1972-09-01

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege to remedy a situation and inform you that I particularly care about certain privileges.
Yesterday, during the oral question period, I put a question to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) concerning the steps the government intends to take to help the Quebec farmers who, because of poor weather conditions, are having a hard time storing the feed required for their herds over the winter months. The minister replied that the details of the assistance program had been sent to my office.
Mr. Speaker, I regret having to tell the minister that had I received the release on cash subsidies before the sitting yesterday, as several other members did, I should have been informed in good time. But I received it this morning only; that is why I protest and ask that steps be taken to ensure, in the future, that such important releases be sent to my office in good time.
I wish to add that I am happy the contents of the release prove that the minister took into account the representations I made to him; that I was happy to hear about it even on September 1 instead of August 31.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration arising out of the fact that Statistics Canada no longer publishes the contributions made to the unemployment insurance fund and has not done so since December 31, 1971. Will the minister disclose to the House the amount of the contributions that the government is being called upon to make to the unemployment insurance account compared with the estimates produced by the government during the budget debate?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman is quite accurate in saying-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Hees:: He will be "right honourable" in two months.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: -that Statistics Canada no longer publishes the revenue that the government receives from the Unemployment Insurance Commission. That cannot be done until next April. Members on that side of the House who were on the committee should know that the revenue from offsetting factors such as contributions and income tax is now collected by the Department of National Revenue and that revenue is to be turned over to the Unemployment Insurance Commission next April. There are other offsetting factors such as welfare savings. In a spirit of co-operation I could suggest that one of the deliberate increases in cost to the fund was the change in the regulations to improve the lot of the fishermen in Newfoundland to the tune of $18 million. I could change that back again if that would suit the hon. gentleman.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if the minister wants to have a debate he can do so on motions and we will be very happy to take part in it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether he really cannot give us the information required in view of the fact that an estimate was made of the government contribution at the time the budget papers were tabled in the House? Does the minister mean to indicate that there is no estimate in his hands or in the hands of the government today as to the projected contribution that the government will make toward unemployment insurance during the current fiscal year in comparison with the estimates set forth in the budget papers?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, the paid-outs that are made from the fund are subject to certain variables, one of them being the relationship between payments and the weekly wage of people unemployed. The payment is now $66 a week. I do not think that is too much for any unemployed person. Maybe the hon. gentleman thinks it is. We could save by cutting down on that. We know what our payments are-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the minister resume his seat for a moment. It seems to me that we are embarking on a debate between the minister and the Leader of the Opposition. Perhaps we should try to return for a moment to the question and answer period.

September 1, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I suggest to Your Honour, with all respect, that I am asking perfectly straight-forward questions which the minister is avoiding.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am pursuing these questions because four years ago the government covered up $500 million.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: What is the minister now trying to cover up?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. gentleman does not want to leave the impression that I am covering up anything.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: It might be useful to have the debate about which the hon. gentleman is talking, but I can recall his contribution several weeks ago-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I interrupted the Leader of the Opposition and I think I have to interrupt the minister. I suggest to both hon. members and to the House that this is debate. I have the impression there are questions that hon. members want to ask today and answers that ministers want to give. We should be given an opportunity to proceed.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I assure you, Sir, that I will not press the matter further in the House because there is no need to do so.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands.


Mr. Ryan:: A supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There is only one member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands and he has been recognized.



REQUEST THAT REGULATIONS BE CHANGED TO ENABLE


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Is the minister aware of the fact that the forest products industry in British Columbia is stamping all separation certificates as "due to labour dispute" despite the fact that the strike by the fallers was an illegal strike, the fallers have long since returned to work and men who are not now unemployed because of a shortage of logs are being denied unemploy-

ment insurance benefits to which they are entitled? Does the minister intend to make any change in the regulations to remove this injustice?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, on the one hand I am being accused by the Official Opposition-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Answer the question.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I will answer the question-of adopting certain regulations that put into the hands of the poor more money than the opposition think these people should be getting. On the other hand I am being accused of passing regulations that deny others payments to which it is said they are entitled. I will certainly look into that situation, Mr. Speaker.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Will the minister advise the House when the government intends to inform the provinces of its plans for a winter works program for the forthcoming winter in view of the fact that unemployment is rising steadily?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps this question might be asked later. I doubt that it is a supplementary. It is of course, definitely related, but perhaps the Chair should recognize the hon. member later for that question.



REQUEST FOR REPORT ON CURRENT FINANCIAL STATE OF ACCOUNT

Sylvester Perry Ryan: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Is there anything to prevent the minister from giving a full report on the current financial state of the unemployment insurance account? If there is nothing to prevent him, will the minister make such a report to the country immediately?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: It is impossible to calculate precisely the revenues which the Unemployment Insurance Commission will receive.


George Harris Hees: The nearest million will do.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: This is because the new law is so structured that the revenues from income tax, employer contributions and employee contributions will not be turned over to the department until next April at the end of the fiscal year. I thought everybody understood this. If they do not, I am quite prepared to answer any questions they wish to ask. If the rate of unemployment is under-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We shall return to this obviously interesting and important subject later. I think we should attempt to complete the first series of questions now. I shall return to the hon. member for Spadina and the hon. member for Hamilton West in a short while.
September 1, 1972



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the alarming increase in the price of food, particularly food consumed in the home as distinct from restaurants, hotels and so on, is the hon. gentleman considering or has he already decided, I hope, to institute a thorough inquiry into the price spreads between what the farmer gets and what the consumer has to pay?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the pricing of food, in the sense that distributors engaged in selling food might be involved in a combine, is a subject of constant review by my department. We watch price increase in that light.


David Lewis: Investigating the matter in the light of possible combines is surely not necessarily relevant to a rise in food prices which can take place in the absence of a combines situation. I therefore wish to ask the minister whether the department is studying the very large increases in the profits of the supermarkets and food processing companies. Would the minister also advise us whether any attempt is being made to study the cost of advertising and promotion which adds to the increase in food prices? Is the department making any study of these areas, aside from combines, which obviously attach to the increase in food prices?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the answer, generally, is yes.


David Lewis: If the answer is yes, can the minister inform the House whether there is a report being prepared and, if so, by whom it is being prepared and whether he intends to publish that report?


Robert Knight Andras: The way this would operate would be that we would exercise our mandate in the department if the evidence from these continuing studies indicated there were contraventions of the combines act.



INCREASE IN COST OF FOOD-CONSULTATION WITH RETAILERS AND WHOLESALERS TO PREVENT FURTHER RISE

Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: With respect to the serious increase in food prices expected this fall, particularly in urban Canada, have the minister or his senior officials been in touch with the major grocery chains or with the wholesale suppliers to determine whether they are willing to take joint action to head off this very serious inflation in the cost of food?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.



INFLATION-INQUIRY AS TO INTRODUCTION OF PRICE AND WAGE CONTROLS

Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: I would like to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Inquiries of the Ministry
Does the department intend to resort to the measures suggested by Mr. Young, namely a price and wage freeze?
Probably-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member for Temiscamingue wants to ask another supplementary question.


David Réal Caouette: It is about the same question but I think the hon. minister did not understand the one I just asked.
Because of the present situation, does the hon. minister intend to resort to the measures suggested by Mr. Young, namely a price and wage freeze?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no, not at this time, but if such a decision were contemplated by the government I think it would be more properly announced by my colleague the Minister of Finance.



INVESTIGATION OF INFLATIONARY FORCES

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question with regard to the response of the minister that he is conducting investigations only for the purpose of determining whether there are possible violations of the combines act. Can we take it from this that the minister is not actively conducting any investigations relating to the rate of inflation and the inflationary forces that may be at work in the economy but rather is confining his attention solely to the anti-combines aspect?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the economic causes and effects of inflation and of increased prices would be more properly investigated by the Department of Finance, although we are interested in these matters from the consumer viewpoint and from the point of view of possible contravention of the combines act.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: May I ask the Minister of Finance what precise steps he is taking with regard to surveillance of the inflationary factors in the economy? What research is going on under his authority, and in what manner is this research being carried out?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Finance is following the price situation on a daily basis. As I said yesterday to the House, the nucleus of the Prices and Incomes Commission that has been retained is also monitoring price movements here, in the United States and abroad. As I said yesterday, on the basis of the figures for the first seven months of this year the movement of prices in Canada compares favourably with that in any other country in the world including the United States.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the Leader of the Opposition for a supplementary question, but I have to point out that we have not yet completed the first series of questions. After this supplementary question I think I should recognize the hon. member for Richmond.

September 1, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, could the Minister of Finance inform the House precisely what the nucleus or rump of the Prices and Incomes Commission consists of, how many people it includes and, very briefly, what their roles are, because the complacency he has exhibited toward the recent price increases is not very reassuring?


John Napier Turner: I deny any allegation of complacency. This government will act when it has to act.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: There is a ringing statement.


An hon. Member:: That is very reassuring.


John Napier Turner: On the basis of prices, the opinion of the government is that the present situation does not warrant price and wage controls. If the situation should develop where price rises were much more substantial and of a type amenable to general control measures, then of course that would be done. I say that the present situation does not warrant it. I say that the record of the cost of living in Canada compares favourably with that of any country in the world.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Who is in the nucleus of the commission?


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. I pointed out a moment ago that we should try to recognize a questioner on behalf of the party to my extreme left and to that end I will recognize the hon. member for Richmond.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, with your permission I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Several persons who were in receipt of unemployment insurance benefits will receive shortly or have received letters informing them that they have been overpaid. They are being asked to reimburse the money immediately. These people have been using the money to live on during the winter and are not in a position to reimburse it. Is it the intention of the minister to take the necessary measures in order to delay reimbursements by these people until they have resumed work?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Yes, Mr. Speaker. In respect of those people who receive overpayments as a result of their inaccurate statements of income which eventually become known to the Unemployment Insurance Commission, every effort is made to see that reimbursement is achieved in as easy a fashion as possible when they return to work.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question.

Does the minister mean that there will be a waiting period or that necessary arrangements will be taken so that those concerned will go back to work before reimbursing?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: In so much as possible.



REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE THAT PLAN IS ACTUARIALLY SOUND

['Mr. Speaker, there is an advance party from the Department of Immigration in Uganda setting up headquarters and having local support staff. This advance party is mainly from Beirut and is being supplemented from Europe. It is very difficult to estimate the precise number of people that will be coming until our operation begins early next week.']
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps this is a related question in that it involves the Unemployment Insurance Commission. During the debate on the Unemployment Insurance Commission the minister continually advised the House that the plan was actuarially sound and he staked his reputation on that. I ask the minister whether, now that he has had an opportunity to review the facts, particularly in the last week, he can in fact now state that the plan is actuarially sound?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I will explain it again and I will be glad to stake my reputation on my statement.


Some hon. Members:: Yes or no?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The difference between the payments made to the unfortunate people of Canada who are not working and the revenue received from employers and employees comes from two sources. I will be very short, Mr. Speaker. It comes from weekly contributions from employers and employees with the balance coming from the consolidated revenue fund. So for the first time in history the plan is actuarially sound and, unlike 1961, will not need another blood transfusion.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact the minister indicated to the Canadian people that the government was unconcerned about the . cost of this plan and only concerned about whether the unemployed got their cheques, is the minister now in a position to say how sorry he is for having made such a stupid statement?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



Mr.   Georges-C. Lachance@Lafontaine: Mr. Speaker, taking part in this question period is excellent training for the next Olympic games.
I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs concerning the problem of Ugandese refugees. Could he tell us whether he intends to draw it to the attention of the United Nations, since I feel that it is a matter which does not affect only the member countries of the Commonwealth?
September 1, 1972


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I expect that during my intervention in the General Assembly debate I will be referring to this and other questions that affect human rights. This is one of the principal concerns of the Canadian government, and I know I will be speaking for everyone in the House in raising these questions at that time.


Mr.   Georges-C. Lachance@Lafontaine: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question in order to know whether steps have been taken concerning the transport of those Asiatic refugees to Canada, as there is apparently a transport problem. Could the minister or the minister responsible for immigration tell us how many persons up to now have been accepted as immigrants to Canada?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, there is an advance party from the Department of Immigration in Uganda setting up headquarters and having local support staff. This advance party is mainly from Beirut and is being supplemented from Europe. It is very difficult to estimate the precise number of people that will be coming until our operation begins early next week.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I want to return to a previous question. In view of the fact that rising food prices represent the most serious consumer problem facing thousands of Canadians, has the minister any plans in hand for protecting the consumers of this country, particularly those in the low income group?


Robert Knight Andras: Based on the evidence we have at the present time, much of the increase in food prices is due to shortages, crop failures, bad weather-


An hon. Member:: And lousy government.


Robert Knight Andras: -as well as shortages of imported foods and many other things of that nature. While it may distress members of the opposition to face these facts and base a response upon them, I simply say that is the evidence we have now, and I do not think price and wage controls, as my colleague the Minister of Finance indicated, would be the answer.
Inquiries of the Ministry


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary to follow up my earlier question concerning whether or not the minister had contacted the important food distributors in this country to see if they would take concerted action to keep the lid on rising food prices. Has he now got this under consideration, realizing the psychology involved and the important pattern that might be set here by the major food distributors?


Robert Knight Andras: I do not think I can add anything to my previous comment.



ACTION TO MEET PROBLEM OF FOOD COSTS IN YUKON AND NORTHWEST TERRITORIES

['Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the minister, but I think I should remind hon. members that we will be coming to the end of the question period shortly. I am anxious to recognize as many members as possible and I seek the co-operation of hon. members in limiting the number of supplementaries and of ministers in limiting the length of their answers. The hon. member for Halifax-East Hants.']
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the minister. What action is his department taking to meet the specific and serious problem of food costs in the Yukon and Northwest Territories where costs are approximately 25 per cent to 35 per cent higher than the national average?


Robert Knight Andras: As I indicated to the hon. member before the recess earlier this year, this matter is under investigation. I will be glad to report to him when I have the full results of our probing into that situation.



Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and welcome him back from his eastern approach. Can the minister advise whether the Canadian government has communicated directly with the government and authorities in Uganda in reference to the racist repression in that country which surely has no place in what is properly called a colour-blind commonwealth?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as the House will remember, the Prime Minister of Canada issued a statement at the time. He said that Canada should accept some of the refugees, the Asians who are being expelled from Uganda. In his statement he criticized the government of Uganda and hoped at that time, as I had expressed earlier, that they would change their policy. That is still our hope, but we cannot of course rely upon that and therefore I am sure I have the support of the hon. gentleman in welcoming some Ugandans to Canada.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I assure the minister he has our support in that. Has the government communicated directly with the government of Uganda on the matter apart from press releases and projected speeches at the United Nations?

September 1, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I should point out to the hon. gentleman that if we hope to get the co-operation of the Ugandan government in the issuance of exit visas and otherwise helping in the transfer to Canada of those people who are being expelled, it would be well not to exacerbate relations between our two governments.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I think my supplementary is more appropriately addressed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. If a substantial number of immigrants from Uganda are admitted, will any steps be taken to see that they are not concentrated in any one area of Canada but are spread throughout Canada generally?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, it is to their advantage to know of the attractions in all parts of this great nation and not to congregate in a ghetto-like situation in some part of the country. In this vein we shall try to encourage them to settle in or at least become acquainted with Canada in its entirety through educational films, and so on. But once having admitted these people we do not want to relegate them to a special status and say that they must do this or that. 1 am confident that they will make very good Canadians once they are here, and the best we can do is give them every assistance and hope-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the minister, but I think I should remind hon. members that we will be coming to the end of the question period shortly. I am anxious to recognize as many members as possible and I seek the co-operation of hon. members in limiting the number of supplementaries and of ministers in limiting the length of their answers. The hon. member for Halifax-East Hants.



SHIPPING


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. I will not ask any supplementaries. I am addressing it to him since the subject matter involves several departments. Will he direct his ministers to ensure that Commonwealth ships engaged in the coastal trade of Canada obey such Canadian laws as wages, income tax, hours of work, unemployment insurance-in short, all other Canadian laws than the Canada Shipping Act which is being enforced against them mercifully?


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



CANADA-RUSSIAN HOCKEY TOURNAMENT-EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN PLAYERS-REPRESENTATIONS BY PRIME MINISTER TO HOCKEY CANADA

Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to-


Mr. Skoberg:: A supplementary-


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


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Could he tell this House what particular representations he has made in order to bring about a change in the decision of Hockey Canada regarding the exclusion of certain stars from the team which will represent Canada against the USSR?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, these representations have been made publicly to everyone's knowledge. I have written letters to the three organizations concerned: Hockey Canada, the Players Association and the National Hockey League, asking them to put Canada's interest above their concerns.



SHIPPING


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of foreign flag vessels using foreign crews in our coastal waters, which results in the loss of many jobs for Canadians, can the Minister of Transport now advise the House when he will implement the recommendations of the Darling report on coastal shipping concerning this issue?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the Darling report has many particular aspects. I am assuming the member is talking about the rejection of what is commonly referred to as the Commonwealth preference. Last week I invited the four Atlantic provincial premiers, who are in the areas most affected by such an action, to give me their views. As soon as they are received, as well as others, we will make some decision on this matter. But it is not, as I mentioned in the House before, an easy matter to resolve. There are many different points of view concerning the matter, particularly the question of the increase in the cost of living especially for people in eastern Canada.
September 1, 1972



MANPOWER


Mr. lack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Can the minister indicate progress with regard to the announcement of CANMOP, whether he has had co-ordinating meetings with the provinces and whether they will be involved in the over-all program?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Since the basic concept of the new program is maximum input by the provinces, particularly with regard to the social effects of such a program, there has been continuous dialogue at the official stage. With regard to whether there has been any progress, the short answer is yes.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Public Works. In view of the fact the CANMOP program will be going on with local initiative projects, would the minister advise whether federal works projects have been deferred even though moneys have been allocated in the estimates, why they are being deferred, and why there is no co-ordination between the minister and the Minister of Manpower and Immigration?
Hon. ]ean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works): No,
Mr. Speaker. No decision has been taken at the present time either to defer or advance works programs. Each project is looked at and considered on its own merits.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture but in his absence I shall direct it to his parliamentary secretary. In view of the increasing danger to beef sales in Canada, will the minister place an immediate ban on the use of the controversial hormone DBM rather than wait until January of 1973?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I will bring the representation to the attention of the minister. I believe, however, that in the current situation the interests of our beef producers and the long-term interests in assuring markets for their beef were balanced rather neatly in the date that was determined, but as I say I will bring the matter to the attention of the minister.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: If the hormone is dangerous enough to be banned in 1973, why not ban it now so far as the public are concerned?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will appreciate that this is argumentative.
Inquiries of the Ministry MANPOWER



POSSIBLE EFFECT OF STATE OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACCOUNT ON EXTENSION OF LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM TO PROVIDE EMPLOYMENT DURING WINTER

Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact there has been a considerable drain, no matter how the accounting of the financial resources of the Unemployment Insurance Commission is done, will the minister assure the House that this will not interfere with intended plans for dealing with unemployment during the winter months, particularly through extension or improvement of the LIP program? Further, is he in a position now to inform the House whether or not the government intends to go ahead with that program?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I must reiterate that they are separate programs. While unemployment insurance is costing a little more than originally anticipated, this is no embarrassment to the government, and any decision on LIP will be made independent of the unemployment insurance program. We certainly would like to go forward with it on principle. We are ahead on plans by at least a month or two. However, I want to talk to the provinces, and I will probably make a statement on motions next week or the week after.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are at least three members seeking the floor to ask supplementaries and that would bring us to the end of the question period. For the time being the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby for one supplementary.


John Edward Broadbent: In view of the fact that winter is not far away, can the minister inform the House whether he has consulted with the provinces, or any number of them, and has he obtained agreement with the provinces on some intended program?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, we have consulted with the provinces, in the sense of reviewing last year's successful experiment, to see what criteria would be suitable for the programs of this coming winter if we go ahead with this type of project.
* At *



HARBOURS


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Can he say whether any recommendation has been transmitted to his department from the National Harbours Board or any other source concerning a very necessary dredging program at the port of Churchill?

September 1, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Representatives of the National Harbours Board attended a seminar held at Churchill, which the hon. member also may have attended, met subsequently with representatives of the government of Manitoba, and within the last week presented me with a summary of the findings of the seminar, together with certain recommendations which are now being examined to determine their feasibility.


Robert Simpson: Can the minister say whether at this time plans are being considered for this necessary dredging project?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. That is one of the matters that was included in the suggestions, and we are trying to determine whether it is practical to do what is suggested.



AIRPORTS


Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In light of his welcome answer yesterday to my question regarding a special inquiry respecting the airport site at Pickering, would the minister indicate to the House whether this board will be given the power to make recommendations to the government and whether its report will be made public?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: In
both cases the answer is yes, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Norman Augustine Cafik: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister indicate whether those whose land will be expropriated prior to that hearing taking place will have the option of repurchasing their property in the event that the project does not proceed?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That question is obviously hypothetical.


Norman Augustine Cafik: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I realize that in technical terms it is a hypothetical question, but it is not a hypothetical problem because many people need to know right now what the government's position is going to be in order to make intelligent decisions on how they will dispose of their property.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Wellington.



WELFARE


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact that thousands of unemployed Canadians have had to wait for their benefits, thereby making it necessary for them to go to welfare offices for subsistence, is it the intention of the government to reimburse the provinces for this added welfare expense?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, the act provides precisely for that. The hon. gentleman, who is very close to this particular matter because of his concern about spending, will be pleased to know that despite higher unemployment in the greater Toronto area the number of people receiving welfare has dropped by at least 4,000 as a result of receiving increased benefits through the Unemployment Insurance Commission.



MANPOWER


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and is supplementary to one asked earlier by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby. In light of the fact that the Local Initiatives Program is to terminate on September 30, can the minister assure the participants in that program that there will be no gap between the termination of LIP and any new program he may announce, or the continuation of LIP?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, we are reviewing the programs that were extended this summer, particularly because I share the general principle that the young man has enunciated, but some of the programs have not met the criteria that were set out in June. I would imagine there could be a possibility that 50 per cent of them might be extended for an indefinite period, but that would be based strictly on quality and whether or not they have deviated from their original intent.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Can the minister give us any indication of when he will be making that decision and making an announcement as to the future of these projects?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: At the earliest opportunity next week on motions, Mr. Speaker.
September 1, 1972



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question lor the hon. Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Since many computer errors have compelled Unemployment Insurance Commission officials in Montreal to send their files to Ottawa for analysis purposes, would the minister indicate whether the errors of this faulty system which caused a number of persons to wait up to three months, will entitle them to the payment of interest on their additional benefits?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has the same right as any other hon. member. If he has specific cases he should bring them to my attention. There was a recent review of complaints from hon. members, but I do not believe there has been one from the hon. member's office for many weeks.



CANADIAN TRANSPORT COMMISSION


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Is preference being given to the appointment of a westerner to head the Canadian Transport Commission?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: The
whole matter is under review, Mr. Speaker.



FISHERIES


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the constant monthly decline in the over-all catch of groundfish by Canadian fishermen because of overfishing by foreign nationals on our continental shelf, has the minister held any recent discussions on this thorny problem with his counterparts in the countries concerned? Would he also indicate whether an agenda has been agreed upon and a date set for the United Nations Law of the Sea Conference which has been proposed for 1973?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think the first part of the question could probably be better answered by the Minister of Fisheries. With respect to the proposed Law of the Sea Conference in 1973, it is still our objective to have one in
Inquiries of the Ministry
1973 and at various international bodies we have been working in this direction. Currently an agenda for this conference is being worked out, partly, and I think even mainly, as a result of initiatives taken by Canada.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. When will he be publishing the report of the conciliation board dealing with the dispute between Canada Steamship Lines and the Brotherhood of Railway, Steamship and Airline Clerks, which I understand he received several weeks ago?


Hon. Martin P. O'Connell (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I think that report was published earlier this week.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day. I have to apologize to hon. members. We have run a few minutes beyond the question period. I appreciate that a number of members are still anxious to ask questions, but I would think that in view of the circumstances hon. members would expect the Chair to call orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration in committee of Bill C-231, to provide for the resumption and continuation of longshoring and grain handling operations and operations related to longshoring or grain handling at ports on the west coast of Canada-Mr. O'Connell-Mr. Honey in the chair.
On Clause 8-Termination.
The Chairman:: When the House rose last evening clause 8 of the bill was under consideration with an amendment proposed by the hon. member for Moose Jaw as follows: That clause 8, Part II, be amended by changing the period at the end thereof to a comma and by adding immediately thereafter the following words:
"provided however that before December 31, 1972, the government shall initiate a study under the Inquiries Act into the possibility of separating grain from general cargo, such grain to be handled by the Canadian Wheat Board."
Is the committee ready for the question on the amendment?

September 1, 1972
West Coast Ports Operations Bill


Mr. Horner:: Mr. Chairman, before we proceed, I wonder whether you intend to rule whether this amendment is in order. It appears to me to be a substantive amendment which is out of order. I wonder if you have ruled or will rule whether it is in order.


Some hon. Members:: He accepted it.


Russell Clayton Honey: I have discussed this with my colleague who was in the chair at the time, and it is my understanding that the amendment is before the committee. At this particular point, my position is that the committee will have to decide on the amendment.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Chairman, I should like to put the position of our party before you. Although I am very impressed with the intent of my friend's amendment, and I say this with all due respect, perhaps if there had not been all the excitement which occurred last night the Chair might have seen that this is a substantive amendment. It certainly negates the intent of clause 8.1 think we are here primarily to deal with the strike as it exists in the province of British Columbia and to get the men back to work in order that the grain handlers may also pursue their vocation.
I have every sympathy with the hon. member for Moose Jaw who on August 31 at page 3929 of Hansard said:
We recognize the importance of this situation, and this amendment would require that some consideration be given to the setting up of a study to determine a better method of moving grain out of the country.
With the interest that my friend has in this matter, Mr. Chairman, surely after giving this some profound deliberation he must know-


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member for interrupting him, but the Chair has some difficulty hearing him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Russell Clayton Honey: I appreciate the hon. members have things to discuss, but I would ask that they move behind the curtains so that the committee may proceed.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased that you admonished members of the House, but it should be pointed out that the members admonished are to the right of the chair. We are now dealing with their bill but they have no interest in it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The only thing they can do is chat and try to figure out when the election will be called.
Mr. Chairman, I shall not pursue this matter any further, except to say that I think this amendment goes far beyond what we are supposed to be deeding with. If this is true, and I believe it is, notwithstanding what occurred last night with respect to the ruling of the Chair, we in this party will not vote for the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Moose Jaw.


Some hon. Members:: Question.
[The Chairman.]


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, not having had a ruling from you, I assume that you agree the amendment is in order.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. With respect I think the hon. member for Crowfoot will agree that when he asked me the question when the committee resumed this morning, I said the amendment was before the committee. At this particular point, I do not think it would be helpful to go back and consider whether the amendment is in order. The fact is that the amendment is before the committee and that is the ruling I made. It is before the committee and that is the fact on which the committee must proceed.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, I do not like to get involved in points of order or rules, but I think it would facilitate my understanding, and maybe that of the committee, if the Chair would advise whether he is prepared to listen to argument for or against the amendment, whether or not it is in order and whether I may make a speech on unions in general. This is my difficulty. I do not know whether to debate the amendment from the point of view that it is out of order, as I believe it to be. If the Chair is ruling that the amendment is in order, I want to make a speech on unions. I have many thoughts on unions and this would be an appropriate time to put them forward. In this particular instance, the grain handlers and the longshoremen's union were prepared to move grain until the head of the union said "No, grain gets no special treatment-all commodities are stopped". Where is the head of the union? He is in Los Angeles. I believe the international head of the longshoremen's union is in Los Angeles. The party to my left supports these unions and thrives on them, but they do not seem to acknowledge the fact that the head of this union deliberately prohibited the grain handlers in the longshoremen's union from going to work and handling the grain which this legislation is brought before Parliament to direct them to do. I have many more thoughts on unions which I should like to put forward, and if the Chair is not going to make a ruling I am prepared to make a speech on the matter.
I see that the Chair is not prepared to make a ruling and therefore I shall say a few more words with respect to unions and this amendment. The hon. member for Moose Jaw moved this amendment purely and simply for political gain so that he may return to his farmers saying that he was on the side of right and that he moved an amendment.


John Leroy Skoberg: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman-


Russell Clayton Honey: The hon. member for Moose Jaw rises on a point of order.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Chairman, I respectfully suggest that we are dealing with an amendment that has nothing to do with organized labour or unions whatsoever. We are not dealing with international or national unions. I believe that when a member stands in this House and says that directions have been given from outside this country with regard to this tie-up, he should be able to produce evidence to support his contention. I do not think it is proper that any member should be put in this position when he moves an amendment that has nothing to do with the topic that the hon. member is discussing at this time.
September 1, 1972


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. I think the point that the hon. member raises is really a matter of argument. The hon. member for Crowfoot may argue one way and the hon. member for Moose Jaw may argue another way. The hon. member for Crowfoot.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, what about the rule of relevancy? What about the rule on the expenditure of money? This amendment could cause the expenditure of money and such an amendment is only supposed to be moved by a member of the Cabinet. In any case, I notice that there is some general opinion that the House is ready to vote on this motion so I will not hold it up for more than about another two minutes.
The hon. member for Moose Jaw suggests that what I said about the head of the international union is false or wrong. If I had known he was such a doubting Thomas, I would have brought some newspaper clippings with me. On August 11, the beginning of the strike, the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board said there was no worry, no strike and the grain handlers in the International Longshoremens Union would continue to work. The grain handlers intended to continue moving grain, but the head of the International Longshoremens Union, whose head office is in Los Angeles, stated quite categorically that he would not allow them to move Canadian grain. Perhaps he wanted more traffic to move through the port of Seattle which is south of Vancouver. Perhaps that is what motivated him. I really do not know.
It is high time that we examined the whole question of unions. This legislation deals with two international unions, one with its head office in Chicago and the other with its head office in Los Angeles. They control the economy of a great part of western Canada. If this amendment is in order, surely the government will accept it, set up the inquiry and decide whether Canada could have its own union which would have a responsibility to the economy of Canada and not to some foreign empire builders who control the unions. I believe that this amendment is out of order, but as Your Honour has ruled it to be in order, I am prepared to vote for it.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Chairman, in view of the type of discussion that went on last night and this morning, perhaps I should explain a little more what this amendment is all about. I wish to ask the minister to clarify the actions which the government has taken and also what action the Canadian Grains Council has taken with regard to settling some of these long-term disputes at the ports between management and labour.
It was interesting to listen to the labour spokesman for the official opposition, the hon. member for Hamilton West, dealing with the strike which exists in British Columbia today. Surely, this committee is concerned with the long-term effects of all strike. Surely we can make suggestions and amendments to take care of the long time, situation that exists. All this amendment does is set a deadline as to when this government should take action
West Coast Ports Operations Bill
or initiate an inquiry. This type of action should be supported by every member of this House in order to clarify some of the problems that exist.
I wish to refer to three areas where the longshoremen have come up with separate agreements and separate contracts to look after situations on the west coast. I refer to the Burlington Northern, the National Harbours Board and Roberts Bank. They are working in Roberts Bank today. If grain were taken out of the general cargo classification, there is no question but that grain would be moving through that terminal.
There are many areas of dispute about which management, particularly the elevator operators at the port of Vancouver, have no concern. If the hon. member for Crowfoot is going to make an accusation about who wanted to unload the cargo, I suggest that he do a little more homework. The people from the hiring and despatch hall are not the ones who say what cargo will be loaded and from where. It is disgraceful for a member of this House to attack unions without looking at the entire picture.
A grain group was set up by the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. Surely, this group should have looked at the overall problem. It is the responsibility of the Minister of Labour or the minister in charge of the wheat board to tell this House whether they are, in fact, looking at a long-term solution. The minister of Labour is not listening. Maybe I had better wait a minute. Can the minister inform this House whether the whole area of taking grain out of general cargoes, as was the case when other commodities were taken out of master agreements, has been considered in the light of the discussions we had last evening and this morning?
All the amendment does is ask the government to initiate an inquiry. It does not direct how the inquiry should be undertaken. We cannot expect the people engaged in this industry to worry about public sentiment and so on. They have to know where they stand. We cannot be expected to pass legislation which compels people to return to work when there is more than one side to the picture. The press invariably gives attention to the union and not the employer or the government. The government may have an answer as to why an inquiry should not be instituted and why grain should not be taken out of general cargo. I would appreciate some response from the minister. Perhaps the government has already done this. If so, I will withdraw my motion.
I cannot understand why anyone in this House would not support an amendment such as this. I was amazed to hear the hon. member for Crowfoot say today that he cannot support the amendment when last night he said he would support it. It seems strange that we cannot resolve some of the differences that have been in question for years and years with no foreseeable solution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. O'Connell:: With all respect, Mr. Chairman, I believe that this bill, which is designed to bring about the resumption of operations in the ports on the west coast, is not the place to introduce an amendment concerning the longterm problem of grain handling at those ports. This is to resume operations at those ports.

September 1, 1972
West Coast Ports Operations Bill
As the amendment is available for us to discuss, I want to say that I have been giving consideration to, and I have been discussing with many members of the International Longshoremens Union in Vancouver, the whole question of grain handling. I am not in a position to make any commitment that an industrial inquiry or a study under the Inquiries Act, as was proposed, will be undertaken by the government. I can say that there are unsatisfactory conditions with respect to the handling of grain. I am going to give continuing consideration to the question of whether a study or an inquiry would be appropriate. I have held discussions with some of my colleagues on the subject.


Russell Clayton Honey: Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Russell Clayton Honey: The Chair has already read the amendment. Shall I read it now or dispense?


Some hon. Members:: Dispense.


Russell Clayton Honey: The question is on the amendment in the name of the hon. member for Moose Jaw. All those in favour will please rise.


Some hon. Members:: Order! Out!


Russell Clayton Honey: Hon. members know that when the question is put they should not enter the chamber. I trust everyone will observe that rule. We shall proceed with the vote.
Amendment (Mr. Skoberg) negatived: yeas, 16; nays, 81.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Before clause 8 carries, I should like to point out that I have put down amendments to clauses 8 and 14 which are substantially the same as my amendment to clause 5 seeking to change the date upon which this measure would expire.
I do not intend to move these amendments to clause 8 or to clause 14, since the amendment to clause 5 was defeated by the committee. However, I cannot allow this clause to pass without cautioning the government once again. The present termination date, December 31, 1972, allows too short a period for the act to become effective, particularly bearing in mind the election which is in the offing and the fact that the date the government has chosen coincides with the festive season. Negotiations which have been in progress since November last year can scarcely be expected to be concluded by January 1, 1973. If they are not, I want the government to remember well that it was cautioned, that it was advised that the date on which this legislation is to expire is premature. The government is certainly expecting too much, and may be in trouble in
1973.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 9 agreed to.
On clause 10-Grain handling operations to be resumed.
John Leroy Skoberg: The minister might be able to tell us now why grain handling and related operations are covered by

the bill before us. I realize he referred briefly to this matter yesterday. But is he aware that difficulties have arisen on the coast because management is refusing to live up to the old agreement, or to follow the agreement procedures? It might shorten discussion of the subject, indeed, there might not be need for any discussion of these items, if the minister would deal with points which are of concern to everyone in this chamber.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: We must bear in mind that there are two disputes affecting the handling of grain. One of them affects more than just the handling of grain; it involves the loading and unloading of general cargo throughout all the ports. However, there is a dispute between the five elevator companies and their employees, some 500 men who belong to the International Union of Brewery, Flour, Cereal, Soft Drink and Distillery Workers of America. They are the grain handlers. This dispute has been the subject of conciliation proceedings. It has been the subject matter before a conciliation board. The collective agreement expired almost ten months ago and the union and the companies have gone through all the required procedures.
As of a few days ago a strike or lockout position exists. The president of the union, Mr. Henry Kanes is here and I have had a number of discussions with him. He has made representations concerning the problems which have been encountered in connection with grain handling. I think the union has taken an extremely responsible position throughout this dispute. He is anxious to get an agreement. The conciliation board has reported to me in a majority report approved by the chairman and the union nominee, the elevator companies dissenting. Since that time, of course, grain handling has been virtually at a standstill because of the longshore dispute. Sixty-five or more longshoremen are required to participate in the handling of grain. The 500 or so grain handlers are the main body of the employees in the grain handling business. Some of them are still working, but many have been laid off as a result of the longshore dispute. Those who are still employed are required to carry out general maintenance and other work in the grain elevators.
The difficulty which might confront us is this: when the legislation before us is passed, and Part I is in force and port operations resume, unless a new agreement is not reached in this other dispute, grain handling operations would once again be shut down if a strike were to be called or a lock-out put into effect. This is the practical dilemma which faces us at present when we are taking the responsibility of asking parliament to order a resumption of operations while negotiations continue with the longshoremen. We have sought to handle this practical dilemma in the following way: we would proclaim Part II with respect to the second dispute only if and when necessary. In the meantime, continuous efforts are being made on an urgent basis to bring these two parties to an agreement. Little separates the two parties. Unlike the longshore dispute where very little serious negotiation has taken place, many months have been spent in very serious discussion in this case, and a conciliation board has been able to bring in a set of recommendations which leave the parties very close together. The distance separating them is, in fact, so slight that one would expect that through addi-
September 1, 1972

tional mediation efforts the gap could be closed without there being any necessity for us to proclaim Part II. I must point out that those people are in a different situation but potentially in a very serious one from the point of view of parliament.


Mr. Baldwin:: I would like to ask the minister a question. It will not be very long and it is one which concerns all western members in particular. I do not suggest that it does not concern everybody else. In light of the fact the Prime Minister indicated that the reason for summoning parliament to pass this bill was particularly directed at the question of the need for Canada to meet her contractual obligations in regard to transportation and shipment of grain, having in mind what the minister has now said and having in mind the contents of the bill, having in mind the minister's knowledge through his department officials of the current state of a great many possible or potential industrial disputes which might affect the subject matter of our debate, and having in mind that very likely we are now at the threshold of an election which may mean that parliament might not be called until next January, is the minister able to give an undertaking that with the passage of this bill there will not be any industrial disputes which will interfere with the transportation and shipment of grain to meet our contractual obligations?


Martin Patrick O'Connell: I do not think I can give any advance commitment of that kind. If that situation arose on the west coast ports, we have taken the precaution of inserting Part II and we would proclaim Part II. If that was the question then that is the answer. Part II may be proclaimed by order in council at any time if this act is passed.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: May I ask the minister whether or not the provisions in the labour code adopted last spring, if proclaimed, would enable the government to deal with any lockout or walkout during the period following the dissolution of the House and prior to the return of the writ?


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Mr. Chairman, the proclamation of the new Part V, if I may call it that, would put the government in a position by order in council to postpone any dispute, the right to a strike having been earned in a period after the dissolution of parliament. But we should be clear that in the case of which we are thinking, that is the problem on the west coast, those strike rights have been acquired prior to dissolution and the government is not in a position to override the provisions of the legislation. The dissolution has to take place and then any seven day running period after which the rights are acquired must expire.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Is it the intention of the government to proclaim Part V of the labour code?


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Yes, Mr. Chairman, it is the intention to proclaim Part V. There is the question of time. I want to insist-and I am sure you would expect me to do so-that Part V should be launched in a proper way so that the new board may be in a position to operate it. We should not launch it simply to do something in an election period, if indeed one occurs. We should launch it when the new
West Coast Ports Operations Bill
board is selected, and we are well advanced into doing that. But it would surely be a very bad beginning to hasten the proclamation of a bill simply to deal with a contingency that might or might not arise and for the sake of a provision that has never been there before. I expect that the proclamation can take place relatively soon.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Chairman, the answer given by the Minister of Labour a while ago still does not solve some of the problems that I can see coming up. I should like to ask him directly whether or not the grain handlers now affected have any contract whatsoever, and can the grain elevator companies do as they desire with the people who are employed by them. In other words, will the minister introduce any provision that the old agreement shall be in effect until the new agreement is signed?
The second question which I should like to put is whether or not the elevator companies at one time accepted the recommendation of the conciliation board report which the union people accepted by a 63 per cent vote, and did those companies then go back on their word and offer five cents less an hour?
Third, I wonder whether or not the elevator companies are holding up to ransom the government of Canada by asking for an increase of half a cent a bushel which would mean about $2 million a year increase in their incomes, and are they using this means of political interference to obtain that half a cent a bushel?
These are the questions to which we want.an answer from the minister because we have seen reports going out that the elevator companies were at one time quite prepared to do something, but if they accepted at one time the report of the conciliation board and then went back on their word, we should be informed of this. It is high time that we found out whether or not this is correct.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: With regard to the first question, the existing agreement would be extended for up to four months if and when a proclamation brings the part into force, but prior to the proclamation we are doing nothing here which would extend the existing agreement. If we did that, we would in effect be saying that an emergency exists with respect to grain handlers when in fact it does not exist. It exists in the longshoremen's dispute which has closed down the ports. The grain handlers are not on strike and there is no lockout. They may have grievances. I have been hearing of some of them from the president of the union whom I met several times yesterday, but those grievances do not constitute the emergency with which we are dealing.
The hon. member asked a second question. All I can say on that is that the mediation which we will launch immediately will hopefully close a gap which may exist in wages, in shift premiums and in any other matters, particularly in the health and welfare plans.
As to the third question, I do not want to enter into that as Minister of Labour-that is the role of the mediators. They have to discover whether there is any evidence of the companies pressuring governments. That suggestion was made by the hon. member. I have no evidence of that and it would be sheer speculation on my part to pursue that line any further.

September 1, 1972
West Coast Ports Operations Bill


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Chairman, this matter must be clarified in the House if we are to act responsibly. We hear this government talk about industrial peace. As far as I can see, we do not know whether the old agreement will be in effect until the new agreement is signed. By not proclaiming this section of the bill what we are saying to those people is that they should go on strike, because they will have to go on strike before this government sees any necessity to proclaim Part II of the bill. Through you, Mr. Chairman, I sincerely urge the minister to give some protection to the working people of Canada, as well as to the employers if they need it, so far as lockouts may be concerned.
If we do not give some protection to those people out there we will deliberately frustrate the intent of the labour bill we discussed earlier this year. We talked about the preamble in that bill and what we were going to do for the people, but we know now that they will be working without a contract until the declaration of a strike. Surely, this parliament could include a clause which would ensure that the old agreement will be in effect. Surely, we could do that much if we expect any consideration whatsoever. If we do not do that I feel confident that these people on the west coast will say to hell with this government and any legislation it may pass. This is the type of thing that brings about industrial conflict and confrontation, and that is not what we want in Canada.
What is wrong with a simple amendment introduced by the government that will leave the old agreement in effect? Who are we trying to protect? I cannot understand a situation in which we cannot do anything that will protect all the parties at the same time. I am bothered when it is suggested that this clause will not be proclaimed until something happens. There is the suggestion that this may occur, but I suggest that the Alberta Wheat Pool and the UGG agreed to the amount of money involved in the conciliation board report. They are now backtracking because these companies thought they could get off the hook by letting the government bring in legislation. I do not think this House should be blackmailed into a position along those lines. That is not why we were called back here.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Mr. Chairman, I do not disagree with the objectives for which the hon. member for Moose Jaw is reaching. I would simply ask him whether he has considered the effect of his proposal on the rights of the parties, particularly the union, to exercise influence on the elevator companies and vice versa by extending the agreement? The whole scheme of the labour code is to allow the parties to come to the point where they may exert their strength on each other. We have taken the precaution but we would not want to remove the right of the union at this time to exert its economic powers, nor would we want to remove it from the companies. We are in agreement in respect of the search for justice, but there is this question involving the immediate removal of those rights.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Chairman, I have just one last question. I see I am not getting through to the minister. Perhaps I am not making myself clear. I would be the last one to take away the right of these individuals to exercise

their economic power in a democratic society. At the same time, I do not think it is right that we should pass legislation which is there to be used in a so-called crisis, particularly when a so-called crisis can only come about when they do use their economic power to go on strike. At that time the government will proclaim this part of the measure. What I am asking is whether, in fact, the grain elevator companies in Vancouver can do what they want with their employees. Is there anything binding them to a recognition of the rights of the individual workers at that port? If there is not then we are doing a disservice to the workers all across Canada.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Mr. Chairman, we expect that the distance between these two parties is so slight that, with the results of this conciliation board report now being available and public, and with the additional mediation we are proposing to put into effect at once, we expect the dispute will come to a satisfactory conclusion.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, the minister is missing the very important point the hon. member for Moose Jaw is making. He is not asking the minister about settling the dispute. There was a collective agreement between the parties and its termination was last November. The parties negotiated and went through conciliation procedure. By the operation of the law that collective agreement continued in force during that period. The conciliation procedure is now over and the operation of the law is no longer applicable as far as the life of that agreement is concerned. The result is, according to the employees of the union involved, that the employer is saying there is no longer any collective agreement, we are not going to consider any of your grievances and we are going to ignore other provisions of the agreement in respect of seniority and other things.
The vice-president of the local union, the chairman of the committee to whom there has been reference, informed the hon. member for Moose Jaw in a call he received very early this morning that this is what the employers are doing. What the hon. member for Moose Jaw is asking the minister to do is to take some steps to protect the employees. My colleague may want this done by way of amendment to this bill. I hope he does not mind if I say that whether it is done by amendment to the bill or by a declaration here by the minister that the employer ought to observe the collective agreement that was in force until conciliation proceedings were over does not matter. Perhaps he would undertake right now to do this and, instead of saying he will appoint a mediator as soon as possible, he will say a mediator will be appointed just as soon as he has finished his job in this Chamber and that the mediator will be at work tomorrow so as to get an agreement between the parties. It is that kind of thing for which the hon. member for Moose Jaw is asking. Not only the people involved but everybody who is concerned with decent labour-management relations ought to be grateful to the member for Moose Jaw for having raised this point as emphatically as he has. The minister does not answer the problem at all when he talks merely about settling the dispute eventually, and that is the problem he ought to consider.
September 1, 1972


Mr. Gleave:: Mr. Chairman, a few minutes ago the minister made the point that he did not want to interfere with the bargaining process but wanted to leave the parties to the dispute in a position to follow the normal process of bargaining. I suggest that by virtue of the inclusion of this clause, which can be brought in by proclamation, the parties to the dispute are no longer equal. This is what the hon. member for Moose Jaw is trying to get across. He suggests that fact should be considered here. I think the minister should deal with this either by amendment to the bill or by verbally assuring those of us who are being asked to agree to this measure that fairness and equity will be assured to both parties to the dispute, that the one party which will be weaker by virtue of this measure will not have to resort to desperate action. That is the question being raised by the hon. member.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, the minister talked earlier about the unanimous conciliation board report. Could he enlighten the House and the country on the basic wage increase recommended to the companies? I do not want the dollars and cents, but could he give us the percentage? It seems to me that these agreements come up for renegotiation too often. Will this agreement be for a longer period than usual? The minister indicates it will be for two years. Why cannot that be stretched out a little longer so we will not have confrontations and hold-ups in the grain movement as often? Was there any thought given to this?


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Mr. Chairman, if my memory is correct the majority report of the conciliation board was for 40 cents in each of two years.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: What percentage is that?


Martin Patrick O'Connell: I would have to guess. It is probably 8 per cent.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Is it not 10 per cent?


Martin Patrick O'Connell: The average is probably $5 and 40 cents is 8 per cent. I may not be right on that.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 11 agreed to.
On Clause 12-Strikes and lockouts prohibited.
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I rise on a point of information, Mr. Chairman. This is a technical objection. I notice a similar clause appeared in Bill C-230 as clause 6. I know the minister does not have that bill before him. It was in reference to the Montreal strike. Clause 6(a) provided that "no employer shall declare or cause a lockout". I notice in this bill the word "employer" is not used. Rather it states that no company shall declare or cause a lockout. I am wondering what the difference is and whether there is any reason for the change in the wording. Further, I notice in subclause (b) of clause 6 in Bill C-230 there is the following reference: "no person who is an officer of a union shall declare or authorize a strike". In the present bill the wording is, "no person who is an officer or representative of a union". I wish some clarification.
West Coast Ports Operations Bill


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Mr. Chairman, the explanation is that in the Montreal case there was an employer's association but in the case we are looking at the five elevator companies make five separate agreements. They are referred to here as companies because there is no association through which they operate.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On Clause 13-Company and union to negotiate.
Martin Patrick O'Connell: Mr. Chairman, for the same reason that prompted the moving of an amendment to clause 7 in Part I, I should like to propose that a parallel amendment be now made in Part II to achieve the same objective of retroactivity unless the parties otherwise agree during their negotiations. Therefore I move:
That Clause 13 of Bill C-231 be amended by adding thereto the following subclause:
Terms and conditions of new collective agreements.
"(2) Notwithstanding section 11, the terms and conditions of any collective agreement entered into in amendment or revision of a collective agreement to which this Part applies shall, unless the parties thereto otherwise agree, have effect on and from December 1, 1971.


Russell Clayton Honey: The question is on the amendment to clause 13. Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. O'Connell) agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clause 14 agreed to.
On Clause 15-Mediator.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the minister could give us some information when mediators will be appointed and if he has looked into the situation of whether there is available talent which could be brought into this situation at the earliest possible moment.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Mr. Chairman, we are giving very close attention to that question. I hope to be able to be in a position to move very, very quickly with regard to a mediator.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, would the minister undertake a very simple thing. On the basis of information Mr. Kanes has given him, will he undertake to telephone the employers' counsel immediately he has a moment and express his view as well as the view of the committee concerning their failure to observe the spirit of the agreement which has legally expired and their refusal to deal with the union as if the agreement were still in force which is contrary to the spirit of our entire labour relations law. Would he urge them to start again, since they should never have stopped, to deal with the union instead of being technical, legalistic and mean about it. I am sure that if the minister got on the telephone to these employers and expressed that view, and the concern the union now has about the way the employees are being treated,

September 1, 1972
West Coast Ports Operations Bill
he could do so in the authority of his office. I believe this would be a worthwhile bill in that event.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: As Minister of Labour, I do not want to accept any or all of the allegations which have been made about the employers and any grievances which may have arisen in their relationships with the men, but it was my intention to contact the employers, as I have been in touch with the head of the union, to suggest to them that in the interest of order, stability and the best interest of Canada at this moment, it would be good for them to observe the spirit and the provisions of the collective agreement.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Barnett:: During the period in which this discussion has been going on I have had an opportunity to have a look at the former agreement which has been under discussion. Certainly, there is nothing in that agreement as I read it to indicate that it has any continuing force or effect beyond the period of the opening of negotiations. The minister has given us an assurance, but I believe it would be quite useful, and certainly more satisfactory to some of us-and this could be done I would think quite shortly now as I look at the clock-if before we complete our consideration of this legislation the minister could inform members of this House that the employers involved have stated they will give him that assurance. If the minister could announce to the committee that the employers will regard the agreement as being in effect, and will not go into the question of what the minister calls allegations about what may have been going on, then I think the assurance he has just given us would have real significance. We could then perhaps continue the discussion on this bill without having to go away from here wondering whether, in fact, what has been suggested was a necessary prelude to the agreement continuing in force, namely strike action on the part of the union members which might have to take place in order to put the agreement into practical operation again.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Mr. Chairman, I know we are looking for the same objective, but I do not think I should go that next step and ask for something in writing. It was my intention to be in touch with the employers as soon as this is passed, and I am quite prepared to say I expect that the mediation process will be effective.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Schedule I agreed to.
Schedule II agreed to.
Schedule III agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we could agree to suspend the sitting and return at the call of the Chair after the other place has completed its discussions.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the suggestion made by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) that we rise and return, perhaps after two o'clock or at two o'clock, but I presume it will be some time after two o'clock, at the call of the Chair, is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
SITTING SUSPENDED At 12:55 p.m. the sitting was suspended.



SITTING RESUMED The House resumed at 4.45 p.m.


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill C-231, an act to provide for the resumption and continuation of longshor-ing and grain handling operations and operations related to longshoring or grain handling at ports on the west coast of Canada, without any amendment.



PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received the following communication:
Government House, Ottawa 1 September, 1972 Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Emmett M. Hall, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber at 4.45 p.m. today, the 1st day of September, for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to a bill and proroguing the fourth session of the twenty-eighth parliament of Canada.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
your obedient servant,
Andre Garneau Colonel
Administrative Secretary to the Governor General.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
September 1, 1972
[Stage Direction]
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
In the Senate chamber, the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bill:
Bill C-231, an act to provide for the resumption and continuation of longshoring and grain handling operations and operations related to longshoring or grain handling at ports on the west coast of Canada.

[Stage Direction]
After which the Deputy Governor General was pleased to close the fourth session of the twenty-eighth parliament of Canada with the following speech:
Honourable Members of the Senate:
Members of the House of Commons:
The fourth session of the twenty-eighth Parliament was opened on February 17, 1972. Since that time you have enacted legislation and approved government actions of great importance to the prosperity and well-being of the Canada of to-day and of the future.
During this session, Canadians were honoured by a visit to Ottawa by the President of the United States and were encouraged by this reaffirmation of our traditional friendship with our closest neighbours.
Canada has continued to develop its relationships with all nations, great and small, in all spheres, economic, social, and political.
At home, our economy has continued to grow and has produced new employment at a rate exceeding that of any industrialized nation. During this session you have had placed before you measures designed to stimulate still further the economic growth of our land.
Prorogation of Parliament
In this session you have addressed yourselves to the complexities of the Canadian federal democracy and have approved the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act.
You have also continued your work on behalf of the agricultural community. While the government has expanded our international markets for farm products, Parliament has amended the Farm Credit Act and the Canadian Wheat Board Act.
The social environment of Canada has been of much concern to you during this session. You have enacted amendments to the Criminal Law and the Government has announced its intentions to make more modern its policies on the control of the use of drugs. Both the Opportunities for Youth Program and the Local Initiatives Program have been expanded and continued. The Government has also announced a New Horizons for the aged program. As further support for our older citizens, you have enacted a measure to increase the Old Age Security pensions.
During this session you have also approved two measures to improve the benefits provided for veterans and other persons affected by war.
You have been particularly concerned with the problems of industrialization. You have amended the Canada Labour Code as well as the Adult Occupational Training Act.
You have also been called upon to deal expeditiously with two serious industrial disputes and you have enacted measures to protect the national interest in those incidents.
During this session, both Houses of Parliament have permitted their Committees to continue the important task of reviewing government policy and administration.
Many other important initiatives have been approved. In addition, you have had placed before you measures concerning the national anthem, national parks, fair employment practices, income security, mortgage mechanisms, housing, representation election expenses and many other important matters. In the future Parliament must apply itself with great vigour and diligence to these issues and to others as they develop.
Members of the House of Commons:
I thank you for the provision you have made for the public services in the previous and in the current fiscal year.
Honourable Members of the Senate:
Members of the House of Commons:
May Divine Providence continue to bless our country.
This concluded the fourth session of the twenty-eighth parliament.