude by making concrete proposals in order to settle this conflict. Since I cannot make them in this House, I shall do so in front of newspapermen, and I shall say that the leader of the Social Credit Party who often speaks of democracy, objects to my-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I invite the hon. member to resume his seat. The hon. member knows as well as I do that the point he is raising is in no way
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel).]
connected with the question of privilege. A few minutes ago, he blamed other hon. members for preventing him to speak. I think that at this moment, he must realize that the Chair must recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the tie-up on the waterfront at Montreal, Trois-Rivieres and Quebec City is, indeed, a very serious matter and we earnestly hope that it will soon be settled. I remain to be convinced, however, whether the kind of speeches that may be made in this chamber today, such as the one we have just heard, will expedite that settlement. I hope that some good will come out of this debate, but that remains to be seen.
When I read the terms of the motion put down by the hon. member for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Valade) I wondered what he meant by the concluding words which call for the government "to intervene forthwith to end the strike".


Georges-J. Valade: That is what I wanted to say in my conclusion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon.
member had 30 minutes. In fact, he had 35 or 36 minutes. I listened carefully to his entire speech. I regret to say that it was necessary for me to listen to the translation of his speech, but at least that had the effect of forcing me to give it my full attention so as not to miss anything. He said several times that his motion was explicit. He said several times that his motion was very clear. Toward the end of his speech he called on the government to take measures to resolve the conflict. But at no time did he tell the House what he meant.


Georges-J. Valade: I have it all here before me and I wanted to put it before the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: At no time did he tell us what he meant by government intervention, and I do not think that what he has in his hand will do that, either.


Mr. Prud'homme:: He has a secret weapon.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What the hon. member says in his motion is that the government should intervene forthwith to end the strike. I must say that if he has in mind steps to put this matter before the courts, then we would disagree. If he has in mind some sort of strike breaking action-though it is a little difficult to use that phrase because it is not a strike, it is a lock-out- again we would disagree. I see the Minister of Labour (Mr. O'Connell) disagrees with what I am saying about the dispute being a lockout, but there we are. If the hon. member has in mind calling upon the government to bring in legislation to put these employees back to work, the employees who may not be employees because they have been suspended, we do not agree with that either.
I know there is a great deal of current feeling about strikes, about unions and about workers, and I understand it, particularly when it affects the public generally.
June 16, 1972

But let us not forget that the sanctity of the law and the sacredness of rights must include protecting the law at all times and protecting those rights which have been established in a society such as ours. The right of employers and employees to disagree and to carry that disagreement to the point of a stoppage of work is one of the factors of our society. We have had to live with this for a long time. Someone may come up with a better way and he will be a great hero when he does. In the meantime, we do not aid the cause of amity or industrial peace in our society simply by putting the blame on trade unions, on workers and on strikers. Neither do we solve the problem by making generalized speeches for 30 minutes calling upon the government to intervene and end it without saying what the government should do.
I intend to be very brief. One or more of my colleagues may speak later in the day and, if they do, they, too, will be brief. There is the suggestion that has come from the National Farmers Union that if there is no solution for some time to this matter the government might consider taking over the operations, putting them under an administrator or something until an agreement can be reached. That point will be put forward later, but we contend that even that should not be proposed until a serious effort has been made by the Minister of Labour along the lines he is already following.
If we have a quarrel with the Minister of Labour, and I speak for my leader who happens to be away today, and for the rest of us in this party, it is not with the nature of what he is doing, it is with the degree and the vigour of it. He said the other day in response to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) that he was doing his best to get the two parties to have regard for their obligations to each other. Then, he used this sentence:
That kind of intervention I have indeed pursued vigorously.
He looks at me and seems to be asking if I want him to be more vigorous. That is right. Later on that same day, Wednesday, June 14, we find another response to the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis). The sentence I have read was from page 3124 of Hansard. Looking over at page 3125, I find this response at the end of a series of questions:
I would point out that the two parties themselves appointed the arbitrators and that four arbitrators are named in the agreement. The initiative falls on one or the other of the two parties. They each have the obligation.
I agree with the minister's statement as a description of the situation as it obtains legally, but the public interest is involved in all of this and it is the job of the Minister of Labour to represent that public interest. Our suggestion, our plea and our urging to him is that he regard what he has called vigorous in the past as not vigorous enough, and that he make every effort he possibly can to get the two parties together in a place they choose, or let him choose the place, and stay with the two parties hour upon hour, day upon day, night upon night if necessary until they either reach an agreement or until they agree to send the matter to arbitration. Our suggestion is as simple as that. We are not asking for legislation. In fact, we do not want it. We are not asking for police action and we are not asking for the matter to be taken to the courts. We are trying to avoid the mistake I think the last member made
Quebec Longshoremen's Strike
in calling for something to be done and not saying what he meant.
I almost have to say that in a sense I like the stance of the Minister of Labour in respecting the law and the rights of both sides. We appreciate the fact that he appreciates the rights of the workers and I cannot quarrel with his respecting the rights of the employers as well. That is the way it has to be. Unfortunately for him, as a new Minister of Labour trying to find his way in this important area, he has this problem on his hands and we think there is no other reasonable and decent solution to it but the one we are suggesting, namely that he do everything he can, and that does not mean legal action or throwing his weight around as a minister of the government who would have the power to bring in legislation, but rather as the Minister of Labour, to get these people together in an appropriate room in an appropriate place somewhere and say: Boys, we are staying here until this matter is settled. Let the government pay the cost of the room and provide the meals when keeping them there until, for their own sake, for the sake of the families of those involved and for the sake of the economy of the country, this matter is settled.
I say again, Sir, we are not asking the minister to adopt in nature something he is not now doing. He has talked to both sides, but we are asking him to carry this to its ultimate conclusion by actually getting both parties together and keeping them there until they, under his guidance and direction, settle this dispute for the good of Canada.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that earlier I objected to the hon. member for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Valade), who is the mover, continuing his remarks because allegedly he wanted to submit solutions. He had exactly 40 minutes, I believe, to submit them, and he did not put them to good use. It was not my intention to prevent him from submitting solutions, but to prevent him from taking up the time of other hon. members.
Mr. Speaker, I rather endorse the views expressed by the hon. member for Winnipeg-North-Centre (Mr. Knowles) to the effect that the minister should meet the two parties involved, because public interest is at stake and settlement does not concern merely shipowners and longshoremen, but a a great many people involved in trucking, business, etc. Moreover, there are people who have been expecting goods from Japan and other countries for nearly a month and a half and cannot get them.
So, in the interest of the community and the people as a whole, the minister must give orders, meet the leaders of the International Longshoremen's Association and the representatives of management and bring them together around a table to discuss the problem.
Not only the strike is at issue. I can understand the situation on both sides. Wednesday morning, I was in Montreal, speaking on Mr. Jarraud's program on CKVL and a longshoreman called me. He was almost crying while describing the terrible situation in which the longshoremen find themselves at present and he told me that

June 16, 1972
Quebec Longshoremen's Strike
this whole dispute could have been avoided from the beginning in less than 24 hours if only the parties had been willing to meet.
But nobody would give in. The union leader, Mr. Saint-Onge, refuses to meet the employers, saying that they have bent the provisions of the collective agreement stipulating that the computers will be used as of September and not May. Now, the use of the computers started as early as may, which did not please Mr. Saint-Onge.
However, that his was not the only thing that started the dispute. Before this long one, there was a one-day dispute and that was not provided for in the collective agreement. It was decided to strike on that day to support the famous Quebec Common Front of labour unions, but Mr. Saint-Onge does not talk about that. True, the collective agreement contains provisions for the use of computers as early as September, but their use, since May, has not prejudiced those who were working in the ports of Montreal, Trois-Rivieres and Quebec City.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, one must be honest and straightforward, and call a spade a spade. There are lots of problems, and not only on the ship-owners' side, but also on the longshoremen's side.
I was even told by a docker that some workers steal boats, motorcycles, radios and television sets. The insurance companies have to refund the price of the goods stolen in the ports along the St. Lawrence river.
That is not provided or in the collective agreement; yet, such is the practice. The union leaders do not mention that. Mr. Saint-Onge did not refer to it. However, he is always criticizing the employer, the ship-owner, and so on.
Not long ago, a $2 million loan was suggested with a view to replenishing the strike fund of the Montreal dockers. As for me, I say to fellows like Saint-Onge et al. Why not be honest about it? Instead of borrowing $2 million to replenish the strike fund and telling the longshoremen that they will continue to get $20 or $25 a week even if they do not work, why not buy ships and become shipowners and treat the workers as they would like to be treated? But no. They borrow to go on strike. They do not have the courage to borrow to build something.
Mr. Speaker, the problem is difficult but still a solution is possible. Arbitration is necessary at this point. One of the shipowners is willing to go to arbitration, but the union leaders will not hear of it.
That is why, in the name of the common good, of the public interest, the Minister of Labour (Mr. O'Connell) should intervene. Even then, the shipowners should not be kept from going to court to establish who is right or wrong in this case, and arrive at a judgment or decision that would let us know where we are going.
This morning, the radio announced that the Quebec Minister of Labour had bluntly stated this: If Ottawa does not get a move on, Quebec will.
And because this matter comes under federal jurisdiction, the Minister of Labour told us yesterday that he could do nothing more, that all they have to do is negotiate or request an arbitrator, The minister will not assume his responsibility in this respect.

This morning, his Quebec counterpart stated: This is none of my business but since the federal government will not take any action, I shall do so in its place. And he offered his services.
This is why I claim that it is the minister's imperative duty to obtain that both parties come to the bargaining table or accept arbitration, in order to end this disastrous strike, because neither the union leaders nor the employers will provide for the wives and children of the Montreal longshoremen. At the present time, there is undeserved misery in Montreal, and everybody complains about it, including the mothers.
A trucker called to tell me: We might lose our trucks since we cannot meet our payments because the strike prevents us from working. A whole group of people is in the same situation and mainly small businessmen who fear bankruptcy because of this disastrous strike.
And Wednesday morning after I was interviewed on television, someone asked me: What is the federal government waiting for to do something and reach a decision? All the Montreal longshoremen are waiting for this.
Let nobody think that all longshoremen approve their union leaders' statements. Last Monday morning, it was a shame to see the longshoremen gathered at the Paul Sauve centre in Montreal willing to go back to work, while another group insisted on picketing. And labourers working on the same sites were fighting like cats and dogs and tried to break each others legs. Why? For the common good? No. They do not even know why. They fight each other when they need to cooperate in order to obtain justice for everyone.
Unfortunately, many union leaders disagree on this point. Since some employers have also been unfair to the workers, this proves that both parties are to blame, but it is not by keeping them apart that we will get satisfactory results.
That is why it is imperative for the minister to take action and not to allow himself to be outdone by his Quebec counterpart. It would be funny if we heard tonight that the Quebec Minister of Labour (Mr. Cournoy-er) had a meeting with the shipowners and labour leaders this afternoon and that it had been decided to put an end to the dispute. The responsible federal minister would look a little foolish, and I will be watching him on Monday to see if that has happened. In the meantime, however, I would ask whether it would be possible for him to see these people over the weekend and arrange for a meeting.
As far as the computer quarrel is concerned, I cannot accept that is very logical. Perhaps some conditions of the collective agreement have not been observed because of the use of computers in May to decide whether the services of 8 men instead of 10 or 16 would be needed according to the ship's tonnage.
Whether computers are used in May or September is of no serious consequences. However, under the terms of the collective agreement, they are to be used in September. This is a case where the shipowners have not observed their part of the agreement.
June 16, 1972

On the other hand, employees have been told: You will not be replaced until September. In this case, the labour leaders have no reasons to get excited because nobody is losing his job.
Mr. Speaker, this is the serious situation in which the longshoremen find themselves and which is affecting the economy of the entire province as well as that of the rest of Canada.
I repeat that I am in favour of unions, but the Montreal maritime unions are members of an international association. How can there be talk of union solidarity when ships are being turned away from Montreal so that they will be unloaded along the American seaboard by members of the same association? Talk about solidarity!
Mr. Speaker, the longshoremen in the province of Quebec, along the St. Lawrence river, understand the situation and are eager to see this dispute come to an end. If some union leaders and ship-owners do not see it that way, the minister has the responsibility of saying: Come and negotiate immediately so that we may end this dispute, have the longshoremen return to work and restore some order in this very important field of economic activities for the benefit of our whole country and in particular for the benefit of the province of Quebec.
Here are the remarks, Mr. Speaker, that I wanted to make today; there is only one solution, in my opinion, under the circumstances: the minister must take action.
The minister recently replied to my colleague the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) that he had prevented the ship-owners from prosecuting the union because there were other ways to settle the dispute. Now six weeks have elapsed and the other means have not produced results because nothing has been done so far, whereas an injunction or proceedings might have solved the problem by now.
So I should like to know today what means, what solutions the government has in mind or intends to bring forward to settle that labour dispute that has already lasted six weeks and should not have happened.


Hon. Martin P. O'Connell (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened very carefully and with a great deal of interest, particularly to the remarks of the Leader of the Social Credit party. I found the tone in which he made his remarks very reasonable and helpful indeed. As to the few proposals which he put forward toward the end of his remarks-that is another question. I also appreciated very much the approach taken by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I want to reject completely and at once the charge of indifference, the charge of laissez faire, levied by the hon. member for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Valade) who introduced this resolution. It is a complete misrepresentation of the activities in which I and the departmental officials have been engaged. I want to say also that I have had the benefit of continuous consultations with my colleagues who represent Montreal and who sit on this side of the House. I have had representations from them. I know their concern, which I share, about the tragic situation which is now afflicting that port.
Quebec Longshoremen's Strike
I should say at the opening of my remarks that I am now, and always have been, ready to meet the parties to this dispute at any time that it would appear useful and in the public interest to do so, but I will not undertake to take steps that would be useless in the situation, that indeed would be counter-productive. I will not take steps, which some have suggested, that would in fact work against the long term interests of the port of Montreal. This is a crucial time in the labour management relations in the port of Montreal. Some two months ago the parties came to an agreement. That was one of the best agreements, certainly in North America, to regulate the relations between employers and employees in any dock system in North America. It is very important, therefore- and I know all members of the House will agree-that the steps the parties take, particularly the steps which the Minister of Labour takes at this time, confirm and support that agreement and do not in fact undermine the long term interests of the port of Montreal.
Mr. Speaker, I will have more to say about the resolution put forward by the hon. member for Sainte-Marie, but at this point I would like to look at the port situation as it has developed over the past ten years to try to get a better picture in front of the members of this House of the perspective we should take in looking at this particular dispute. I see it is virtually one o'clock, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps before I enter into that part of my remarks I might call it one o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall we call it one o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I do now leave the chair. The House will resume its work at two o'clock.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Mr. O'Connell:: Mr. Speaker, labour-management relations at the port of Montreal have been a source of trouble since the early 1960's. They have been the subject of special industrial inquiries and, in 1966, of special legislation. Under my predecessor, working conditions at the port of Montreal were substantially improved. An important collective agreement was reached in 1968 with great difficulty. This was followed by continuous efforts to improve the climate of labour-management relations on the docks.
Ports throughout Europe were visited by representatives of both parties, assisted by the federal Department of Labour. Some eight months of constant and intensive mediation, led by two senior officers of my department, culminated in the collective agreement reached in April, 1972, just a few short months ago, an agreement ratified by an overwhelming majority of the union membership. Mr. Speaker, this is not an ordinary collective agreement. Its provisions promise to set labour-management relations on the docks at Montreal on an entirely new course. They
3216

June 16, 1972
Quebec Longshoremen's Strike
promise to set the port of Montreal in the forefront of world ports. This agreement coped with the impact on dock workers of the rapid technological changes which have come about at docks all over the world in the methods of working ships, in loading and unloading, in the use of mechanized equipment.
This agreement provided very significant inprovements in pension benefits. It coped with job security of longshoremen with a guarantee of 37 weeks of pay per annum, and it provided for the new and essential levels of productivity required by the employers to pay the enhanced benefits to the workers and to attract and hold business in the port of Montreal. Increased productivity levels required the break up of established work gang systems, and the introduction of new methods of work assignment related to the introduction of a computer. Productivity by the men was the exchange for the job security and the pension and wage benefits. That was a breakthrough in industrial relations at this port.
Throughout the period from 1962 to 1972, eight major work stoppages and five lesser strikes occurred on the Montreal docks, involving in the major instances between
2,000	and 4,000 workers and lasting from one day to well over a month. Why and how did the present dispute arise, and what is the basic nature of the present dispute? The basic issue which precipitated this particular dispute- and I want to stress that it is a dispute which is part of a series which have disrupted the Montreal docks over the past decade-was whether or not management, under the new agreement, at this time had the right to break up longshore gangs prior to the introduction of the computer dispatch system to be inaugurated by mid-September.
Management took the initiative of breaking up a gang working a hatch and ordered some members of the gang to work in a shed. The International Longshoremen's Union contends that management does not have this right until the introduction of the computer dispatch system. While this is the basic issue, other issues have subsequently arisen. The suspension of longshoremen by the Maritime Employers' Association and the question of the collective agreement are examples of additional issues. However, in a nutshell, these are the basic issues in dispute and, without going into all their complexities, I may say that additional issues have become involved in disputes of this nature.
It is not my intention, Mr. Speaker, to comment on the position of the parties or to enter into any debate on the merit of the position of either party, as this involves interpretation of the collective agreement. I have repeatedly said that there is a provision in the collective agreement, as the law requires, for either or both of the parties to put this question of interpretation into arbitration, that is, to arbitrate it.
May I pause at this point and respond to some of the remarks hon. members have made in interpreting this matter. It has been said that I have condoned the decision taken by the Lonshoremen's Union. I did not condone that decision; I did not endorse it. The longshoremen had a remedy, which was to go to arbitration. The law gave the longshoremen no right to engage in an illegal work stop-

page. I do not agree with those who say this is a lockout. Those questions are not the important ones that we must settle in this House. The root questions we are concerned with are the remedies provided by law and the use that must be made cf those remedies if we are to sustain the collective bargaining system in Canada rather than undermine it by rescuing those who will not adhere to their obligations.
The procedures, Mr. Speaker, are crystal clear and there are no questions concerning procedures to be followed in this particular instance. They are clear in the Canada Labour Code and clearly set out in the collective agreement that was signed by both parties one year ago. Section 125(1) of the Canada Labour Code provides:
Every collective agreement shall contain a provision for final settlement without stoppage of work, by arbitration or otherwise, of all differences between the parties to or persons bound by the agreement or on whose behalf it was entered into, concerning its meaning or violation.
Subsection (3) of that section provides:
Every party to and every person bound by the agreement, and every person on whose behalf the agreement was entered into, shall comply with the provision for final settlement contained in the agreement and give effect thereto.
Let us turn for a moment to the collective agreement affecting those who, over a period of time, have brought the Port of Montreal into the forefront of the world's ports. What did the parties agree to? They agreed that they would take their grievances over interpretation of their agreement and their disagreements over the interpretation of those provisions to arbitrators whom they had the foresight to name in the agreement. Four arbitrators stand by ready to respond to the application of either party for the arbitration of differences. Paragraph (d) of article (5) of the collective agreement sets out the situation where the union or the employer wishes to submit a matter to arbitration. It provides that either party may initiate a request for arbitration. The parties requesting the arbitrator must set out in writing the matter submitted to the arbitrator and send a copy of it to the other party. Paragraph (h) of that article in the agreement provides that the arbitrator's decision shall be final and binding. Paragraph (i) provides that the men are to return to work pending completion of arbitration procedures.
Perhaps I ought to pause here. Let us ask ourselves, what is the value of an arbitration procedure? What role does it play in collective bargaining in Canada? It plays a unique role, an extremely important role, in Canada; and here the situation with respect to collective bargaining is unique. Once an agreement is concluded and the contract is signed, that agreement is closed, if I may use the expression which is current, and it cannot be broken by strikes or lockouts.


Mr.   Hock@: But if it is, what do you do?


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Work stoppages during the period of a closed agreement are not legal. Once you close an agreement in fashion in Canada, a work stoppage is not legal. There are no parallel agreements which are closed in other countries. The agreements are not the same in the United States, where lockouts and strikes may occur. Of course, during the closed period of an agreement, most frequently the parties concerned waive rights to strike or
June 16, 1972

lockout voluntarily, but in Canada this is the law. Once an agreement is signed and sealed, it is closed.
How is relief provided with respect to disagreements, if one is to make strikes and lockouts illegal for a two or three year period. There must be provision for some relief, because grievances will arise and differences in interpretation will arise. It is the role of the arbitrator to provide relief and the parties agree that, in exchange for stability during that period of the closed contract, they will arbitrate their differences. The statute requires that they do that. If any collective agreement does not include within it any provision for arbitration, the Canada Labour Relations Board may prescribe an arbitration proceeding and this will be deemed to be part of that agreement. So, we can see in Canada how extremely significant is that arbitration proceeding. It is there to ventilate grievances and to settle differences during this closed period and is a concept which both labour and management in Canada have accepted and supported for 30 years. It would be an extreme step if anyone were to attempt to undermine the arbitration procedure, and to set it aside, if the parties will not willingly make use of it but wish to use another proceeding. That would be a precedent which would strike at the very root of the system of free, collective bargaining, as practised in Canada.
I repeat, these arbitration procedures are crystal clear. There is no question about them. The arbitrators are named, the obligations are there and I and my officials have repeatedly instructed the parties to follow those procedures. As I understand it, the hon. member for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Valade) intended to propose to the House-I regret that his time ran out before he had an opportunity to make his suggestion-that the Canada Labour Code should be amended so that the minister may impose arbitration on parties unwilling to obey laws already existing.


Georges-J. Valade: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Martin Patrick O'Connell: I think he is saying that under the present provisions of the labour code there is no authority to seek arbitration-


Georges-J. Valade: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I do not know how the minister can be allowed to presume what suggestions I may have put forward, because the House refused to give me the opportunity to put them forward. Unless I am given the opportunity to bring those suggestions forward in a clearcut fashion, I do not think the minister should be allowed to comment on what he thinks I would have suggested.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member had the opportunity to deliver his own speech. Therefore he should let the minister complete his remarks.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I object categorically, and I am rising on a question of privilege. I do not think the Chair ought to make that type of ruling-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please.
Quebec Longshoremen's Strike [Translation]
Order. I must nevertheless draw the hon. member's attention to the fact that even questions of privilege raised in this House are governed by Standing Orders and it is the duty of the Chair to see that hon. members do not raise questions of privilege that are unfounded.
In short, the hon. minister has the floor and I thought that the hon. member was rising to clarify a point, but since it was not the case, I was bound to make this comment.


Georges-J. Valade: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
I believe that Your Honour has not fully understood the meaning of my interjection. The minister alleges that I have made some statements while actually I was denied the right to proceed with my speech and offer some suggestions that could lead to a solution of the conflict. The minister stated that I had suggested such and such a way of solving the conflict, while I was denied this right and I think that he is not entitled to interpret, as he sees fit, the statements I would have made.


Mr. Bechard:: You made them in your speech.


Georges-J. Valade: This is not true; you prevented me from doing it.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Mr. Speaker, I have underlined the extreme importance to the system of collective bargaining in Canada of the arbitration provisions. Are there alternatives? It has been suggested that mediation should take place. There is a place for mediation in collective bargaining. Its proper place is in the open period when the parties are negotiating.
In this particular case, I have already referred to the intensive effort over many months to bring these parties together to improve the climate of their relationships. But to mediate a grievance dispute is an entirely different matter. Mediation normally takes place over interest disputes; conditions of work, questions of pay, holidays and technological change. These are matters of interest to the parties, but once the agreement is signed and a grievance arises they are not mediated by a mediator. The grievance dispute is settled by an arbitration procedure which is binding on both parties and fundamental to keeping the contract closed. If we set aside mediation, we are in effect opening the agreement and saying, "change it, mediate". We are saying to one party or another to a dispute, if you hang that is tough. If you take illegal action or if you refuse to use the legal proceedings, the arbitration proceedings, then at some point the public interest will be so engaged that you will be taken off the hook. That is the way to underline collective bargaining in Canada.
You can go across this country and you will find that trade unions and management will support the arbitration proceedings and will stand firm against a mediation process that undermines that. It is said by some that mediation is a last resort. A last resort comes when everything else has been tried. The point here is that the proper
3218

June 16, 1972
Quebec Longshoremen's Strike
procedures have not been tried. It is open to the parties to try them. I ask them to come to their senses and make use of those provisions that are in their own agreements which they only recently and solemnly agreed to honour.
There are other alternatives open to the parties. If the parties wish to mediate that is up to them, but there are hazards to mediation initiated from outside. In the first instance, it must be appreciated that arbitration of such disputes is required by law. In the second instance, mediation is totally dependent upon voluntary participation by the parties concerned and cannot be a substitution for the provisions of the law. To mediate such a dispute, even in the event that the parties agreed to such an approach, would establish a precedent by giving recognition to mediation as a substitute or alternative to the law in such circumstances.
One of the cornerstones of sound industrial relations is the fact that parties to a collective agreement should settle, through the grievance and arbitration procedures of their collective agreement, any disputes which arise as to the meaning of an agreement they freely entered into. A departure from this concept, based in law, through the provision of mediation services by the Department of Labour, is fraught with danger and could lead to difficulties. It would invite both labour and management to avoid the grievance and arbitration procedures where it suited their particular interest of the moment, and would encourage illegal work stoppages. Responsible officers in labour and management who have to cope with day-today contract administration would take a very serious view of any initiative by the Minister of Labour which would set a precedent whereby disputes involving interpretation of a collective agreement would be subject to mediation.
Where management and labour are dissatisfied with any particular provision of a collective agreement they have entered into for a set term, there is a remedy under Section 126 of the Canada Labour Code. Subsection 2 reads:
Nothing in this Section prevents the revision of any provision of a collective agreement other than the provision relating to the term of the collective agreement that under the agreement is subject to revision during the term thereof.
If the two parties do not wish or will not use the arbitration proceedings, it is open to them to change provisions of the agreement if they mutually agree to do so. Another alternative exists. It is not one that I recommend. However, it has been suggested that an industrial inquiry commission be established. Under Section 159 of the Canada Labour Code, the minister may, either upon application or of his own initiative, appoint an industrial inquiry commission to inquire into industrial matters, and such a commission may make recommendations to secure industrial peace and to promote conditions favourable to settlement of disputes.
Such commissions have been appointed in the past, but not in a situation where the dispute involves interpretation of the collective agreement and where a remedy is provided to the parties through the grievance and arbitration procedures in the collective agreement. Commissions take time. The appointment of an industrial inquiry commission does not ensure resumption of work unless the

parties agree to resume operations while the industrial inquiry commission hears the dispute. In the current situation involving the Quebec ports, this would require not only an assurance by the union that the employees would return to work, but it would also require the Maritime Employers' Association to lift the suspension placed on the employees. If the parties jointly request the Minister of Labour to appoint an industrial inquiry commission with the assurance that there will be a resumption of operations in the St. Lawrence ports, the minister will give immediate consideration to such a request.
In summary, let me say that the remedies are crystal clear. They are open to the parties. I have expressed willingness at any time to meet with the parties to this dispute, provided that will serve a useful purpose and will not be taken by either party as turning back the clock in order that either of the parties may succeed in disrupting the port and then ask the government to take action. Those who say the government should settle that dispute by certain means, by legislation or mediation or trusteeship are wide of the mark. I set my face against those who would propose those measures at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Patrick O'Connell: What is at stake? It is not only the serious situation in the Montreal ports, but a much larger question. The only way collective bargaining can be made to work is by the parties living up to their obligations. It is a system for free people. If they use it to turn their private rights into public wrongs, they drive another coffin nail into this system of free collective bargaining.
I again ask those parties to come to their senses. I ask them not to use the institutions of liberty to destroy their own freedom. Those who will not use the system as it is established by law must take the consequences. The government will not be prepared to frequently intervene on an ad hoc basis to serve the convenience of parties when they willfully set aside their obligations in circumstances that are gravely injurious to the public interest in Canada and to the interests of their community. If we are called upon frequently to do this, then the system of collective bargaining has broken down, and that is a very serious matter indeed, and it will not be enough to call government in to rescue missions. What the parties will find if they wilfully decline to work the collective bargaining system is that a more searching look at the possibility of modification of the overall system will have to be made. In conclusion, I therefore once again call the attention of the parties to this dispute to their obligations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this motion because it has implications which directly affect all Canada. I shall direct my observations to the manner in which the dispute we are considering will affect the western part of the country. I listened with interest to the minister's speech. It seemed to me, to recall a familiar quotation, that it was full of sound and fury but in the end it signified absolutely nothing. Neither the government nor, in particular, the minister responsible, has had the fortitude to step in to settle this obviously
June 16, 1972

disastrous strike. In these circumstances, I feel compelled to support the motion before us.
Everyone is asking what is the reason for the government's decision not to intervene. In past years, the previous Minister of Labour, the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey) appeared quite adept at settling or promoting a settlement in disputes of this type. Now, in an election year, it seems to me the Liberals are afraid they might antagonize labour in Quebec and lose their already diminishing support. If a dispute of this kind had occurred in the Port of Vancouver, I feel sure the government would have stepped in long ago and the strike would be well on its way to a resolution. Once again it would seem that political considerations are taking precedence over the more important ones, such as our national economy. Now that the strike has been going on for almost six weeks, and since the union has seen fit to ignore several court injunctions, with the result that grain shipments are being tied up and the economy of Montreal is losing $1 million a day, I think the government should realize that things have gone too far. I would like to know why the minister is hesitant to act.
Mr. Speaker, the first and foremost industry affected by this strike is that of grain exporting. In a recent statement, the Chief Commissioner of the Wheat Board said that the board was frustrated and alarmed at the tie-up in grain shipping. He described the situation as calamitous. Although no sales have yet been lost, it is possible that this strike will lose for Canada possible future sales. The approximate loading capacity of the St. Lawrence system is six million bushels a day. Because longshoremen in Baie Comeau, Sorel and Port Cartier have decided to stay on the job, the St. Lawrence is not shut down completely. Thanks to the extra efforts of the longshoremen in these ports we are able to ship three million bushels a day. But this is hardly sufficient.
However, these delays are not only costing vessel owners millions of dollars, they are harming Canada's image abroad. Our overseas customers must be confident that we are able to meet our commitments and that we stick by our agreements. If we acquire a poor reputation in the grain-buying countries, it will surely affect their decision as to whether they should buy grain from us in future. This would apply to any business contract. There is a concept in contract law called frustration which could discharge parties to an agreement if there were events beyond their control which altered the terms or arrangements of the contract. Mr. Speaker, this does not apply here. In fact, the federal government and the minister have every power to control the situation in Montreal and yet they refuse to act.
The astounding thing about the whole affair is that it is revealed that what is primarily a western Canadian industry can be so radically affected by events in the east with which westerners would otherwise have little concern. Because the health of western agriculture is so vitally dependent on foreign sales, it is clear we must devise a transportation system which is free of impediment and which can funnel the product directly to market. Indeed, in a year when foreign sales have been relatively high, and the government has been loudly proclaiming its own success in that regard, it seems a direct contradiction that
Quebec Longshoremen's Strike the government should allow a situation to develop in which it could lose the very sales it says it has worked so hard to gain for us. What is even more disconcerting is that not only could lack of action on the part of the government affect present sales, if action is not soon taken irreparable harm will be done to our ability to find export markets in the future. Inaction by the present government simply does not make sense. In effect, it is an omission which is sabotaging the efforts of the Wheat Board which is just reaching the point of good salesmanship.
This strike has also shown, along with other events, that our transportation system for exporting grain is in need of revamping. About 60 per cent of the grain destined for overseas goes through the St. Lawrence River terminal elevators and about 35 per cent goes through the west coast. This leaves 5 per cent going through the Port of Churchill. This strike has one useful purpose in that it demonstrates to me that we in the west are entirely too dependent on the port facilities of the St. Lawrence for our own good. Of our export grain shipments, 60 per cent are entirely dependent on this system whose terminal is 1500 miles away from western Canada. Now, it is being demonstrated to us with frightening clarity that a strike or some other unforeseeable political event can devastate our western agricultural industry which is so dependent on foreign sales. I think it is time the federal government started spending more money on the Port of Vancouver. It has been pouring money into the Port of Montreal. Also, it is about time that the government realized the potential of Churchill as a prairie port. The fact that it handles only 5 per cent of export grain when its potential is so much greater is conclusive evidence that the government is favouring eastern interests once again. Mr. Speaker, this strike only proves the necessity of alternative port facilities. Otherwise the west is once again going to suffer because of some event 1500 miles away over which it has no control and for which it has no responsibility.
There are many other aspects of the strike of which I should like to remind the minister and which he certainly did not mention in his speech. I hope that while the minister is pondering his inaction, he realizes the devastating effect that the strike is having on the already depressed economies of Montreal and Quebec City. I imagine that we will hear further about this this afternoon from members associated with those areas.
So far over 135 ships and 425,000 tons of cargo have had to be diverted to other ports. This is costing shipping agents upwards of $100,000 a day and the city of Montreal, which indirectly benefits to the tune of some $200 million in the shipping season, is losing millions of dollars. This is not only a blow to the economy of Montreal, it is also a blow to the economy of Canada. With unemployment in Quebec as high as it is, probably hundreds more have had to be laid off because of the indirect effect of this strike. Apparently the port of Montreal is the largest single economic component in the city, with some 10,000 people depending on it directly for their jobs and many others in service industries also affected.
I sometimes wonder at the logic behind these strikes. From my understanding, it is not only an illegal strike, but

June 16, 1972
Quebec Longshoremen's Strike the reason for it is that management was going to implement a clause to which the union had already agreed. Nevertheless, the union went on strike and even refused arbitration. I should like to know why this particular union should be immune from the law. I am beginning to think that the Quebec provincial Liberals are even exceeded by the federal Liberals in their inability to deal with strikes. I am beginning to think that this union must be more severely dealth with. Although I am not antilabour, I do not agree with pampering unions which do not act reasonably or within the law. By his inaction, this is what the minister is doing.
The minister, as mentioned today, should be prepared to meet directly with the parties involved and spend as much time as necessary with them until a settlement is reached. I know what a Conservative government would do in this situation: we would have the courage to enforce the law if need be. I should like to suggest to the Minister of Labour that he look very seriously at some form of binding arbitration. I think the situation is getting serious enough that this course must be looked at in a realistic light and without any political overtones.
I should like to make reference to an article that appeared in the Montreal Gazette for June 10 dealing with this strike. It quotes the port manager as having said that the loss of the grain trade is the most important effect of the strike. He said that this was the staple upon which the port depended. It seems that everyone is agreed on the disastrous effects of this strike-the port manager, the business community of Montreal, the Wheat Board, the farmers, the shipping agents and the opposition. I suggest that the Liberals join this group and do something about this strike before irreparable harm is done to potential future grain sales as well as to the port of Montreal itself.
One other point in the article that I should like to comment on is the statement that the Wheat Board officials deny there was any definite plan to circumvent the port. I have come to the conclusion that alternative routes for exporting grain will have to be found, and I will not accept any argument to the contrary. In my view, there is no way that we in the west should tolerate this form of strike, or, for that matter, neither should any other area of Canada. Some 3,200 longshoremen hold the present and future prosperity of western Canada in their hands, in effect, by refusing to come to an agreement. If the port of Montreal is going to be subject to irrational union acts such as this which so drastically affect the future of other innocent regions, then I must say that I am in favour of finding ways of circumventing this port and letting the port pick up its losses from grain in some other way when the strike is over.
I have one final point to make. I think that these illegal strikers and the government should realize that they are doing the port of Montreal a disservice by allowing the strike to continue. It can only harm the port and possibly end in a laying off of the longshoremen. The volume of trade is certainly going to be affected for a long period of time, even after the strike is settled. If this is the case, then all I can say is that these strikers and the government will have brought this upon themselves.
In conclusion, I should like to say that we in the west are sick and tired of unions that ignore all reason and go on

strike, tying up the Canadian economy. We are also tired of a government that sits back, does nothing, thus raising many questions about its political conduct.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Would the hon. member permit a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce desires to ask a question.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I just wanted to be sure that the ultimatum that my hon. friend gives the port of Montreal and the union is sent to both coasts, to Vancouver as well. I assume that he wants his message to have national scope and that he does not want to restrict it to the Montreal area. I want to give him a chance of saying so.


Mr. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the longshoremen's strike in Montreal, which has been underway for nearly six weeks, has caused great harm to the port of Montreal and to the general economy in the Montreal area. As a Montreal Member of Parliament, I have said on several occasions that our port is an essential and basic element to the entire Montreal economy. Montreal has gained its prominence in Canada and throughout the world from its importance as a transportation centre. Montreal is the headquarters of the Canadian Pacific Railway, the Canadian National Railways, Air Canada, many trucking companies, and it has been the site of the most important port in eastern Canada, a port which feeds into all the other modes of transportation. Montreal has been the gateway for the vast bulk of all our commerce passing between Canada and Europe.
The present longshoremen's strike not only threatens the port of Montreal but has the potential to destroy it as well as a large part of the Montreal economy. It seems to be a suicidal or masochistic exercise on the part of those involved. While it is easy to recognize the damaging aspects of the strike, and the anger and frustration of those who need the port of Montreal to carry on then-business, it is not so easy to find effective solutions. There are no prototype solutions or magic formulae to settle such strikes.
I discussed this on Tuesday evening when I spoke about this matter during the budget debate. What is required is flexibility and discretion. What will work in one case will not work in another. There was great satisfaction in Montreal several months ago when the longshoremen and the Maritime Employers Association signed their new collective agreement-without a strike, by the way-which was praised on all sides as a significant breakthrough in labour relations for port employees. Many persons were forecasting a renaissance for the port which had suffered from continual labour problems in recent years after experiencing a golden age during the 50's and early 60's.
If I understand correctly, the present dispute has arisen in the following way. The collective agreement stipulated that there were to be no changes in work gangs until the fall when the computer dispatch system was to be introduced. Recently, the Maritime Employers Association introduced certain managerial or administrative changes as permitted by the collective agreement. The longshore-
June 16, 1972

men submitted that these were changes in the work gang, but management said they were not. Following this change by management the longshoremen walked out. This was surprising behaviour because the collective agreement signed by the ILA and MEA only a few months ago provided that such disputes on the interpretation of the collective agreement were to be settled by arbitration, and that any party so grieved could have recourse to such arbitration.
In this case, however, the longshoremen disagreed with a move made by management, but they have not made any move to follow the arbitration procedures in the contract. The minister has said that both parties have the right to apply for arbitration, and he is right. It would be highly unusual for management to request arbitration on their own actions, that is on a change which they consider to be legal and which they introduced under the collective agreement. Furthermore, the longshoremen have stated they will not go to arbitration and they will not recognize arbitration in this manner. This means that if management went to arbitration on their own, they would not only be appealing their own actions but would be involved in ex parte arbitration, running the risk that the arbitration board might rule against them, while on the other hand, even if they should win they would gain nothing. The longshoremen stated they would not recognize the ruling, consequently can the Maritime Employers Association be blamed for not going to arbitration by themselves? The Maritime Employers Association has said it would be willing to go to arbitration with the longshoremen and that it would recognize the arbitration ruling whether it won or lost.
This is an illegal strike and, with all due respect for the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Osier), it is not a lockout. I have not heard anybody claim it to be a lockout until this point.


Mr. Osier:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I am sure this is said in error, that I termed it a lockout or something. I do not recall having said anything about this strike today, yesterday or any day in the immediate past.


William Warren Allmand: I apologize to the hon. member. I was referring to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that this is an illegal strike and we should ask what can be done. In the first instance, the Maritime Employers Association or the government could prosecute the union and union leaders under the provisions of the Canada Labour Code, but it is questionable whether this would be the best means of settling this dispute at this time. This action could be taken under Sections 128, 147 and 152 of the Canada Labour Code, Revised Statutes of Canada 1970. The government could intervene either by putting the port and union under trusteeship, or by imposing compulsory arbitration on its own. This could be done either under the labour code or by special law, and I will discuss this in greater detail.
Section 159 of the Canada Labour Code, which was Section 56 in the former Revised Statutes, reads:
The Minister may either upon application or of his own initiative, where he deems it expedient, make or cause to be made any inquiries he thinks fit regarding industrial matters-
Quebec Longshoremen's Strike
I am not referring to that part, but it continues:
-and may do such things as seem calculated to maintain or secure industrial peace and to promote conditions favourable to settlement of disputes.
That section sets out the ways in which this could be done, and suggests certain action that can be taken. The government has intervened in this manner in the past, and also through legislation. It has always reserved the right to do so when the public interest requires it. The manner in which this action is taken, however, is extremely important. If the government announces immediately that it will intervene if a settlement is not reached by a certain deadline, then all pressure is taken off the parties to reach a settlement themselves.
Furthermore, in a case like this, if the government had intervened immediately it would not have helped the longterm interest of collective bargaining or freely arrived at collective agreements. This was pointed out by the minister. What value would there be in negotiating a collective agreement, including an arbitration provision, if one of the parties could disregard its own signed agreement and have the government intervene to impose a settlement or a new type of arbitration? If this became a precedent, collective bargaining would become useless. That having been said, there is a time for the government to intervene, but such an intervention should not be a precedent; nor should it be announced in advance. This type of action must be taken with great discretion and wisdom.
During the last few years we have had two important commissions on labour relations. One was the Woods Commission appointed by the Pearson government in 1968, and the other was the recent Cohen Commission in Newfoundland. The report of the latter commission was tabled recently by the Newfoundland government. Let me refer to some of the things the Woods Commission says about public interest and essential service disputes. The report makes seven observations. It is extremely difficult to say in advance in what industries a strike or lockout should be curtailed. The length of a strike or lockout is a critical factor. There is no one policy that can work with uniform success. Flexibility of approach is essential. The determination that a given stoppage of work should be terminated in the public interest is a political decision. This political element is an inducement to the parties to drive the dispute beyond any procedural device and into the political arena. Circumstances may be expected to arise in the course of the industrial conflict in which the fear of the law will be not so strong it will forestall the breaking of that law.
The Woods Commission recommended a three man public interest disputes commission. It recommended that this commission have two functions; first, to determine special procedures for resolving disputes in industries under federal jurisdiction which are prone to disputes that jeopardize the public interest. These procedures might include non-binding arbitration and voluntary binding arbitration as well as the involvement of the commission itself. In the handling of actual disputes by this commission, in which the public interest is threatened, the government should be able to request from the commission a report recommending procedures to terminate the dispute, including possible seizure, trusteeship, partial

June 16, 1972
Quebec Longshoremen's Strike
arbitration of a statutory strike or compulsory arbitration. This could be implemented by act of Parliament.
I,	personally, feel that when the strike begins to seriously affect the public interest, then the government must intervene. I have come to the conclusion that this should have been done as of yesterday, and I said so publicly at that time. I feel that the government should order that the men be returned to work and that all outstanding issues be referred to arbitration. If it is necessary, this should be done by special legislation. The minister has said he would not want to do anything to undermine the collective agreement or the collective bargaining process. Generally, I would agree with him, but in this case at this time I believe the collective agreement has been undermined, if not completely destroyed.
The minister has stated that there are arbitration provisions in the collective agreement. He once again appealed to both sides to use them. It seems to me the time has come when we cannot leave this question to the private decision of management and labour alone. I must remind the House once again of some of the things I said last Tuesday evening. Labour relations are such today that there is not only a management and labour interest but also a public interest. In many cases a long, serious strike hurts the public interest much more than it does management or labour.


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: You said that the other day.


William Warren Allmand: Yes. I am repeating it because it is important. I should like to quote some of the things I said on Tuesday evening. As reported in Hansard at page 3104, I said:
The basis of the right to strike, which is that the cost to both union and to management will eventually force both to arrive at a compromise, I submit is no longer valid since, first of all, the cost of many strikes is now borne by the public, particularly in the service industries such as transport, education, garbage removal and so on. Second, in other cases the cost of a strike is carried by suppliers and sellers of a product.
I gave the example of a recent canning strike which ruined many tomato growers while only partially inconveniencing union and management. There was hardly any cost to management and labour but the tomato growers were completely ruined by the strike. I referred to agreements arrived at recently in certain countries where the employees of one airline were on strike. It was agreed that the additional revenue gained by other airlines would, after deduction of costs, be given to the struck airline, or management simply could raise prices.
I conclude by again referring to a quotation. I do so because it is important. I wish to repeat the quotation I gave in the House the other night and to which many people have recently referred. Mr. George Meany, head of the AF of L-CIO, stated recently that labour should voluntarily replace strikes with reliance upon binding arbitration for a one-year period. He said that the strike is a nineteenth century tactic, and with the advent of corporate giants and correspondingly super-unions, strikes become even-matched struggles which drag on for weeks,

radiating economic shock waves far beyond the limits of the actual conflict.
I cannot understand the minister when he says that government intervention at this time would destroy the collective agreement or destroy the collective bargaining process, because we have intervened in this way in the past. In this case the parties to some extent have already destroyed the collective agreement. It seems ludicrous to me that as Montreal goes down the drain, the government, which is to protect the public interest, clings to principles which have already been thrown out by those whom they are meant to serve.


Mr. Raymond Rock (Lachine):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the hon. member for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Valade), has conscientiously and seriously presented a motion calling on the government to immediately end the dock strike. As a member for the Montreal area of Lachine, Dorval and Ste. Claire I am proud to have seconded the motion. It is too bad that just at the end of the speech of the hon. member for Sainte-Marie, the hon. member for Temis-camingue (Mr. Caouette) refused to allow the hon. member to finish his speech, because there were important proposals the hon. member wished to make. As the seconder of his motion, I want at the outset to read into the record his proposals, if you do not mind, Mr. Speaker.

The solutions proposed by the hon. member for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Valade) are as follows:
The Minister of Labour (Mr. O'Connell) should:
A)	call the bargaining agents who have participated in the preparation of the agreement for both parties and invite them to convince their respective groups to use arbitration;
B)	make a specific statement in which he should establish the disastrous effects of this impasse on our economy and indicate clearly that in the public interest the situation could not last longer;
C)	advise the parties that if they do not start arbitration procedures pursuant to their agreement within 48 hours, the minister will appoint one of the arbitrators designated in the agreement;
D)	implement section 5-01 (7) concerning grievances;
E)	immediately express his intention to amend the Canada Labour Code so that the Department of Labour could intervene immediately by imposing arbitration when the parties refuse to do so;
F)	provide for a procedure ensuring that in any labour-management dispute under his jurisdiction, the federal government will see to it that a secret ballot is compulsory in labour union meetings and reflects a minimum membership participation for a work stoppage or strike to be decided.

It is too bad the hon. member for Temiscamingue did not give the hon. member permission to put forward these proposals at the end of his speech. I think this was stupidity on his part.
The Quebec illegal, wildcat dock strike is the worst strike in Quebec's history. In economic terms, its effects will be very harmful to Montreal for years to come. In fact, there will be no catching up; what is lost will remain lost. The $200 million yearly input into the Montreal economy is being dwindled away, and 10,000 jobs are directly affected. An equal number of persons are indirectly affected. Alternative shipping routes have been found. As a result of these alternative shipping routes
June 16, 1972

having been established, the shipping that has been lost may not return to Montreal.
The transportation hub of Montreal is threatened to such an extent that this loss may be permanent. One hundred and thirty-two ships left Montreal with full holds or were diverted to other ports at the beginning of the strike. Prairie grain is being shipped by alternate routes. There is talk of flour mills moving their operations out of our province. This would result in loss of jobs, pensions, and so on.
Management has appealed to the federal government to take action to stop the strike. The Montreal Chamber of Commerce has asked that the federal government take action. The only action taken so far by the Minister of Labour (Mr. O'Connell) is indicated in a release from his department entitled "Labour News Headlines", issued by the Canada Department of Labour on June 2, which reads:
Labour minister, Martin O'Connell, has refused to permit St. Lawrence stevedoring firms to prosecute a union of 3,250 dock-workers on strike for more than three weeks in defiance of court injunctions.
The government is shirking its responsibility in this illegal, wildcat strike. As always in situations such as this, the government has taken a laissez faire attitude. Like an ostrich, it has hidden its head in the sand and hopes that the problems will disappear by themselves. This government has allowed the deterioration of port business in the Montreal area to take place. This has affected 10,000 jobs directly and another 10,000 related jobs.
In other words, this government has again capitulated, as it has in the case of every strike affecting the federal jurisdiction. It capitulated in other dock strikes. It capitulated when our airports were shut down. It capitulated in the seaway workers' strike. It has often capitulated by allowing things to happen and never taking the initiative. This government is so weak that it has lost its credibility. It should not remain in office. This government has allowed the U.S.S.R. to build turbines for Canada, to the detriment of Dominion Engineering Works in Lachine and of Canadian expertise. It has allowed the importation of huge generators and transformers, to the detriment of Canadian manufacturers and Canadian expertise. It has allowed the importation of machinery for the production of paper, to the detriment of Canadian manufacturers and Canadian expertise.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Raymond Rock: Later, Mr. Speaker. I want to finish my speech first. Since 1968, when this government took office, Dominion Engineering has laid off over 900 workers and Northern Electric has laid off over 3,000 employees. Presently, Northern Electric is in the process of laying off approximately 370 more employees, many with 25 or 30 years of seniority. On many occasions the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) has implied that this is not happening. He has done nothing to alleviate this serious situation: he takes an ostrich-like attitude and buries his head in the sand.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Quebec Longshoremen's Strike


Raymond Rock: I believe that Bruce Taylor of the Montreal Gazette put it correctly in that paper's issue of Wednesday, June 14, when he wrote the following:
The shadow of the axe hanging over the Northern Electric employees looms larger. Jobs continue to dwindle, salary slashing is in the works, and more departments will be phased out or shifted to Ontario before long. (Company denials will come, but won't mean much. It's denied other such reports that time has proved to be accurate).
When I have asked questions in this regard, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has joined Northern Electric in their denials which later were proved to be accurate. So here we have a government which has adopted a policy of laissez faire and has capitulated at every turn.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member resume his seat, please. Would the hon. member indicate to the Chair the relevance-I am not suggesting there is no relevance-of his remarks to the motion before the House. Would he indicate the relevance of the employment situation, to which he is referring, to the motion before the House?


Raymond Rock: Mr. Speaker, I have attempted to give examples of how this government has allowed things to happen which are detrimental to the economy of our country. I am referring to strikes and other situations in which the government has taken no action. Since 1968 this government has capitulated whenever a strike has taken place. It has allowed our economy to deteriorate by adding more unemployment to the unemployment already caused by its policy to fight inflation. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has publicly confessed to this policy on many occasions.
This strike is now in its sixth week, and the government continues to refuse to intervene. It has failed to put an end to the strike. It has capitulated at every turn. This government does not lead, nor is it led. It has lost its credibility, and in fact it has no moral right to remain in office after June of next year.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Raymond Rock: May I say in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that I believe this government must adopt the motion put forward by the hon. member for Sainte-Marie, and it should intervene forthwith to end the strike immediately.


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the matter before us is not only of concern to members from the province of Quebec; it is a national problem and as such we are all concerned.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: We want to know which side you are on, the farmers' or the strikers'.


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: Quite frankly, as a farmer I myself can get the grain to market. If the hon. member can tell me, when he makes his speech, how I can get the grain past the port of Montreal, the port of Vancouver, or somewhere else, directly to the customer I would be only too happy to hear how it can be done. I like to think that people who work at these ports recognize that they have a product to handle and it is important to people such as

June 16, 1972
Quebec Longshoremen's Strike myself, representing a farm community which grows a product, to have it shipped to the customer. We live in an interdependent world. The matter before us points this up more than anything else.
I would be cautious about laying the blame on either management or labour in this respect. I am not close to the situation and therefore I am not in a position to judge. But I do stress the importance of this problem not only to the city of Montreal, the city of Quebec, the province of Quebec or the businessmen there, but to the economy as a whole, particularly to the people of Saskatchewan, the province from which I come.
As I listened earlier to the minister speaking about the problem, I was reminded of the story of the businessman who was travelling on a train. He went into the diner and ordered a particular pudding for dessert. For some reason this pudding was not available. The businessman became very angry and said, "My company gives this railroad hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of business every year, yet when I get on this train you cannot even supply me with a dish of pudding". The chef happened to know that they were coming to a large city and he wired ahead to have the pudding ready when the train arrived there. Just as the train was pulling into the station it was time for dessert, and they rushed a dish of pudding to the businessman and offered it to him. But the businessman would not eat it. He said, "I would rather be mad".
When I listened to the minister refer to these two parties not even wanting to come to the bargaining table, I was reminded of the story. They would rather be mad at each other than get together and solve the problem. I suggest that perhaps the two parties concerned should look at the situation in that light. I would say to them: Grow up a little.
We in the Prairies have known for some time that we must ship much of our grain to markets outside of Canada through the St. Lawrence Seaway, and in this case much of it goes through Montreal. This just goes to show that if someone sneezes in Montreal, someone on the Prairies is apt to catch a cold. If there is no sale or movement of grain on the Prairies, this is soon reflected in the industry of Ontario and Quebec. It all demonstrates how interdependent we are in this age.
This points to the need to develop new measures to solve industrial disputes. I ask you to notice, Mr. Speaker, that I do not say labour disputes. They are industrial disputes because there are two sides to them. As I say, we have to evolve new methods for solving them. I have some ideas but I hesitate to suggest them in an emergency situation that has given rise to an atmosphere where anger and hard feelings have been shown. But we can point to other countries where workers do not go on strike over every little problem that develops. Here I think of Sweden especially.
As a Saskatchewan farmer, I emphasize the importance of sales of grain to export markets. At the moment these sales are quite large. But it is not enough that we sell the grain, we must also get it to market and, logically, much of it must go through the port of Montreal and the St. Lawrence Seaway. While the price we get for our grain

may not be as attractive as farmers would like, the large volume of sales has somewhat alleviated their problems. As a result, it is necessary that we keep a large volume of grain moving. Much of it must go through the St. Lawrence Seaway.
The problem is not confined to this year alone. If we have an unfavourable labour record at Montreal it will jeopardize our sales in succeeding years. Customers wonder about our ability to move grain. A similar situation arose recently in the port of New York. There were many problems at that port, many industrial disputes, as a result of which businessmen started to arrange to transfer their business elsewhere over a long period of time.
As a grain shipper from western Canada, I would like to point out to hon. members who represent the city of Montreal that western farmers are concerned about the reputation of the port of Montreal. If we cannot ship our grain through Montreal we will have to take a closer look at developing the port of Churchill, at enlarging facilities at Prince Rupert and placing better facilities at Vancouver. But logically Montreal is one port through which we should be shipping grain. Let me simply say that if the problem continues we will have to look elsewhere. This is a problem that affects not only Montreal but the people of the Prairies.
The National Farmers Union has suggested that, if necessary, the government might take over the port facilities at Montreal until the present problem is resolved. I suggest that the Department of Labour should be looking at this matter quite closely if the strike cannot be resolved by some other means. I heard the Minister of Labour (Mr. O'Connell) argue with a great deal of eloquence about the way strikes are settled in this day and age. But, Mr. Speaker, this strike is not being settled. I think the minister might use his moral authority a little more forcefully. Sometimes in a situation of this kind the moral leadership given by a minister can bring the parties together and make them ashamed of themselves for not negotiating. It is not enough for the minister to sit in Ottawa and scold them from a distance; he should show a little more initiative and leadership directly on the spot, in the hope that this might resolve the situation.
One hon. member from Montreal has reported on the effect of the dispute on business in that city. This reminds me of a friend who once told me that it is a poor business deal that does not benefit both parties. Mr. Speaker, in this case the public is the third party and it is a poor deal for all parties when there is no settlement of the strike. I wish to make just one more point. I recall working one winter on the railway in the city of Toronto. I came from the Prairies, where everyone is known and, indeed, where everyone is important. There is no problem there about identification. But I came into a big city and began working for a big railroad. The workers were represented by a big union and I can recall wondering about the problem of self-identification. I may have felt quite important back home, but nobody seemed to care in Toronto. If some day a man didn't show up for work, they just got somebody else to take his place.
I cannot help feeling that part of the problem connected with the settlement of disputes is that nobody knows, nobody cares. Whether you go to work or do not go to
June 16, 1972

work is not noticed, unless there is a strike. Sometimes the only reward or attention you get is when you do something out of the way. This is part of the total problem. This sense of identification, of being needed and wanted, must be examined in a society where cities are growing larger, where businesses are becoming bigger and where labour is represented by larger organizations. If this problem is tackled, some of the other problems may be easier to resolve.


Mr. Gerard Loiselle (Saint-Henri):: Mr. Speaker, allow me to rise and discuss the question raised this morning by the hon. member for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Valade).
The hon. member dealt with the question of the port of Montreal and said it was urgent to move a motion to this effect. However, it is unfortunate that himself and the hon. member for Lachine (Mr. Rock), who just resumed his seat, turned the serious problem of the strike in Quebec ports into a political issue.
Speakers from the two other parties have dealt sensible with this problem and proposed to the minister and the government various ways of settling it. But they did not try to turn it into a political issue which, I suggest, would have been quite out of place. There is an appropriate time for everything. Some issues may be used for politicking but I think that this problem is so serious that we should refrain from petty politics as has been attempted today.
I might go as far as agreeing that this motion had become necessary, even though I do not fully endorse it, because it must be kept in mind that even though this motion comes from the opposition, there are Montreal members on this side of the House. And even if, day after day, we do not put any questions to the minister in this connection, this does not mean that we are not concerned. In fact, as a member from Montreal, I can state along with my colleagues from that area that we have discussed this matter many times with the minister and that we are quite anxious to find a solution to this problem which threatens to get worse every day.
If the government tries to settle a public problem too hastily, it is told: You have not given the union and union members enough time to settle their problems with their employers. If the government postpones its intervention and gives more freedom to the union and union members for further discussion with employers, it is told: You are too slow to act.
In fact, I can affirm that my colleagues from the Montreal area, as well as myself, have often discussed this matter with the minister. We are quite willing to find a solution to the problem which might get worse as the days go by.
True, as I said a while ago, we are aware of the prejudice caused by this dispute to the economy of Montreal and the area. It is estimated at $1 million per day. Since the goods cannot be unloaded in the port of Montreal, they must be routed to Toronto, Halifax or elsewhere, which, besides causing a direct loss to the port of Montreal, results also in losses for the Montreal area carriers who used to provide that service.
Quebec Longshoremen's Strike
Some goods are held in other ports, so that dealers run the risk of losing sales. Extra storage, trucking and freight charges add to the cost of such goods, which is prejudicial to the economy and explains why this problem has become quite serious. And this is why we have had extensive public discussions with the minister and some of his officials.
When the collective agreement between the Longshoremen's or "Stevedores" Union-as they like to be called- and the Maritime Employers Association of Montreal harbour was signed last March, it was hailed by both parties as the best agreement in North America. Everyone gloried in the fact that for the first time in years peace might have returned to Quebec harbours which could thus resume their former place in Canada. Actually, it must be recognized that for the last four or five years, the situation in Quebec harbours, particularly in Montreal, has not been an easy one. And following the signing of this collective agreement which gave Canadian longshoremen greater benefits than American stevedores enjoy, people thought that the situation had been settled and that within the next two or three years, Montreal harbour would thrive once again, that jobs would be created and, by the same token, that the whole metropolitan area would reap these benefits. Unfortunately, this agreement was short-lived.
As a solution, it was suggested that an inquiry commission be established. As the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. O'Connell) has indicated, the establishment of an inquiry commission would delay the solution of the problem. Too much time would elapse before the chairman of this commission could be selected, before hearing the evidence of those who favour or oppose the establishment of the commission, and before being acquainted with the views of both parties, in order to reach a decision.
Today, I am of the opinion that the minister has waited for the parties to come to an agreement, but they do not want to. The matter is becoming more urgent day by day.
The hon. member for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Valade) read into the record this morning the French version of the collective agreement dealing with grievances, but I must now quote from the English text since it is the only copy at hand. Subsection D) of Section 5 of the Grievance Procedure is very clear, and I quote:
(d) A request for arbitration may be initiated by either the union or the Maritime Employers Association. The party requesting the arbitrator shall set forth in writing the matter submitted to the arbitrator and send a copy of it to the other party.

Today, Mr. Speaker, the employers' syndicate says: We are quite willing to go to arbitration, but the International Longshoremen Association does not agree. The longshoremen union says: "We refuse, and we are right to do it."
Nor do we, the Minister and I, want to act as arbitrators. Nor does the government. In view of the fact that this collective agreement was freely entered into by both parties and since it is provided in this section that either party may ask to go to arbitration, the dispute can only be settled now if the longshoremen union or the employer's

June 16, 1972
Quebec Longshoremen's Strike
Association applies for arbitration. If either party can apply for it and if the appeal can be heard as provided in the collective agreement, I call on the more intelligent of the two parties, to take such action.
Let neither of the two say: I do not want to do it because the other party does not want to. Is either of them afraid of the arbitrators' decision?
This collective agreement also supplies the name of four persons who could be chosen as arbitrators to settle a grievance. And I know from good authority that the first name on this list is the hon. Mr. Justice A. B. Gold, who is ready and available for hearing this dispute. But if the judge wishes to hear the grievances, they must be presented.
That reminds me of a small family quarrel, when husband and wife through pride or conceit do not want to give in.
It is necessary in the public interest, in that of the Canadian economy and particularly in that of Quebec which suffers so much from all those conflicts between unions and management, to come to an agreement.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to say here that employers are wrong or blame the longshoremen's union. It will be for the judge to find the solution to the problem.
The few notes which I have on the collective agreement are very simple and very clear. Section 5 (g) reads as follows:

(g)	The arbitrator will have jurisdiction over any question relating to the interpretation or application of this agreement as well as the application modalities and implementation of an arbitration decision, but he will in no case be empowered to amend, add to, or delete any part of this agreement.
(h)	The arbitrator's decision will be final and binding.

Mr. Speaker, that is clear and simple. If the two parties involved do not step forward and ask for arbitration-and I trust the Minister of Labour-the two parties will have to sit at the same table and a final decision will have to be reached.
I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that both parties know, the longshoremen's union as well as the employers' association, that sooner or later solutions will be applied. I wonder, however-because I know they are intelligent men-whether after five weeks of delay that have forced 150 ships to sail to other Canadian ports, it might not be time for the parties involved to ask for arbitration themselves.
This is only a plea. I do not accuse one party or the other. I would not want to be the judge who will decide, but the collective agreement is quite clear. I am not a lawyer, but it is so clear and simple that I have easily understood that the parties have all the powers, but they will have to put their pride or self-respect aside and refer their problem to the judge, so that he may consider it, in order to find a solution.
We must keep in mind that the economy of Quebec is affected by that conflict, as I said a while ago. It is losing $1 million daily.

Mr. Speaker, I ask again the employers' organization as well as the longshoremen's union to resort to arbitration.
So far, questions have been put to the minister in the House, and he has repeated, day after day-and I would have said the same thing-that he dared not get involved in a collective agreement which, as I said earlier, has been signed in good faith by both parties, an agreement in which the use of computers is dealt with.
The hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) said this morning that computers were already installed. If my information is accurate, they are not, but will be only in September, and there seems to be some disagreement, now, regarding this. If I remember correctly-I do not have the text of the agreement before me-as long as the computers are not working, the clauses of the old agreement will apply.
It seems that following the one-day walkout, out of sympathy for the labour common front about the troubles which occurred recently in the province of Quebec, the Maritime Employers' Association has changed its position and said that this one-day strike was a breach of contract. It may be true because such a day was not provided in the contract and there was a breach of contract.
I think this was unfortunate and I appeal to altruism because there is no doubt employers are never affected by a strike; it is the employees who suffer. Unions always manage rather well, but the employees get hurt.
I was talking yesterday to one of the Montreal blue collars who have just ended a 5-week strike and I jokingly welcomed him and his truck to the Montreal area. He pointed out to me that before the strike he was eating in a restaurant but since he was not working he ate sandwiches.
I will spare the House the language he used as it would not be parliamentary. I mean to say that the same thing happens each time there is a strike.
I received between 1 and 2 o'clock a group of young students from my constituency who attended part of the debate. They asked a few questions about its nature and its effects. And I was pleased to tell them what it was all about.
There is a solution which other hon. members have mentioned, and I believe, it is getting increasingly imperative to come to it in labour-management relations. More than ever before, I think, it is time to establish in all fields of endeavour-and I spoke to the Minister of Labour about it-a council or a supreme labour tribunal, because on many occasions strikes are settled only after 5, 6 or 7 weeks and often the employers' proposals made in the beginning of the negotiation period are accepted. The pattern is always the same: it is always the small man who suffers.
I live in a labour district where strikes are frequent, and those who are the most needy are always the ones who suffer the most, and not union leaders nor management, because these have always the means to wait and to recoup. And management often brings pressure to bear against unions.
June 16, 1972

It is time to start establishing fair and effective standards and making available to employees all the means and resources required to air their grievances. I am generally in favour of labour unions, although in some cases I may have reservations about their integrity.
About a year ago, I made a speech in which I was condemning the unions on a specific matter. As a general rule unions have a right to exist, but there are still too many workers who are not unionized, unfortunately.
We may hope that in the present conflict union members will land on their feet and those aware of the terms of the longshoremen's collective agreement know that their remuneration is quite high. However, they themselves will be penalized and the consequences will affect the economy.
I therefore renew my request, appealing as sympathetically, as humanely as possible to both the Employers Association and the Longshoremen's union, that one of the other party call for arbitration. The collective agreement, I repeat, was signed in good faith, both parties agreeing to the paragraph I mentioned providing that if either party files such a request for arbitration the mediator will have to hear the case and render a decision, since something must be done, and otherwise the government will eventually have to take action.
If the Maritime employers' Association or the International Longshoremen's Association do not fill out a request by this weekend, I shall urge the minister of Labour to intervene early next week.
I understand his reluctance to get involved in an agreement that was concluded between these parties, but if neither of them, as prescribed by the collective agreement, files a request for arbitration, I would ask the Minister of Labour to intervene at the very beginning of next week so that a solution to the problem of Quebec ports may be found.


Richard Russell Southam: Mr. Speaker, in view of my announcement earlier that I was retiring from active politics, an event that may come later this year may mean this is my last opportunity to address the illustrious members of this august House. I want to take this opportunity to personally thank Your Honour and, through you, all the other Speakers, Deputy Speakers, officials of the House and members of parties connected with the conduct of business here for the courtesy and kindness extended over the years to me, my wife and family. I would also like to say that if any members visit the great province of Saskatchewan, they are more than welcome to drop in and visit us.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Richard Russell Southam: It goes without saying that when we have before the House an issue such as we have today, as a western member vitally interested in the transportation of grain to market I should rise in my place and comment on this very serious situation.
First, Mr. Speaker, I wish to compliment the hon. member for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Valade) for bringing forward the important matter of the Montreal dockworkers' strike through his motion under our rules which allow
Quebec Longshoremen's Strike
opposition members to raise matters of great urgency. I also compliment the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta) and the hon. member for Lachine (Mr. Rock) for their very comprehensive remarks in connection with this serious matter.
I should like to review some of the events leading to the present serious situation. I trust hon. members will excuse me if I take up the time of the House for a few minutes; I was not here during all the speeches made this afternoon. In any event, I believe the people of Saskatchewan will be interested in the preliminary observations I have to make in connection with the great port of Montreal and the effect the strike there will have on the Canadian economy generally as well as upon Montreal itself.
I should like to list a few of these events. National Harbours Board ports in Canada handled a record 93.7 million tons of traffic in 1971, up by 7.9 per cent from 1970. The port of Montreal, however, showed a decline of
5.4	per cent in tonnage handled during the same period. Since May 16 the port of Montreal has been paralyzed by striking longshoremen numbering about 3,200. The ports of Quebec and Trois-Rivieres are also affected. Grain is the staple item of commerce on which the ports depend, and since the strike began 500,000 tons of grain have been diverted to other ports.
According to the chairman of the Wheat Board, Canada will be unable to honour her commitments in respect of European markets because of the strike. I shall repeat that statement because it is of vital interest to myself personally, to my province and, I am sure, to all of western Canada. According to the chairman of the Wheat Board, Canada will be unable to honour her commitments respecting wheat shipments to European markets, as planned, because of the strike.
I should like to give the House some background information with respect to this strike which is paralyzing the great harbour of Montreal. It is costing shipping agents in Montreal alone an estimated $100,000 a day. The cost to the community in lost salaries and direct income exceeds $1 million a day. At least 132 ships have sailed from Montreal or have been diverted from the port with full holds. This represents a loss of 425,000 tons of cargo. Ten thousand people depend directly on the port for jobs, and many times this number employed in service industries are adversely affected by the strike.
The port pumps approximately $250 million a year into the Montreal economy. A consortium of five large Japanese shipping companies which has been scouting for an eastern Canadian terminus for its ships has decided to give Montreal a wide berth even as a secondary distribution centre. A foreign automobile manufacturer who had been seriously considering Montreal as a base for increased unloading capacity in eastern Canada, is having second thoughts. Material for a display destined for China and vaunting the strength of the Canadian economy is held up in the strikebound port. Export grains shipments to Russia and other destinations across the Atlantic have been rescheduled out of terminals on the north shore of the St. Lawrence River and more than 100 jobs in the Montreal area could disappear as a result.

June 16, 1972
Quebec Longshoremen's Strike
Mr. Speaker, I believe hon. members would be interested in a further brief outline of the main events in this dispute. On March 30 of this year management and labour signed a three-year contract aimed at improving the port's obviously low productivity by eliminating the outmoded gang system. In return, the employers provided the men with job security and a lucrative pension scheme. The agreement was subsequently ratified by the union rank and file. Irregular work stoppages began on May 9, culminating in a walkout by 3,200 longshoremen on May 16. The strike directly affects the harbours of Montreal, Quebec and Trois-Rivieres, paralyzing transport over much of eastern Canada.
What was the main cause of this strike? The main gripe which set off the wildcat action arose from dissatisfaction over changes made in the system of work gangs. In the last labour contract management won the right to break up the work gangs. They were to be replaced by a computer system which was to come into effect this fall. Instead of a constant unit of 17 men doing all jobs, the computer would call up only those men needed for any particular task. The men signed and ratified the agreement, but when the break-up of the work gangs started, they walked out.
What was the reaction of management to this situation? Attempts at negotiation failed and three court injunctions ordering the men back to work were ignored. On May 31, the Maritime Employers Association suspended the striking longshoremen. Management has offered to ask for arbitration providing the union will attend the sessions and abide by the decision of an independent arbitrator. As yet there has been no success in bringing the two parties together. Labour took the following position: the day after their suspension, about 300 members of Montreal local 375 of the ILA voted to continue the walkout at the three St. Lawrence ports. Only about one-tenth of the available union members took part in the vote. The union president said the men were prepared to stay out for as long as was necessary to gain a satisfactory settlement. An unnamed spokesman for the union stated there was no question of arbitration.
The federal government took its usual position in such cases. The Minister of Labour (Mr. O'Connell) has repeatedly called on either or both parties to make use of the arbitration clause in their contract in order to settle the dispute. He has often declared his intention not to interfere, both to this House and to the press. It is the usual story-Nero fiddled while Rome burned.
Let us review, now, the short-term problems resulting from this strike. Until the early 1960s the port of Montreal enjoyed an enviable reputation. It could handle goods more cheaply than anywhere else in North America. Labour relations, though paternalistic, were good and strikes were infrequent. In the late 1960s, government and labour forces pushed through a contract on behalf of the International Longshoremen's Association which, among other things, fixed the size of labour gangs unloading ships at an arbitrary number regardless of the number actually needed. Production declined drastically. One Montreal company estimates that in 1966, 20-man gangs handled about 35 tons of flour an hour. Today, 17-man gangs handle a maximum of 16 tons an hour. This means

ships stay in port for longer periods at a cost of between $2,500 and $3,000 a day. This has grave implications for the future of the port since an important factor in the scheduling of shipping today is the speed at which cargo can be unloaded.
Statistics Canada reports that more vessles visited Montreal in 1971 than in 1970, and figures issued by the National Harbours Board shows steady increases in general cargo tonnage handled over the past five years. Nevertheless, the effects of United States dock strikes on certain Canadian ports may have inflated the figures in relation to the total cargo handled. In fact, Montreal's through cargo declined by 5.4 per cent in 1971.
Canadian Pacific, although its headquarters is in Montreal, located its new container terminal in Quebec City, claiming it was more economic. And last summer a gang of shippers suggested that one solution to Montreal's labour problems would be to close the port. "Most of us can do our shipping through maritime ports with only minor inconvenience or additional cost; it is drastic but it might be the only way," said one company president.
Federal intervention has done little to ease the problems plaguing the labour situation. In the recent Montreal longshoremen's strike federal intervention has been non-existent. Despite pleas by the Montreal Chamber of Commerce and the Quebec Truckers Association, the Minister of Labour has refused to interfere. Rather, he has repeatedly called for either or both parties to make use of an arbitration clause in their contract to settle the dispute. Federal failure is not limited to labour relations. Its transportation policy, as it applies specifically to Montreal and generally to all ports under the National Harbours Board, has failed adequately to assess the needs of and directions for the future administration of the port.
A year ago, on May 12, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) announced a new policy for ports. He proposed creation of local port authorities for each of the nine major ports now administered by the National Harbours Board. These local port authorities were to be representative of all local interests including management and labour, municipal and provincial authorities. Each was to have a good deal of authority, including consultation in the appointment of port managers, the preparation of budgets, forward planning and other important matters. At that time the Minister of Transport stated that the federal objective "must be concerned with the good of all Canadians and not just with any particular vested interest".
However, various comments by those asked to serve on the local port authorities raise serious questions about the eventual success of the federal government's objectives. In Montreal, several men asked to serve and the port authorities flatly refused. They pointed out that they could not very well run a major enterprise which would require them to make decisions regarding their own competitors. There could be also a conflict of interest with labour appointees in a decision between the efficient running of the harbour concerned and the demands of the labour union members. Conflicts of interest could well cause serious damage to the harbour concerned. Instead
June 16, 1972

of serving national interests, the port authorities could easily become involved in individual concerns, reflecting the make-up of the local boards.
What is therefore needed, and what has not yet been suggested by the Minister of Transport-despite the fact that members of the port authorities of Montreal, Halifax, St. John's, Saint John, Quebec, Trois-Rivieres, Churchill, Manitoba and Vancouver have been announced-is government controls. The Minister of Transport must place controls on the power of the National Ports Council's influence over the Department of Transport and the National Harbours Board. He must also establish who is going to be responsible for policy-making and for coordinating the activities of the various ports. These controls are essential if the outcome is to be fair to all concerned in all regions of the country.
What is the long term prospect, Mr. Speaker? A major problem affecting Montreal in the long run, as in the short run, is its lack of effective administration. The newly established port authority in its present form does not promise much improvement over the past administrative performance of the National Harbours Board. And yet the future of Montreal's harbour depends upon adequate planning and definition of goals. Further, it is important that the establishment of these goals be made in the context of nationwide transport policy which realistically reflects the potential of Montreal within an integrated national system.
The future of shipping lies in containerization. A critical factor in profitable and efficient ocean container transportation is to see that inland container movement and inland terminals adapt to increasing flows. According to R. R. Cope, vice-president of research for the Department of Transport:
The critical factor in influencing the directional flow of containerized cargo between the Atlantic hinterland and overseas points through the Atlantic and St. Lawrence ports will likely be the adjustments made by the inland carriers in rates and services to accommodate containerization.
In the context of substantial increases in container traffic, Montreal's future is not good. The port's potential is limited by its spatial placement between the river and railway tracks. There is little room, and no plans for future expansion to permit quick unloading of large quantities of containerized cargo. As well, the proximity of the harbour to the downtown centre hinders quick and easy access to and from the waterfront both by trains and/or trucks. Essential to efficient sea-land transport is the facility of access for loaded vehicles to main trucking and train routes.
Obviously, the direction of future development for the harbour of Montreal must be studied carefully. It is most important that the port's potential be seen in the context of national goals. If an east coast port, such as Halifax, can be more suitably developed as the main container terminal for eastern Canada, then futile dreams of maintaining Montreal as the country's premier general cargo port must die. The port's future role must be assessed according to its potential but, as has been stressed, in the context of future directions of transportation methods as they affect the entire country.
Quebec Longshoremen's Strike
Bringing this matter closer to home rather than speaking in general terms about how it affects the entire country, I ask, how does it affect our agricultural industry? It affects it in a most serious way, particularly my province of Saskatchewan which produces so much grain and depends on our major ports to keep this grain moving to world markets. Our party, on checking only yesterday with officials of the Canadian Wheat Board, found that the board, as well as all other representatives of the Canadian grain trade and farm organizations, are expressing the greatest alarm at the cutback in grain shipments from the port of Montreal. The government cannot salve its conscience by saying the grain will move through other ports. The fact is that these ports are now working to capacity in most cases and can not be expected to handle the extra volume of large amounts of grain. This means delayed deliveries to our customers, possible loss of markets to certain customers and a direct drop in farmers' income.
The fact is that the only remaining hope that even our large grain producers in the west have is that they produce large yields per acre and market these yields on a larger quota annually, having regard to the much lower price per bushel our farmers are now receiving for all their grain products. I want to re-emphasize what the hon. member for Lisgar referred to in his speech a few minutes ago, and that is that the effect of the Montreal dockwork-ers' strike more than points up the fact that the government should immediately take steps to enlarge grain handling facilities at both the ports of Churchill and Vancouver.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must interrupt the hon. member to inform him his time has expired.


Mr. Ian Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, as a member from the Montreal area and representative of a riding through which the St. Lawrence Seaway passes, I am very much interested in the prosperity of the port of Montreal, as are also several of my fellow-citizens from the south shore area of Montreal.

A number of factors with which we are all too familiar have combined during the past few years to put, if not the future at least the future greatness of Montreal in doubt. Located at the entrance to the Great Lakes industrial heartland of North America, surrounded by the richest agricultural land in Quebec, within easy distance of abundant mineral resources, and endowed with one of the world's most scenic locations, Montreal attracts an energetic and cosmopolitan population which gives to this city an incomparable spirit and character. Being so richly endowed with human and physical resources, I am convinced that Montreal's future is to be to Canada what New York is to the United States. Yet if that is Montreal's objective, we have lost ground.
Never before has it been more important to fight against the narrow-mindedness which, if it were success-

June 16, 1972
Quebec Longshoremen's Strike ful, would make Montreal a city of strictly regional or provincial importance. The authorities in Montreal and Quebec, as well as the federal member from Quebec, must give strong support to broadening Montreal's national and international role. One essential element of Montreal's future depends directly on the federal government, and that is our port: it stands closed today almost forsaken by all maritime transport companies.

The strike now in progress, unexpected as it was in the midst of the general euphoria surrounding the signing of the three-year contract, is a terrible setback not only to Montreal's legitimate aspirations to greatness in maritime commerce but to the entire business atmosphere of this great city. The side effects of port activity on Montreal business are enormous. This port brings in revenue from customs and excise duties, not necessarily all attributable to maritime activity, of $329 million a year. In addition, the money generated by port activities is a figure somewhere around $225 million. I think that is probably a low figure.
As a result of the present strike at least two shipping companies have moved their lifters and transporters by train, in one case to Halifax and in another to Saint John, New brunswick. The Canadian Importers Association has now advised its contacts and its principals in Europe and elsewhere in the world to re-route cargo into Montreal by methods other than the maritime method, at least from now until the beginning of September.
We in the Montreal region are in the midst of a crisis which I do not think too many of our citizens yet appreciate. We have tended to have strikes and see them settled on a more or less acceptable basis over the years. I submit this situation is more dangerous than any I have witnessed since I first entered the House of Commons in 1963.
The situation, as I read it, has deteriorated to the point where the employers, in agreeing to this three-year contract, have tied themselves into a fairly expensive provision of annual wage guarantees to the dockworkers. It would appear the employers now find themselves in a position where, even if the port is immediately reopened, they will be in serious financial difficulty. Ships have left, they have been turned away, and ships headed here have been diverted elsewhere. The employers would find themselves in extremely serious financial circumstances in maintaining the financial terms of the contract they entered into if the men were to go back to work tomorrow.
The background of this dispute is still not completely clear to me or, I suggest, to anyone else. There are a number of factors affecting the union's attitude and a number affecting the employers' attitude. From my understanding of the situation, there is a considerable amount of fault on both sides to this dispute. In most instances this is the case. There are usually two sides to the story and the Montreal strike is no exception. There is serious fault, in my view, on both sides and there is no inclination that I can see by either party to take the measures, open and incumbent upon them under the law, to submit to arbitration.
Given these circumstances, I say to the government there is no longer any choice. It must, in my view, adopt more than the passive role it has taken up to now. The Minister of Labour (Mr. O'Connell) has acted correctly in saying to the parties that under the law he cannot force them to enter into arbitration. He has pleaded with them to do so. He has asked both sides to submit to the legal method available to them to resolve their disputes. But both parties have refused.
We have waited for several weeks for a move, but nothing has happened. We can no longer allow the business atmosphere of Montreal to be poisoned or the future of the port to be permanently damaged. I was not surprised, but very depressed this afternoon when I heard members from western Canada more or less write off the port of Montreal. The message is clear; people are writing off the port of Montreal and its future. The port of Montreal is far too important to Canada as a whole to be written off.
The two parties to this dispute appear unwilling or unable to make a move. The government, in the public interest, must now move into the situation and by legislation if necessary and trusteeship if necessary force a conclusion to what is now occurring in Montreal. As a general rule, the federal government in its labour relations suggests it does not believe in the idea of stepping into labour disputes because such action tends to prolong the dispute and the parties wait until the government steps in to solve things for them. They decline their responsibilities when there is a hope that the federal government will step in.
As a general principle I accept this as a logical and good argument, but in this instance I feel a number of factors have entered into the situation which make it unlikely that either party will take the initiative in instituting arbitration proceedings. That being the case, there is no choice and we should step into the picture. If nothing happens between now and Monday, I say to the Minister of Labour, through you, Mr. Speaker, that we must think in terms of legislative action.
The malaise which is the principal topic of the debate today, the strike, is not the only ill which affects the future of the port of Montreal. During the past year and a half we had high hopes that with the establishment of a new port authority there would be more rapid movement toward resolving some of the problems which have been plaguing the port of Montreal. This movement, however, still is not visible. The creation of the port authority took much longer than had been expected. When it was finally set up-I believe about six, eight or nine months ago-we were led to believe we would see some fairly rapid results of its activities.
So far we have not even seen a movement toward some of the activities for which a number of interested people in Montreal have been pushing for at least 12 years, such as an analysis of the land owned by the port with a view to developing the Montreal port to its maximum economic use. We find there are areas belonging to the port of Montreal which are underused in comparison to their economic possibilities. There is the question of whether or not the port of Montreal, in order to fully develop, should

June 16, 1972

expand across the river into the south shore area from Boucherville down river.
There is a question which bothers me considerably in respect of this possible port expansion. I refer to the question of what will happen to the Boucherville Islands immediately in front of Boucherville. These islands have been partly acquired by the port of Montreal. In my view they are an ideal site for recreational activities for the population of the eastern part of Montreal particularly. I have argued that the port of Montreal should move directly to the south shore rather than to these scenic islands which have tremendous recreational possibilities for a population which at the moment does not have major recreational facilities available to it.
Not only the port of Montreal, but in fact all our eastern ports are in desperate need of promotion. The major ports around the world sent emissaries to all world trading centres with the objective of bringing trade to these ports. Montreal, Halifax, Saint John and all our major eastern ports are in need of a much more effective promotion policy. In my view this has been a serious deficiency which reflects on the effectiveness of our National Harbours Board. The National Harbours Board has been sadly remiss in this area.
I understand there are now some moves afoot to correct the lack of commercial acumen which this government organization has demonstrated for so long. Hopefully, once a promotion is under way it will benefit not just one port but the entire eastern seaboard of Canada. With an excellent work force, efficient shippers and shipping agents we are in a position to compete very effectively with the United States ports which are now busy taking business away from the three Quebec ports which have been tied up by this most unfortunate strike.
One further point I feel should be made this afternoon is that the new Montreal port authority when it was set up was given a fairly flexible framework so far as membership is concerned; the number was not tied down completely. However, only one member on the labour side of the picture was appointed to the port authority. I would recommend strongly to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) and the Minister of Labour that the labour representation on the Montreal port authority be increased. Perhaps I am engaging in wishful thinking, but it seems to me that had this been the case and had there been additional labour representation on the Montreal port authority, it would perhaps have been able to play a more effective role than it has in the resolution of the very grave labour difficulty which has afflicted the port of Montreal for the past number of weeks.
In closing, I urge again that the Minister of Labour at the beginning of next week, if there is no sign of improvement or movement, take the necessary steps to bring the parties together into arbitration if they will agree, and if they will not agree then I suggest we have no alternative but to consider establishing a trusteeship for the port of Montreal.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Sheiford):: Mr. Speaker, having on many occasions during the past few weeks put several
Quebec Longshoremen's Strike
questions to the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. O'Connell) concerning the longshoremen's strike in Quebec ports, and as the representative of an electoral district near the port of Montreal, I take pleasure in participating in this afternoon's debate on this unfortunate strike, which has lasted far too long.
Mr. Speaker, we are faced with an illegal strike where the parties refuse to resort to arbitration or to meet, and on the other hand the minister tells us that although procedures are clear there has been no request for arbitration.
Faced with such a conflict and such confusion, the federal Minister of Labour, however, is also unable to claim that he cannot take action by hiding behind procedure as everyone agrees that the strike, which is indeed very serious, has lasted long enough, that losses on all sides, both to workers and employers in Quebec and Canada, are huge. It is time an end is put to the conflict and that a settlement takes place.
I should like to give a chronological outline of this strike which I followed, long and short, from the start.
On March 27, the officials of the employees union and of the shipowners accepted, on principle, a collective agreement. On April 4, this agreement was submitted to and practically unanimously accepted by longshoremen by a vote of 2,400 to 6.
On April 19, after acceptance of the agreement by the longshoremen, the federal government mediator, Mr. Poirier, who is an excellent mediator, a capable person, personally prepared, drafted and finalized the collective agreement which was signed by employers and employees in his presence.
All went very well until May 9. The agreement was signed on April 19, and it does not seem to me that there were problems until May 9, that is, nearly three weeks after the agreement was signed.
But on May 9, at eleven o'clock in the morning, there was a walkout in Montreal and other Quebec harbours for no known reason. The longshoremen walked out at eleven o'clock on May 9 for no known reason. But a few days after this walkout took place, we learned that it had been called out of sympathy for the leaders of the Common Front of Labour.
In relation to this walkout, the shipowners obtained an injunction and the longshoremen had to go back to work on May 10. On May 11, everyone was back to work and at 2 o'clock in the afternoon, the shipowners, or management, learned from the unions that they had violated section 9(11) of the collective agreement only three weeks after its signature.
This section had to do with the employment of men in the holds or on the decks of ships or in the warehouses in the harbours of Quebec.
When for example an employer needs 16 men to load or unload a ship, they make up a gang. When eight members of the team are working on the bridge and four in the hold-that is 12 men out of 16-four remain idle on the bridge or in the hold. Now, Mr. Speaker, the employers hired them to work at something else in the sheds. The unions would like those four men who belong to the gang

June 16, 1972
Quebec Longshoremen's Strike to remain idle, on the wharf or on the bridge while under the collective agreement, the employers can make them work in the sheds. It seems that such is the clause at stake in the present strike.
Mr. Speaker, while everybody was at work on May 12 and 15, meetings were held in the presence of the federal conciliator. The union leaders stated: "Injunction or no injunction, we will disregard any legislation and we refuse arbitration". This is quite different from what my hon. colleagues were saying a moment ago: "They refused arbitration because the conflict in connection with Subsection (11) of Section 9 cannot be subject to arbitration". They claimed that they would close the ports, and this is effectively what has happened. The strike has been on since May 15.
For the past month, approximately 500,000 tons of goods have been lost and I regret to say that Canada must depend for supplies on foreign shippers who look after the transportation of our goods, as Canada does not have her own merchant marine as yet.
We are now facing the following situation: the longshoremen are on strike and the shipowners have no more shipping to do. They are facing this dilemma whereby a collective agreement has just been signed which guarantees job security for the employees. Therefore, in what way could the employees be given job security in the future when the ports of Quebec remain idle, ships have gone away and there would be no work if the strike were settled? The shipowners are facing the following problem: that is to guarantee job security whereas they have no work to offer.
Mr. Speaker, this is a case where the minister must take action and must intervene. Once the strike is settled-I hope it will be soon-it will take from eight to ten weeks before the situation becomes normal in the Quebec ports generally or in the port of Montreal. That is to say that it will take from eight to ten weeks to have enough merchandise to load or to unload so that longshoremen will have some work to do.
I say it again, shipowners have signed a collective agreement which guarantees job security whereas, because of the strike, they have no work for the longshoremen.
Under these conditions, Mr. Speaker, there is a procedure to be followed. There is a solution. It is no more a matter of arbitration, because one of the interested parties has clearly said that it had no faith in arbitration and that it would not use it.
Now there cannot be any arbitration if both parties are not there.
When arbitration is impossible, one has to or resort to mediation. And the Minister of Labour should step in as early as next Monday and ask both parties to come to a settlement.
And in order to make mediation easier, the Minister of Labour for instance could ask both parties to suspend the somewhat embarrassing clause on job security, for eight to ten weeks, so that the situation may go back to normal in the Quebec ports and especially in the port of Montreal, so that ships may come back to our ports, that work may be resumed and that employers may guarantee job security as was provided for in the collective agreement.

The Minister could even offer to guarantee the longshoremen income security for 8 to 10 weeks, and if they do not want to lose their pay for not having worked during the strike, the federal government could, through a mediator, offer them income security until the situation goes back to normal and the provisions of the collective agreement concerning job security are in effect again.
However, arbitration has turned out to be impossible, so far. However, next week we could put an end to the strike, and I suggest we allow the Minister of Labour this time to resort to mediation and bring both parties to their senses.
But the Minister of Labour cannot hope to solve this dispute by simply inviting both parties to come to an agreement without offering them some concessions.
If arbitration does not work out next week the Minister of Labour could submit to the House a bill to settle this dispute.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I must say that there have been enough pleas. Parliamentarianism as well as negotiations in the House have lasted long enough. Enough questions have been asked the Minister of Labour. It is high time for action and I hope that next week the Minister of Labour will step into the second stage in the settlement of this dispute by doing everything he can to bring both parties together and by making, in the name of the federal government, offers likely to help in settling this problem.
All of us will be happy if, through arbitration, we reach a settlement of the dispute. In case of failure, we will be glad in this House to study any legislation to put an end to it.


Mr. Paul St. Pierre (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, my intervention in this debate will be brief. I shall deal with just one point which has been raised by several of the members who have spoken, including the Minister of Labour (Mr. O'Connell). It is central to the question of compulsory arbitration in strikes which affect the public interest.
The point which more than one hon. member has touched upon is that in certain areas of the Canadian economy, in which both management and labour know that the service which their industry provides is vital to the economy, there is a continuing tendency for both sides to enter so-called negotiations from extreme positions, in the full knowledge and expectation that they will eventually reach compulsory arbitration imposed by the government, if necessary by act of Parliament.
For this reason, Mr. Speaker, I think it might be generally agreed that often such negotiations are not conducted seriously or in very good faith because arbitration, by its very nature, becomes mere compromise. It isn't greatly different from what we call mediation. And when the point is reached at which arbitration is imposed, the arbitrator in fact is in a position of finding a middle line between the opposing positions.
Therefore, not only in this strike in the port of Montreal, in which of course the parties have not yet been brought to the point of arbitration, but in railway disputes and other disputes affecting the national interest I suggest to
June 16, 1972

the House that our present system encourages the two parties, management and labour, to stay apart rather than to come together.
It discourages serious bargaining, because if one party or the other acts in the pretty sure appreciation that eventually they are going to go to arbitration, and in the pretty sure appreciation that most arbitrators do little more than find a middle line between the extremes, its interests obviously for its own group, whichever side it is representing, management or labour, is to begin from the most extreme point.
For this reason I want to put before the House today a bill which has been before the United States Congress this year. Without saying that I endorse it, I would say that it is imaginative; and I would think that in labour negotiations in Canada, particularly in areas such as the dock strike, we need some imagination. I would like to discuss briefly the form and content of this bill. It is a Senate bill, S.3232, and was put forward by 29 Senators headed by Mr. Pack-wood. The bill is dealing specifically with strikes similar to the Montreal dock strike. I quote from section 208(1) dealing with a strike which-
-affects an entire industry or a substantial part thereof engaged in trade, commerce, transportation, transmission, or communication among the several states or with foreing nations or engaged in the production of goods for commerce-
It is a lengthy bill. It provides for cooling-off periods and for various other forms of labour negotiations with which we are familiar. But there is one specific section of the bill which I wish to draw to the attention of the House. It appears at page 13 and is entitled "Final Offer Selection." This may not be new to some hon. members, but it is new to me and I find it a most intriguing proposition.
Essentially, the proposition is that before arbitration is imposed in a strike in the United States affecting the national interest in the areas I have quoted, each party would be obliged to make a final offer and one alternative final offer. The major and significant difference which this bill proposes from anything which we know in Canada is that the arbitration board, chosen in the normal manner-a three-man board-would not have the choice to alter final offers; it would be obliged to select holus-bolus one or the other. I would like to read these sections, Mr. Speaker, and I think I can do it quite quickly. Section 219 reads:
The President may direct each party to submit a final offer to the Secretary of Labor within three days. Each party may at the same time submit one alternative final offer. The Secretary of Labor shall transmit the offers to the other parties simultaneously.
(2) If a party or parties refuse to submit a final offer, the last offer made by such party or parties during previous bargaining shall be deemed that party's or parties' final offer.
Quebec Longshoremen's Strike
(3) Any offer submitted by a party pursuant to this section must constitute a complete collective bargaining agreement and resolve all the issues involved in the dispute.
(b)	The parties shall continue to bargain collectively for a period of five days after they receive the other parties' offers. The Secretary of Labor may act as mediator during the period of the final offer selection proceedings.
(c)	If no settlement has been reached before the end of the period prescribed in subsection (b) of this section, the parties may within two days select a three member panel to act as the final offer selector. If the parties are unable to agree on the composition of the panel, the President shall appoint the panel.
There are other subsections here which I will not read, but subsection (g) provides:
The panel shall at no time engage in an effort to mediate or otherwise settle the dispute in any manner other than that prescribed by this section.
Subsection (j) provides:
Beginning with the direction of the President to submit final offers and until the panel makes its selection, there shall be no change, except by agreement of the parties, in the terms and conditions of employment, and no strike, lockout, or similar activity shall take place. In no instance shall such period exceed 30 days.
(k) The panel shall not compromise or alter the final offer that it selects. Selection of a final offer shall be based on the content of the final offer and no consideration shall be given to, nor shall any evidence be received concerning, the collective bargaining in the dispute, including offers of settlement not contained in the final offers.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that is ap imaginative approach which is worthy of the consideration of the House. If, on reflection, the two parties to a dispute recognize that in going before an arbitrator they must arbitrate not merely a middle line between opposing positions but put forward a final offer and win everything or lose everything, it seems to me that both parties, management and labour, would be obliged to consider seriously the provisions contained in their final offers because they would know that compromise is not the solution since they will stand to win or lose everything.


An hon. Member:: Five o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Do hon. members agree to call it
five o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock, it is my duty to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 58(11) the proceedings on the motion have expired.
At 4.53 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, lune 19, 1972