1972-06-30

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Third report of Standing Committee on Public Accounts-Mr. Hales.

[Stage Direction]
Second report of Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization-Mr. Blair.
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

[Stage Direction]
On the order: Motions.
June 22,1972-The Prime Minister:
That, when the House adjourns following the Royal Assent on June 30, 1972, it shall stand adjourned until a time fixed by Mr. Speaker, at the request of the Government, when the House may meet for the purpose of the giving of Royal Assent to any bills that have not been given Royal Assent;
And that, after the giving of Royal Assent to any such bills or in the event the House does not meet for that purpose, the House shall be adjourned or stand adjourned, as the case may be, until September 28, 1972, provided that at any time prior to that date, if it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation with the Government, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time during the adjournment, Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice, and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time;
And that, in the event of Mr. Speaker's being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker or the Deputy Chairman of Committees shall act in his stead for all purposes of this order.
Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might rise on a point of order to inform the House that it is not our intention to call this motion at this point in our proceedings. We would like to see it stand for the time being. I have had discussions with the opposition House leaders and I am seeking authority to be in a position to call the motion later in the day at four o'clock. We hope that circumstances will make it possible at that time to call this motion and adjourn at that time.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Mr. Baldwin:: Agreed.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Agreed. Mr. Speaker: It is so ordered.



TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Motions.
June 28,1972-Mr. McKinley:
That the Fourth Report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, presented to the House on Wednesday, June 21,1972, be concurred in.
Mr. Bell:: Mr. Speaker, this motion should stand because of promised government action when we return in the fall.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.


Mr. lerome:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the undertaking I gave the House on Wednesday we have a number of written questions that can be answered today. Therefore I would seek the consent of the House to call written questions at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

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

Mr. McBride: Does the government intend to request that the Chairman of the Unemployment Insurance Commission's Board of Referees request that a person making an appeal against a UIC ruling appear in person more frequently than has been the practice to date in order for the Board of Referees to question the appellant in person and thus arrive at a better informed opinion and a fairer judgment?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Yes, adequate action has been taken in this connection.

June 30, 1972
Questions


ENGLISH LANGUAGE TRAINING COURSE
Mr. Schumacher: 1.	Since the inception of English language training for federal civil servants, to date, by department, how many civil servants have (a) enrolled (b) completed (c) dropped out or failed?
2.	By department, and in each case, what was (a) the nature or type of course (b) the duration of the course (c) where was each class held (d) what was the cost involved?
3.	By department, what position was held by each person enrolled?
4.	What costs were involved for (a) transportation (b) accommodation (c) living expenses (d) wives or families (e) relocation of households?
5.	By department, and in each case, how and for what reasons were candidates for such courses chosen?
6.	By department, and in each case, who was responsible for the selection of candidates?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: 1 have been given the following information by the Public Service Commission. Information is not available to provide an accurate answer to this question and the necessary expert staff is not available to undertake the large amount of work which would be required to gather the necessary information.


FRENCH LANGUAGE TRAINING COURSE
Mr. Schumacher: 1.	Since the inception of French language training for federal civil servants, to date, by department, how many civil servants have (a) enrolled (b) completed (c) dropped out or failed?
2.	By department, and in each case, what was (a) the nature or type of course (b) the duration of the course (c) where was each class held (d) what was the cost involved?
3.	By department, what position was held by each person enrolled?
4.	What costs were involved for (a) transportation (b) accommodation (c) living expenses (d) wives or families (e) relocation of households?
5.	By department, and in each case, how and for what reasons were candidates for such courses chosen?
6.	By department, and in each case, who was responsible for the selection of candidates?


Gérard Pelletier: See reply to question No. 57 answered this day.


GUIDELINES FOR RELEASE OF PRISONERS PRIOR TO RELEASE OF YVES GEOFFROY
Mr. Woolliams: In the Minister's statement in reference to the Yves Geoffroy case, made in the House of Commons on Monday, February 21, he referred to new guide lines to improve the release of prisoners from penitentiaries, what were the former guidelines prior to the release of Yves Geoffroy and his wrongful escape?


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, the reply to this question is rather lengthy. It runs to a couple of pages
[Mr. Mackasey.}
and hon. members might agree that it be tabled and printed in Hansard as if it had been read.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: The reply referred to is as follows]
The former guidelines pertaining to Temporary Absence were based on individual assessment and stemmed from Section 26 of the Penitentiary Act which states:
"Where, in the opinion of the Commissioner or the officer in charge of a penitentiary, it is necessary or desirable that an inmate should be absent, with or without escort, for medical or humanitarian reasons or to assist in the rehabilitation of the inmate, the absence may be authorized from time to time
(a)	by the Commissioner, for an unlimited period for medical reasons and for a period not exceeding fifteen days for humanitarian reasons or to assist in the rehabilitation of the inmate, or
(b)	by the officer in charge, for a period not exceeding fifteen days for medical reasons and for a period not exceeding three days for humanitarian reasons or to assist in the rehabilitation of the inmate."
Factors considered in individual assessments were as follows:
(1)	the inmate has demonstrated by his conduct, industry, attitude and active participation in the training program that he has a sincere desire for self-improvement;
(2)	there is evidence of the existence of good family relationship;
(3)	the conditions at home are such that the granting of the absence will not create a hardship or be too upsetting to the inmate or family;
(4)	the granting of the absence will assist in maintaining and strengthening family relationships;
(5)	the granting of the absence will provide incentive for further self-improvement and rehabilitation, and
(6)	supporting information from a medical practitioner, clergyman or social agency, dependent on the nature of the need shall be obtained whenever possible.


COST OF MAINTENANCE OF INMATES IN FEDERAL INSTITUTIONS, 1971
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What was the average cost of maintaining one inmate during the year 1971 in (a) federal institutions of all types (b) maximum security institutions (c) medium security institutions (d) minimum security institutions (e) farm and work camps?
2.	What is the average cost of parole supervision per parolee for the year 1971?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General):: 1. (a) (i)
Operation and Maintenance, $8,597; (ii) Capital Expenditure, $1,557; Total $10,154. (b) (i) Operation and Maintenance, $9,861; (ii) Capital Expenditure, $2,518*; Total $12,379. (c) (i) Operation and Maintenance $7,290; Capital Expenditure $645; Total $7,935. (d) (i) Operation and Maintenance, $4,642; (ii) Capital Expenditure, $1,340; Total $5,982. (e) Farm and Work Camps are, in fact, classified as minimum security institutions. Accordingly, maintenance costs for inmates of farms and work camps have been included in (d) above.
Amount of this item due mainly to the construction of Regional Reception Centre (Quebec).
June 30,1972

2.	$1,105.
N.B. The above figure includes the cost of maintaining the National Parole Board, the cost of supervision, the cost of communications, travel, training and education, stationery, supplies, administrative support, capital cost, and the cost of revocations and forfeitures, plus the cost of case preparation for those inmates not granted parole.


ALLOWANCES ON INDIAN RESERVES
Mr. Godin: 1.	On Indian reserves, which level of government is responsible for (a) social allowances (b) disability pensions (c) allowances to needy mothers (d) unemployed individuals not eligible for unemployment insurance?
2.	What is the federal contribution to the payment of these allowances?
3.	Are these allowances paid unconditionally and, if not, what is required of the recipients?
4.	What documents must be produced as proof of a person's right to receive these allowances?
5.	In case of fraud, who is in charge of recovering the money?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister oi Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. (a) On Indian reserves the social assistance program is the responsibility of the federal government; (b) and (c) Disability pensions and needy mothers' allowances are the responsibility of provincial governments; (d) Unemployed Indians on reserves not eligible for unemployment insurance are the responsibility of the federal government.
2.	(a) 100 per cent, except in Ontario where in accordance with a federal/provincial Indian welfare agreement, the federal government contributes approximately 95 per cent; (b) and (c) 50 per cent, (d) Same as 2 (a) above.
3.	Each program has its own specific eligibility conditions which are applicable to all recipients (non-Indian or Indian).
4.	(a) An Application for Social Assistance and whatever other documentary evidence the Social Assistance administration may require, having regard to the circumstances of the case, (b) and (c) Not applicable.
5.	(a) Federal government; (b) and (c) Not applicable.
Mr. RAYMOND DENIS


Mr. Coates: 1.	On what date was Raymond Denis sentenced to a term in a federal penitentiary, for what charge and for what term?
2.	On what date did Raymond Denis begin serving his sentence and in what institution?
3.	(a) What was the actual period of time that Mr. Denis served in a federal penitentiary (b) was it all served in the same institution and, if not, what is the breakdown of time served and at what institutions?
4.	Was Mr. Denis released on parole and if so (a) on what date (b) for what period of time (c) has the period of parole now ended?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: By the
Department of the Solicitor General: 1. December 15, 1967; obstructing justice (Section 119(1) CC): two years imprisonment.
Questions
2.	Mr. Denis was held at the Carleton County Jail, Ottawa, pending disposition of his appeal. The appeal was dismissed on January 20, 1969 and Mr. Denis was admitted to St-Vincent-de-Paul Penitentiary on March 19, 1969 to serve his sentence as a federal inmate.
3.	(a) Nine months, (b) (i) St-Vincent-de-Paul Penitentiary, three months and seven days, (ii) Cowansville Institution, five months and twenty-three days.
4.	Yes. (a) December 19, 1969. (b) 397 days, (c) Yes, January 19, 1971.


AGRICULTURE-RELEASE OF ASSISTANCE PROGRAM INFORMATION TO SMALL FARMERS
Mr. Yewchuk: 1.	For each year 1968 to 1970, what amount was expended to inform the farmers living on small farms of the government's policies and its various assistance programs?
2.	How was this government information transmitted to the farmers?
3.	To date, what amount has been spent by the government for distributing information to the farmers on Bill C-244, the Prairie Grain Stabilization Act?


James Alexander Jerome: I am informed by Agriculture Canada and the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board as follows: 1. No information releases are directed exclusively to small farmers nor was any expenditure made in the years in question for information on assistance programs designed specifically for farmers living on small farms.
2.	N/A.
3.	Dissemination of information on the Prairie Grain Stabilization Plan, Bill C-244, by the Department was part of an information package about the over-all Prairie Grains Policy which included eight other programs, either implemented or proposed. The amount spent on this package information program was $135,014.62.


COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE ANIK
Mr. Dinsdale: 
Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister of Communications):: 1.
There are three types of telecommunication services that can be carried on the Anik satellite: (i) telephone and data channels (ii) television program channels (iii) radio program circuits. When the Telesat satellite system is developed to its planned extent about 16,000 people will have access to telephone and data services in the Northwest

June 30, 1972
Questions
Territories. The communities concerned will be primarily in the districts of Keewatin and Franklin where satisfactory telecommunications services do not now exist. Based on 1966 census data, approximately 27,000 or 61 per cent of the population will receive the full, live network TV schedule via the Anik satellite during the first year of operation, as opposed to the limited, four-hour recorded and delayed program package now available to 24,000 or 54 per cent of the population. The gain will thus be significant in terms of greatly increased hours of programming per day for the population now receiving only the recorded television package as well as in terms of the increased population to be reached during the first year. The communities to be served are primarily in the Yukon and the district of Mackenzie in the Northwest Territories. The satellite will not be used in the first year for distribution of CBC radio.
2.	The population presently served in the same areas by existing communication facilities offering comparable telephone and data services to the satellite system is 7,800. About 24,000 of the population, or 54 per cent, now receive the limited four-hour recorded and delayed program package, as explained in answer to part 1 of the question. Radio is now available to approximately 29,300 or 66 per cent of the population, based upon the daytime coverage provided by the signals of existing radio stations.
3.	(a)and (c). The CBC advises that it is their intention to include in the programming made available to northern communities through Anik facilities program materials related to the lives and interests of the people in the north. Some of this will originate within the Territories themselves. The extent to which this will be possible will depend on the production facilities available which will be limited at the outset but which will be enlarged as budgetary conditions in future years permit, (b) The CBC advises that local programs are now available on radio but not on television.
4.	Telesat Canada advises that their system using the Anik satellite will operate throughout Canada, including the north, on a strict economic basis.
5.	Presumably this question concerns the financial administration of the satellite program and it should be addressed to the President of Telesat Canada for reply.
Note: The assumptions used in the answer to the question are as follows: (a) CBC information on television coverage is based on the 1966 census statistics, (b) information on telephone and data services is based on preliminary information supplied by Statistics Canada based on the 1971 census, (c) the CBC has provided information on the population that will receive television services in 1973 while the information on telephone services is based on full development of the thin route system in 1975.


AUDITOR GENERAL
Mr. Guay (St. Boniface): How many days was the Auditor General out of Canada during the year 1970 and also during 1971?


Mr. Judd Buchanan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: 1970, 106; 1971, 54.
[Mr. Stanbury.J


STUDY OF REGIONAL IMPACT OF CANADIAN TARIFF
Mr. Nystrom: Has the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce conducted a study of the regional impact of the Canadian tariff?


Mr. Bruce Howard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry. Trade and Commerce):: No.


REPRESENTATIONS TO FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ON BEHALF OF PAPER PRODUCTION INDUSTRY
Mr. Rodrigue: Has the president of International Pulp and Sulphite made representations to any department asking that no investment be made in Canada during the next ten years in the paper production industry?


James Alexander Jerome: No.


GUIDELINES FOR USE OF GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT DURING ELECTION CAMPAIGNS
Mr. McCleave: Have ethical guidelines been issued by the Prime Minister to other Ministers regarding the practice of ministerial use of government aircraft during an election campaign and, if so, what are
they?


Mr. Barnett J. Danson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, guidelines governing the use of official aircraft by ministers during an election campaign were issued in May 1968 by the Prime Minister, and these still prevail.
Official aircraft may not be used for purposes related to the election campaign. This means not merely that government business must be involved in any such journey, but that official aircraft may be used only when the performance of government business is the sole public purpose of the trip. Therefore, governmental aircraft should not be used in cases where the minister, or party concerned, will be engaging in any public political activities even if the trip also involves some government business.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES BOARD
Mr. Burton: 1.	(a) Who are the members of the Industrial Incentives Advisory Board (b) what is the occupation, employer and principal address of each member?
2.	What remuneration is paid to the members of the Industrial Incentives Advisory Board?
3.	What amount has been paid to date to each member of the Board?
4.	On what date was each member of the Board appointed?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister oi Regional Economic Expansion):: 1. (a) and (b) E. Kendall Cork, Vice-President and Treasurer, Noranda Mines Limited, Toronto; Jack B. Estey, Executive Vice-President, National Sea Products, Halifax; Robert H. Jones, Executive Vice-President, The Investors Group, Winnipeg; M. W. Mackenzie, Chairman and President, New Brunswick Multiplex Corporation, Como, Quebec; Henri Lorrain, Canadian Director and First Vice-President, International Brotherhood of Pulp,
June 30, 1972

Sulphite and Papermill Workers, Montreal; J. D. Love, Deputy Minister, Department of Regional Economic Expansion, Ottawa; T. K. Shoyama, Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Finance, Ottawa; A. G. Kniewasser, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister Industry and Trade Development, Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, Ottawa; J. P. Francis, Assistant Deputy Minister, Planning, Department of Regional Economic Expansion, Ottawa; W. J. Lavigne, Assistant Deputy Minister, Incentives, Department of Regional Economic Expansion, Ottawa.
2.	The members of the Regional Development Incentives Board serve without remuneration.
3.	Travelling and living expenses to February 18, 1972 were paid as follows: E. Kendall Cork, $919.07; J. B. Estey, $1377.14; R. H. Jones, $1466.53; M. W. Mackenzie, $400.00; L. Beaudoin, $176.00 (resigned 1/1/72).
4.	All members of the Board, except Mr. Lorrain, were appointed May 18, 1971. Mr. Lorrain was appointed December 15, 1971.
Questions
1969-	70	543,178.001970-	71	204,162.00Total	$4,116,932.99


BUTTER IMPORTS
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): From April 1, 1971 to March 31, 1972, did Canada import butter and, if so (a) from what countries (b) in what quantities (c) at what price (d) did the Canadian Dairy commission or any other agency import the butter (e) at what price was the butter put on the Canadian market?


James Alexander Jerome: I am informed by Statistics Canada and the Canadian Dairy Commission as follows: (a) Canada imported butter during the period April 1,1971 to March 31, 1972 from New Zealand and the United States, (b) and (c). The quantities and prices of butter imported from April 1, 1971 to March 31, 1972 are shown below:


DEMURRAGE CHARGES
Mr. Korchinski: How much demurrage charges have been paid in the past 20 years as a result of grain loading difficulties?
New Zealand U.S.A.
Quantity	Average Price
(pounds)	per pound
6,800
11,339,300
.50
.52


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Essentially the Canadian Wheat Board becomes responsible for demurrage when stocks of Board grain are insufficient to supply the entire requirements of a vessel at the time of berth allocation of the said vessel or to provide a continuous loading operation. The reasons for such a situation are manifold and, more frequently than not, are the result of physical breakdowns in the movement of grain from the Prairie region, usually as a result of extreme weather conditions. Assuming that the phrase "grain loading difficulties" used in the question is in reference to such circumstances, the following figures indicate the demurrage charges resulting therefrom, and paid by the Wheat Board in each of the last 20 crop years.
Crop Year	Total
1951-52	$ 1,039.92
1952-53	53,833.10
1953-54	855.53
1954-55	71,907.94
1955-56	20,852.91
1956-57	14,085.13
1957-58	Nil
1958-59	387,362.30
1959-60	40.921.10
1960-61	796.15
1961-62	Nil
1962-63	5,698.26
1963-64	7,849.65
1964-65	29,100.00
1965-66	590,636.00
1966-67	423,283.00
1967-68	86,187.00
1968-69	1,635,185.00
11,346,100	.52
(d) The butter from the United States was imported by the Canadian Dairy Commission at an average delivered cost, duty paid, of 66.94 cents per pound, (e) The butter imported by the Canadian Dairy Commission was sold on the Canadian market at the Canadian support price of 68 cents per pound.


FERRY SERVICE BETWEEN TOBERMORY AND SOUTH BAYMOUTH
Mr. Noble: 1.	What were the terms of the proposals made by the Department of Transport to the Government of the Province of Ontario in respect of supplying more efficient ferry service between Tobermory and South Baymouth?
2.	Did the Government of the Province of Ontario make any counter-proposals and, if so, what were the terms?


Mr. Gerard Duquet (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: During the negotiations in connection with the Tobermory-South Baymouth ferry service, a great many proposals and counter-proposals were made by both the federal and Ontario governments. In the end, agreement was reached between the two governments as announced in a press release dated June 6, 1972:
"Under the new agreement the Province of Ontario will be responsible for the financial operation of the service. The agreement calls for the Federal Government to contribute $3 million to the Province of Ontario and to make the usual domestic shipbuilding subsidy for new ferries. The Province will assume the costs for dredging, for building wharfs and terminal facilities and for the construction of new vessels for this service. The Federal Government will continue to own the wharfs and to be responsible for their subsequent upkeep as well as for the maintenance of the channels."

June 30, 1972
Questions


'RELEASE OF PRISONERS SERVING LIFE IMPRISONMENT ON MURDER CHARGES SINCE JANUARY 1, 1971
Mr. Woolliams: 1.	(a) How many prisoners, who were serving life imprisonment on a conviction of murder, have been released or temporarily released from a penitentiary since January 1, 1971 to date (b) how many have failed to return on their own and how many are still at large at the present time (c) what are their names?
2.	Has there been any crime committed by these prisoners who have been so released and what has been the nature of these crimes?


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, again this reply is rather lengthy. I wonder whether it might be tabled and reported in Hansard as if it has been read?


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The reply referred to above follows:]
1.	(a) (i) The number of inmates paroled under authority of the Governor in Council, pursuant to Section 684(3) of the Criminal Code, was 19. (ii) The number of inmates granted the privilege of a temporary leave of absence permit in accordance with Section 26 of the Penitentiary Act was 169. (b) Five. As of May 4, 1972 none is still at large, (c) Mr. Yves Geoffroy, Mr. A. Kendall, Mr. S. J. Sinclair, Mr. R. A. E. Swearngen and Mr. R. Foucher.
2.	Yes. One was charged with escape and his case is still before the Court; one has been charged with being unlawfully at large and is awaiting appearance in Court; one has been charged and convicted for being unlawfully at large; one at large and for robbery; and one was charged and convicted for armed robbery; break, enter and theft; possession of an offensive weapon; being unlawfully at large; theft over $50 and escape from lawful custody.


UNCTAD-GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Mr. Rowland: 1.	Did Canada oppose (a) General Principle Two (b) General Principle Three (c) General Principle Seven (d) General Principle Eight adopted by UNCTAD I and listed in the "final act" of that conference and, if so, for what reasons?
2.	Did Canada abstain from voting on (a) General Principle Four (b) General Principle Five (c) General Principle Eleven (d) General Principle Twelve (e) General Principle Fourteen (f) General Principle Fifteen and, if so, for what reasons?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1 (a) Yes, Canada opposed General Principle Two because it called for the adoption of trading methods to eliminate discrimination based on socio-economic systems. This principle was put forward by the Soviet bloc which sought to eliminate all reference to trade restrictions based on strategic grounds, (b) Yes, Canada opposed General Principle Three regarding the sovereign right of each country freely to trade with other countries and freely to dispose of its natural resources because this right was not qualified by any reference to international law, to agreements freely entered into, or to relevant UNGA resolutions. (c) Yes. While Canada had no difficulty with that section of General Principle Seven which dealt with access to markets, we opposed the concept of stabilization

of commodity prices at artificial levels and the relating of those price levels to those of manufactured goods, (d) Yes. General Principle Eight sought to deal with the application of the most favoured nation principle to the question of tariff preferences for developing countries. At that time Canada was unable to accept this principle. Canada is, of course, among those developed countries which subsequently accepted the Generalized Preference Scheme established at UNCTAD II.
2 (a), (b), (c) and (d). Yes. While often sympathetic to the general tenets of these Principles, Canada could not, at that time, accept the phraseology which was in many cases unbalanced and arbitrary. For example, Principles Fifteen and Four concerned respectively the special needs of the least developed of the developing countries, and the requirement for all nations to pledge themselves to pursue policies designed to accelerate economic growth. The Canadian abstention in both cases reflected difficulty with the uncompromising text rather than disagreement on substance. Delegations of other major trading nations, including Canada, were likewise unable to envisage that national policies could feasibly be directed towards a completely new international division of labour (General Principle Five). Canada, together with other major aid donors, could not accept that there should be no element of discretion in the choice of aid recipients (Principle Eleven), that UNCTAD should prejudge the conclusion of an agreement on general and complete disarmament (Principle Twelve) or the implication that the colonial period had brought no economic benefit to developing countries (Principle Fourteen).


ROYAL VANCOUVER YACHT CLUB
Mr. Lewis: 1.	Does the Royal Vancouver Yacht Club occupy a waterlot in Coal Harbour, Burrard Inlet?
2.	How many square feet does this waterlot comprise?
3.	(a) What is the rental rate per square foot per year for the waterlot occupied by the Royal Vancouver Yacht Club (b) what is the total rental paid by the RVYC per year?
4.	What is the rental rate paid by commercial users for waterlot areas in the vicinity of Coal Harbour, Burrard Inlet, per square foot per year?
5.	When does the lease for the waterlot occupied by the RVYC expire?


Gérard Duquet: The National Harbours Board advises as follows: 1. Yes.
2.	1,291,031.2 square feet.
3.	(a) .0038cent per square foot; (b) nominal rental only established in 1953, $50 per year.
4.	The only commercial leases which the National Harbours Board have in Coal Harbour are for tillable water-lots at an annual rental rate of six cents per square foot. Policy is that permits to fill waterlot areas are only issued provided tenant agrees to pay 8 per cent of market value as land on completion of fill as annual rental.
June 30, 1972

5.	March 23, 1974.


FEED GRAIN TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	What is the percentage of feed grain tonnage transported eastward (a) on the St. Lawrence Seaway (b) by rail?
2.	Is there a price difference between both means of transportation and, if so, what is the difference per bushel?


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: 1. For domestic feed grain utilization in Eastern Canada: (a) Crop year 1969-70, 89.4 per cent; Crop year 1970-71, 82.7 per cent, (b) Crop year 1969-70,10.6 per cent; Crop year 1970-71,17.3 per cent.
2.	The difference in the cost of moving feed grains from the Lakehead via water and rail are not constant at all destinations in Eastern Canada, or at any point in time. Water freight rates fluctuate depending upon the supply and demand for vessels. Storage and interest costs accrue on grains stored in Eastern elevators during the winter months, a cost not applicable to the rail movement. A typical comparison of costs on movement of barley during the open navigation season from the Lakehead to a feed mill at Granby, Quebec, would be:
(a)	Shipment by water Lakehead to Montreal and truck to Granby, Quebec: (i) Lakehead terminal costs, 4.900 cents bushel; (ii) Water freight, insurance, tolls, and brokerage, 9.740 cents bushel; (iii) Montreal Terminal Costs, 5.300 cents bushel; (iv) Trucking, 6.240 cents bushel; Gross Total 26.18 cents bushel; Less Freight Assistance 15.36 cents bushel; Net Cost 10.82 cents bushel.
(b)	Shipment by rail Lakehead to Granby, Quebec (i) Lakehead Terminal Costs, 5.196 cents bushel; (ii) Rail freight and Brokerage, 22.37 cents bushel; Gross Total, 27.57 cents bushel; Less Freight Assistance, 15.36 cents bushel; Net Cost, 12.21 cents bushel.
(c)	Shipment by rail Western Country elevator to Granby, Quebec: (i) Lakehead Terminal Diversion, 2.75 cents bushel; (ii) Rail Freight and Brokerage, 22.37 cents bushel; Gross Total, 25.12 cents bushel; Less Freight Assistance, 15.36 cents bushel; Net Cost, 9.76 cents bushel.


ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY-OPERATION DEFICIT
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	What was the operation deficit of the St. Lawrence Seaway during the years 1968-69, 1969-70 and 1970-71?
2.	Does the United States of America share the deficit incurred on services offered to international navigation on the Seaway with Canada and, if so, in what proportion?


Gérard Duquet: The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority advises as follows: 1. There was no operating deficit in the years 1968, 1969 and 1970. The Montreal-Lake Ontario section earned an operating profit (i.e. before providing for interest and for replacement of machinery and equipment) which was greater than the deficit on the Welland Canal. The following are the Canadian operating results for these years:
Questions
1969
(000's $)
Operating Profits (Losses) Montreal-Lake Ontario Section $13,576.5 10,133.0 12,476.3

Welland
Canal

2. There are five Canadian locks and two United States locks in the Montreal-Lake Ontario section. By agreement the tolls revenue of this section is now divided between Canada and the United States in the ratio of 73:27. There is no sharing of costs. The following are the United States operating results for these years:
(000's $)
Operating Profits (Losses)
Montreal-Lake Ontario Section
1968	$ 4,726.0
1969	3,668.1
1970	4,541.4

All revenues collected on the Welland Canal accrue to Canada which bears the entire cost of the operation.


RAILWAYS-DELAYS DUE TO SNOW AND MUD SLIDES
Mr. Korchinski: 1.	On what dates were the railways operating from the prairie region to Vancouver rendered inoperative due to the snow slides or mud slides?
2.	What was the total hours of delay in each case?


Gérard Duquet: The Management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: 1. Although there were numerous and serious interruptions to through service at certain times during the winter, at no one time was the railway completely inoperative all the way from the Prairies to Vancouver. As indicated below there were many instances of mud and snow slides which delayed trains and service for certain lengths of time, nevertheless, traffic was kept moving forward on the various subdivisions of this territory and held at various locations along the line pending the clearing of the slides:
January 20-24 Yale Sub.
Boston Bar to Hope, 0900 until 1400, Jan. 24th, acct. snowslides
During this period the CPR were also impassable until the PM of Jan. 22 at which time CN commenced detouring over that Company's tracks.
February 6 Yale Sub.
Mileage 33.4, 0615 until 1200, acct. snow and mud slides
February 7 Ashcroft Sub.
Mileage 93.8, 1410 until 2030, snowslide February 15 Yale Sub.

June 30, 1972
Questions
Mileage 7.7, 0400 until 1005, rock slide February 16 Yale Sub.
Mileage 16.3, 1130 until 2350, 17, slip out February 27 Yale Sub.
Mileage 22.9, 1125 until 1200, 28, rock and snowslides March 5 Yale Sub.
Mileages 19 and 21.7, 0320 until 1620, snowslides March 10 Clearwater Sub.
Mileages 19.3 and 19.8, 1205 until 2130, snowslides March 11 Clearwater Sub.
Mileage 19.8, 2220 until 0505, 12, snow and trees March 11 Ashcroft Sub.
Mileage 76.5, 2100 until 1145, 12, rock slide March 12 Ashcroft Sub.
Mileage 31.5, 2300 until 1530, 13, washout March 13 Albreda Sub.
Mileage 53,1700 until 0545, 14, snowslides March 16 Yale Sub.
Mileages 5.7, 14, 16.2, 20.6, 33.4, 0130 until 2350,
snowslides
March 19 Clearwater Sub.
Mileages 51.5 and 52.3, 0900 until 2120, 21st, Slip out March 19 Ashcroft Sub.
Mileage 113.3, 2130 until 0545, 20, mud and rock March 27 Yale Sub.
Mileage 22.9, 1315 until 1000, 28, snow March 28 Ashcroft Sub.
Mileage 109.5, 2355 until 1500, 29, snow
2. The Company does not maintain records that would readily disclose the total hours of delay in each specific case as such information has n.o managerial significance. To develop the data to answer the question would require considerable expenditure of time and money.


POLLUTION-GREAT LAKES
Mr. Matte: 1.	By what means is the government presently preventing pollution of the Great Lakes?
2.	Is the government aware that owners of boats are throwing waste into such waters?
3.	Is the government aware that many hundreds of cans of paint are thrown into such waters?


James Alexander Jerome: I am informed by the Departments of the Environment and Transport as follows: 1. The Federal Government is preventing pollution through the application of anti-pollution legislation, such as the Fisheries Act, the Canada Water Act and the Canada Shipping Act, and through such agreements as the Canada/United States Agreement and the Canada/Ontario Agreement. The Department of Transport enforces the Oil Pollution Prevention Regulations and the Garbage Pollution Prevention Regulations throughout the Great Lakes. These

Regulations apply to ships and both carry a possible fine of $100,000 against offenders. Marine surveyors employed by the Department of Transport investigate reports of infractions of these regulations and lay charges whenever necessary. Coast Guard vessels employed by the Department of Transport carry out regular surveillance in Great Lakes waters. A Coast Guard aircraft with departmental surveyors acting as observers also carries out regular anti-pollution patrols throughout the area.
2.	The Garbage Pollution Prevention Regulations were promulgated specifically to deal with the problem of waste from vessels in the Great Lakes and in other Inland Waters.
3.	No.


NATIONAL REVENUE-COST OF TAX RETURN PAMPHLETS
Mr. Mather: What was the cost of the booklet, including its distribution to taxpayers, dealing with the revised system of income tax effective respecting 1972 income?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of National Revenue):: In so
far as the Department of National Revenue, Taxation, is concerned: It prepared and distributed 11 tax reform pamphlets to date on various aspects of the new tax law, two mailed to all 9,800,000 taxpayers and others on a selective basis according to subject. The cost was $770,903.75 for printing, $70,000 for inserting and $720,000 for mailing. Included in the cost are supplies available over the desks of the 28 District Taxation Offices.


DAYS OF GRAIN SHIPMENT LOST AS A RESULT OF ADVERSE WEATHER CONDITIONS
Mr. Murta: How many days of grain shipment were lost in the past 10 years on a per year basis because of adverse winter weather conditions?


Otto Emil Lang: While adverse winter weather conditions may prevent the grain handling system from operating to capacity, grain gathering from the country elevator system and vessel loading normally continues while lines difficulties are being resolved. A precise record of the duration of stoppages of rail movement at individual locations has not been maintained.


INSTALLATION OF INSTRUMENT LANDING SYSTEM, DEER LAKE AIRPORT
Mr. Marshall: What is the status of the installations of an ILA System at Deer Lake Airport?


Gérard Duquet: Tenders were called on June 23, 1972, for the installation of an Instrument Landing System at the Deer Lake Airport. It is expected that the work will be completed and the facility commissioned by the end of this year.
June 30, 1972


NEWFOUNDLAND-NUMBER OF DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE OFFICES
Mr. Marshall: 1.	How many units of the Department of Agriculture are there in the Province of Newfoundland?
2.	For each unit, what is (a) the location (b) the total number of employees, by descriptive job-title?
3.	Is it the intention of the government to establish a division of the Farm Credit Corporation in the Province and, if not, for what reasons?


Marcel Lessard: 1. Eight.
2.	(a) (1) Argentia, Consolidated Grading and Inspection; (2) Cornerbrook-(a) Consolidated Grading and Inspection, (b) Health of Animals; (3) Grand Falls, Consolidated Grading and Inspection; (4) Port aux Basques, Consolidated Grading and Inspection; (5) St. John's, (a) Research Station; (b) Consolidated Grading and Inspection; (c) Health of Animals.
(b) (1) One Primary Products Inspection. (2) (a) One Agricultural Officer, one Primary Products Inspection;
(b)	One Veterinarian, one Primary products Inspection. (3) Two Primary Products Inspection. (4) Four Primary Products Inspection; one Clerical and Regulatory; one Heating, Power and Stationery Plant Operation; one GLT Machine Operating-Controlling; one GLT Electrical Installing and Maintaining; one GLT Machinery Maintaining; one GLT Pipefitting; two GLT Manipulating; two GLT Elemental. (5) (a) one Research Manager; four Research Scientists; three Biological Scientists; four Engineering and Scientific Support; one Clerical and Regulatory; two Stenographic and Typing; five Heating, Power and Stationery Plant Operation; 20 GLT Manipulating; one GLT Electrical Installing and Maintaining; one GLT Woodworking; one GLT Machine Driving-Operating, (b) three Agricultural Officers; four Primary Products Inspection; one Engineering and Scientific Support; one Administrative Officer; one Stenographic; two Clerical.
(c)	two Veterinarians; eight Primary Products Inspection; one Clerical.
3.	No. There is insufficient concentration of business in any one locality to warrant the opening of an office. Applications from the Province of Newfoundland are handled directly through the Branch Office at Moncton, New Brunswick, with regular pre-scheduled visits by Credit Advisors.


RCMP-MUSICAL RIDE
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	How many cities, towns or other urban centres have contracted to have the Musical Ride of the RCMP for the present year?
2.	What are the names of such centres and how much has been agreed to be paid by each of the centres to cover expenses, transportation, or other costs incurred by the participation of the force?
3.	Are there any cases in which no charge is made and the government pays the costs and, if so, what are the names of the cities, towns or villages receiving such special treatment?


James Alexander Jerome: Here again, Mr. Speaker, there is a great deal of statistical information involved in this reply.
Questions
I wonder whether the reply might be tabled and printed in Hansard as if read?


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The reply referred to above follows:]
1. Seventeen confirmed as of 26 June 1972.
2. and 3.
Location and Sponsor Ormstown, P.Q.
Ormstown Exhibition (3 days)
Lachute, P.Q.
Lachute Exhibition (3 days)
Windsor, Ontario Detroit, Michigan International Freedom Festival (5 days-includes 2 days travelling time)
Sherbrooke, P.Q.
Sherbrooke Exposition (4 days-includes 1 day travelling time)
Syracuse, N.Y.
New York State Fair (11 days-includes 2 days travelling time)
St. Tite, P.Q.
Western Festival (4 days-includes 2 days travelling time)
Toronto, Ontario Royal Agricultural Winter Fair (12 days-includes 2 days travelling time)
Costing Arrangements Sponsor-$ 3,141 Sponsor-$ 2,400
Sponsor-$10,054
Sponsor-$ 7,866
Sponsor-$16,465
Sponsor-$ 5,000
Sponsor to pay all costs-approximately $13,330
Ottawa, Ontario
Festival Canada, Secretary of
State Department (6 days) No costs
Timmins, Ontario Timmins Diamond Jubilee (4 days-includes 2 days travelling time)
Aylmer, P.Q.
National Equestrian Regional Association, Connaught Race Track (3 days)
"N" Division, Ottawa, Ont. Adventure in Citizenship (Rotary)
(1 day)
"N" Division, Ottawa, Ont. Delegation from Yugoslavia (1 day)
Sponsor to pay all costs-approximately $11,000
Sponsor to pay foraging costs
No costs to sponsor
No costs to sponsor
3688

June 30, 1972
Questions
"N" Division, Ottawa, Ont.
National School Safety Patrol Jamboree (1 day)	No costs to sponsor
Kansas City, Missouri
American Royal Livestock and Sponsor to pay all Horse Show (12 days-includes	costs which have not
4 days travelling time)	yet been determined
"N" Division, Ottawa, Ont. F. I. S. Congress, Canadian Seed Trade (1 day)
"N" Division, Ottawa, Ont.
Delegation from Roumania (1 day)
"N" Division, Ottawa, Ont. XII International Congress Photogramme try (1 day)
No costs to sponsor
No costs to sponsor of
No costs to sponsor
Saskatchewan
Filming for RCMP Centennial
(10 days)	Under negotiation


INFORMATION CANADA
Mr. Mather: 1.	What was the number of employees, including the clerical staff, of Information Canada in 1970?
2.	What is the number today?
3.	What in dollars was the amount paid to such employees in 1970?
4.	What is the amount today?


Hon. Martin P. O'Connell (Minister of Labour):: 1. On
April 1, 1970, out of an authorized strength of 520, there were 362 employees on staff, of which 126 were transferred from the Queen's Printer and 228 from the Canadian Government Exhibition Commission.
2.	On May 25, 1972, there were 545, including 179 for Expositions. Of the 545,120 were on short term temporary clerical duty.
3.	Since the inception of Information Canada on April 1, 1970, salary and wages paid to December 31, 1970, were $1,842,373 which included $902,173 for the Expositions Division which operated on partial cost recovery.
4.	Salaries and wages paid from April 1,1971, to December 31, 1971, were $2,071,014, exclusive of salaries and wages for Expositions.


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. During the present fiscal year Canada is contributing $75,000 to the Commonwealth Secretariat for a Program of Training for Rhodesian Refugees. Canada is also contributing $50,000 to the Inter University Exchange Fund of Geneva for assistance to refugees from the whole southern African region and is contributing $100,000 to the United Nations Education and Training Fund for Southern Africans. Canada expects to repeat this year the grant of $10,000 which the Canadian Government gave last .year to the United Nations Trust Fund for South Africa. Canada also contributes to the support of refugees from southern Africa through its contribution to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
2.	It is not known whether the recipients of funds from these programs have been alleged to have committed politick! crimes by their native governments or not. It is our understanding that the organizations through whom this aid is channelled take into account all relevant factors.
3.	The contributions are being channelled through the international institutions listed above.
4.	No.


EXPORTS OF WHEAT TO MEXICO
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	How much wheat has been supplied by Canada to Mexico during each year since 1968?
2.	Of this, what proportion does this represent of that country's total wheat import?
3.	Did the Wheat Board make any offers of Canadian wheat to the Compania National de Subsistencias Populares (CONASU-PO) during this period?
4.	Does Canada have international suppliers and brokers representing her in connection with the sale of seed, wheat or other cereals to Mexico?


Otto Emil Lang: 1, 2, 3 and 4.
Since the 1963-64 crop year, with the exception of 1968-69 when a negligible quantity (1,000 tons) was imported, Mexico has been a net exporter of wheat. The Canadian Wheat Board and private trade continue to represent Canada's interest in this and other markets for Canadian grain and oilseeds. No business in wheat sales to Mexico was concluded during the period in question.


CANADIAN CONTRIBUTION TO COMMONWEALTH PROGRAM OF EDUCATIONAL TRAINING FOR REFUGEES FROM RHODESIA AND SOUTH AFRICA
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	What is Canada's contribution to the Commonwealth Program of educational training for refugees from Rhodesia and South Africa?
2.	Are the refugees involved alleged to have committed "political" crimes by their native governments?
3.	Are contributions being channelled through educational institutions or through nationalist organizations in exile?
4.	Does Canada make any contribution to the African National Council of Rhodesia?


STUDENT APPLICATIONS FOR POSITION AS HISTORIC PARK GUIDES
Mr. Muir: 1.	What was the total number of applications received by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development from students in the Atlantic Provinces for positions as Historic Park Guides?
2.	Of this total (a) how many of the applicants specified they were unilingual English (b) how many specified they were unilingual French (c) how many specified they were bilingual?
3.	How many applications were accepted and of the total number provided employment (a) how many were unilingual English (b) how many were unilingual French (c) how many were bilingual?

June 30, 1972


Gérard Pelletier: I have been given the following information by the Public Service Commission. 1. The Regional Office received 563 applications.
2.	Of these 563 applicants, the Selection Board identified (a) 475 as unilingual English; (b) 2 as unilingual French; (c) 86 as bilingual.
3.	Of the 85 applicants appointed (a) 41 were unilingual English; (b) none were unilingual French; (c) 44 were bilingual.


OLD AGE SECURITY-ADVERTISEMENTS
Mr. Nystrom: 1.	How many newspapers and how many magazines have carried or will carry the advertisement "Attention old age pensioners, Guaranteed minimum income levels have been raised"?
2.	Of the newspapers, how many are dailies, weeklies, bi-weeklies and monthly?
3.	Have or will any newspapers or magazines carry the advertisement more than once and, if so, what is the maximum number of times and in which of the above categories do such newspapers fall?
4.	(a) What was the total cost of these advertisements (b) what was the cost per category (c) how much did the most expensive advertisement or series of advertisements cost in a single newspaper and magazine and what are the names of that newspaper and magazine?
5.	Was any advertising of the pension increases (for old age security pensioners) done in either radio or television and, if so, what was the cost?
6.	What is the name of each advertising firm through which the above advertising was placed and at what charge?


Hon. lohn C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. Nine hundred and sixty one newspapers.
2.	Dailies, 112; weeklies, 818; bi-weeklies, 17; monthly, 14.
3.	Yes. Dailies, two insertions. One insertion for all other newspapers.
4.	(a) Total cost of advertisement, $168,965. (b) Dailies, $60,470; weeklies, $101,945; bi-weeklies, $3,460; monthly, $3,090. (c) $3,600, the Toronto Daily Star.
5.	Yes. Radio, $31,856.
6.	Advertising agencies: Huxley-Irwin-Price Limited; Agence Canadienne de Publicite Limitee.
There was no charge to the department for placement because the agencies are compensated by a 15 per cent commission allowed by all media to enfranchised agencies for national advertising.


TOTAL VOLUME OF GOODS HANDLED AT PORTS
Mr. Blouin: What was the total volume of goods (in tons) handled during 1971 at the ports of (a) Montreal (b) Vancouver (c) Halifax (d) St. John (e) Quebec City (f) Rimouski (g) Baie Comeau (h) Port Cartier (i) Sept-Iles, Pointe Noire included?


Gérard Duquet: The National Harbours Board advises as
Questions
follows: (a) Montreal, 23,766,460 tons; (b) Vancouver, 35,301,753 tons; (c) Halifax, 11,307,747 tons; (d) St. John, 5,803,304 tons; (e) Quebec City, 11,060,221 tons.
The Department of Transport advises as follows: (f) Rimouski, 536,884 tons; (g) Baie Comeau, 7,841,167 tons; (h) Port Cartier, 14,435,657 tons; (i) Sept-Iles, Pointe Noire included, 26,809,205 tons.


'NATIONAL ANTHEM
Mr. Fairweather: Is the government considering a bilingual third verse for the National Anthem which is the subject-matter of Bill C-158 as evidence of a desire to contribute to national unity?


Gérard Pelletier: The reply to that question is no, Mr. Speaker. The government is not considering a third verse for the Naitonal Anthem.


BLUE WATER BRIDGE AUTHORITY
Mr. McCutcheon: 1.	On what date or dates did the Government in Council, or any authority designated by the Governor in Council, order the Blue Water Bridge Authority to make its cost records and its cash receipt and disbursement records available, pursuant to section 19(1) of the Blue Water Bridge Authority Act which was enacted May 21,1964?
2.	On what date or dates did the Blue Water Bridge Authority provide the Governor in Council, or his designee with itemized, detailed and verified reports of the Authority's receipts and disbursements under section 19(2)(a) of the Act?


Mitchell William Sharp: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources stated in the House on May 19, 1972 that a submission to the Governor in Council was being prepared requiring the Blue Water Bridge Authority under Section 19 of the Blue Water Bridge Authority Act to submit a financial report annually to the appropriate Minister. The submission is expected to be completed shortly.


ASSISTANCE TO HOG PRODUCERS
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): Since the announcement by the Minister of Agriculture of assistance to hog producers who produced at a loss in 1971 (a) how many producers benefitted from this program to June 1, 1972 (b) what amount was paid to the same date (c) how many producers received the benefit by province (d) what was the total paid by province?


Marcel Lessard: The answers to sections (a), (b), (c) and
(d) to June 9, 1972 are as follows:		
Province	Number of Producers	AmountNewfoundland	23	$ 19,085.00Prince Edward Island	792	240,190.00Nova Scotia	248	138,190.00New Brunswick	419	119,155.00
25319-47j

June 30, 1972
Quebec	Questions 4,523	2,046,660.00Ontario	15,506	5,429,880.00Manitoba	8,981	2,059,240.00Saskatchewan	14,193	2,450,455.00Alberta	13,896	3,119,000.00British Columbia	214	64,565.00Total	58,795	$15,686,420.00


EGGS-PRODUCTION, CONSUMPTION AND PRICE
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	What was the production of eggs, by province, in 1971?
2.	What was the production during the same period in Canada?
3.	What was the total consumption of eggs for all purposes, in Canada, in 1971?
4.	What was the consumption, by province, during 1971?
5.	What was the average price paid by the consumer for Grade A-Large eggs, in 1971?
6.	What was the average price paid to the producer for Grade A-Large eggs, in 1971?


Marcel Lessard: 1. Statistics Canada egg production estimates 1971, including hatching eggs and eggs consumed on farms (000's dozens): British Columbia, 59,045; Alberta, 43,896; Saskatchewan, 26,335; Manitoba, 57,471; Ontario, 193,985; Quebec, 80,026; New Brunswick, 8,579; Nova Scotia, 17,441; Prince Edward Island, 3,016; Newfoundland, 9,551.
2.	Production in Canada (000's dozens), 499,325. Source: Statistics Canada Annual Catalogue No. 23202-Table 10.
3.	Total egg consumption in Canada in 1971: per capita 21.7 dozens or 32.6 pounds.
4.	Consumption, by province, during 1971: not available.
5.	Average price Grade A Large eggs paid by consumer in 1971: not available.
6.	Average price paid to producers for Grade A Large eggs in 1971 was 29.96 cents per dozen.


TOTAL PRODUCTION OF INDUSTRIAL MILK DELIVERED
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): What was the total production of industrial milk delivered to processing industries and subsidized by CDC (a) for the month of April, 1971 (b) for the month of April, 1972?


Marcel Lessard: Deliveries by industrial milk and cream shippers on which subsidy was paid by the Canadian Dairy Commission for the month of April were: (a) 1971, 21,366,000 pounds butterfat; (b) 1972, 22,055,369 pounds butterfat.


ROYAL COMMISSION ON BILINGUALISM AND BICULTURALISM
Mr. Caouette: 1.	What was the total cost of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism?
2.	What income was paid to each of the chairmen of the Commission?
[iMr. Lessard (Lac-Saint- Jean).]
3.	What was the total amount of salaries paid to persons working for the Commission?
Mr. Barnett ]. Danson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister): 1. $9,049,386.
2.	Mr. Laurendeau, $105,220, (Deceased 1968); Mr. D. Dunton, $69,750; Mr. J. L. Gagnon, $133,650.
3.	$4,456,553.



Mr. Robinson: 1.	What is the actual cost of The Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism thus far?
2.	If the work is to be continued what would be the projected additional cost?


Barnett Jerome Danson: 1. $9,049,386.
2. The Commission ceased its operations in 1971. No further costs are projected.


'PRINCE ALBERT NATIONAL PARK-GOLF COURSE
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	How many employees are there on the Golf Course at Prince Albert National Park as of this date?
2.	How many were there last year?
3.	For what reason has there been a reduction in staff?
4.	How many green keepers and maintenance staff were employed in each of the years 1968,1969 and 1970?
5.	How many are employed as of this date?
6.	Have the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and/or the Department received complaints that the condition of the Golf Course is deplorable?
7.	Will immediate action be taken to bring the Golf Course back to its former excellent condition?


Mr. Allen B. Sulatycky (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, there are at this date nine employees on the golf course at Prince Albert national park.
Last year there were also nine employees.
The third part of the question is not applicable.
In 1968, 1969 and 1970 eight employees were engaged as green keepers and maintenance staff.
This year, as I say, there are nine.
The department has not received any complaints regarding the condition of the golf course.
Lastly, because of the very hot, dry, unseasonable weather this spring and the lack of rainfall, the golf course is being watered considerably more than usual to assist in maintaining the course to its regular standard.
June 30, 1972



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Latulippe: Are there any non-Canadians who work for the federal government in Canada and, if so, from what countries do they originate?
Return tabled.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION-SEPARATION CERTIFICATE REQUIREMENT
Mr. Marshall: Have employers been reminded by the Unemployment Insurance Commission of the legal requirement (a) to provide leaving employees with separation certificates within five days (b) to produce copies of correspondence or other means of direction and, if so, by what method?
Return tabled.


NUMBER OF RED-CIRCLED PUBLIC SERVANTS
Mr. Hales: 1.	How many public servants are still red-circled and in what departments are they employed?
2.	How many years of service did each have when red-circled?
3.	What effect will this have on the pension of each?
Return tabled.


FEDERAL SUPPORT OF CANADIAN YOUTH HOSTELS ASSOCIATION STANDARDS
Mr. Robinson: Will the government support the Canadian Youth Hostels Associations's quality approach to hostelling in order to maintain standards in accordance with International Federation rules?
Return tabled.


IMPORTS AND EXPORTS OF DAIRY PRODUCTS
Mr. Yewchuk: 1.	For each year 1967 to 1971 inclusive, what was the total amount of money received by each province (or Canada) for exporting (a) skim milk powder (b) cottage cheese (c) Cheddar cheese (d) cattle (i) beef animals (ii) dairy cows (e) beef (f) butter (g) hogs (h) pork?
2.	For the same period, what was the amount expended by province (or Canada) for importing (a) skim milk powder (b) cottage cheese (c) Cheddar cheese (d) cattle (i) beef animals (ii) dairy cows (e) beef (f) butter (g) hogs (h) pork?
3.	For the 5-year period, 1967 to 1971, how many head of cattle (a) beef animals (b) dairy cows did Canada export to (i) US (ii) USSR (iii) European Economic Market (iv) Britain (v) Scandinavia (vi) other?
4.	For that same period, how many head of cattle (a) beef animals (b) dairy cows did Canada import from those countries?
5.	In each case, if the information is not available, for what reason?
Return tabled.
Proposed Legislation


DEPARTMENT OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT-HIRING OF STUDENTS AS GUIDES
Mr. Muir: 1.	Of the 85 students hired under competition number 71-IAN-HAL-0-1020 by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, what were the names, addresses and university attended by each one?
2.	In each instance, was the student hired as a unilingual English guide or a bilingual guide and in each instance, was there a recommendation written or otherwise from a Member of Parliament and, if so, in each instance, what was the name of the Member of Parliament?
Return tabled.



PENSION BENEFITS STANDARDS ACT


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-228, to amend the Pension Benefits Standards Act (information to employees).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to legally recognize that, whereas pension funds are financed by both employer and employee contributions, employee confidence in contributory pension programs can be enhanced if more information is made available to them, therefore requiring that a copy of the trust agreement be made available to employee contributors.


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


Mark Willson Rose: for leave to introduce Bill C-229, to amend the Copyright Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to ensure that performers of literary and musical works are remunerated for subsequent reproductions of those works broadcast over the electronic media. Current practice is for the performers' right to cease once the contractual recording session is fulfilled.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: Oral questions.


Mr. Broadbent:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have a motion I should like to move under the provisions of Standing Order 43.

June 30, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member appreciates that we have proceeded beyond motions which were called some time ago. He would need the unanimous consent of the House to revert to motions for this purpose.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no agreement. The hon. member will appreciate the difficulty in which the Chair is placed in this regard.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice who will recall that earlier in the week I asked him about a decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal which seems to put in jeopardy or question the validity at least of thousands of court orders relating to the maintenance of divorced wives and children under the Divorce Act. Has he had an opportunity to consider that decision and does he propose to take any action in connection with it?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, my examination of the question is not yet complete. Therefore I cannot make any comment on whether action is required.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question in view of the difficulties in which thousands of children and women may find themselves. Without offence, will the minister consider this problem post haste? Will he and the House leader examine Bill C-69 standing in the name of the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants, which in my judgment exactly fits the situation, and consider the possibility of moving with this bill today? I suggest that in the circumstances it might proceed through the House very rapidly and prevent thousands of women and children in this country suffering hardship.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, while I appreciate the suggestion of the hon. gentleman, one of the problems is whether any action wich fits the situation is in fact constitutional. That is a further very serious situation which has to be examined. I would not want to have anyone misled by thinking a piece of legislation which would not stand up would solve any problems.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Labour, and I do so strictly to obtain information. May I ask whether the position taken by the government House leader, the President of the Privy Council, in respect of the motion for adjournment of the House means that matters are progressing in the conflict between the longshoremen and employers in the Quebec ports and that one may expect some kind of satisfactory conclusion to the problem today?


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I can reply quite clearly to at least one aspect of that question. Mr. Justice Allan Gold, the arbitrator, did render a very explicit award last evening. That award will be considered beginning at one o'clock this afternoon at a general meeting of the membership of the longshoremen's union in Montreal. So that kind of progress is taking place. I think we have to await the results of that meeting before we can be more explicit as to real progress in the dispute.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I join the minister in the hope that the union will abide by any arbitration award as is required by the agreement and by the law. May I ask whether, when this meeting is held at one o'clock, the negotiating committee or executive committee or some group of leadership in the union is ready to recommend acceptance of and obedience to the award?


Mr. O'Connell:: Mr. Speaker, I am not privy to the position the union leadership intends to place before the men. I think we have to rely upon the good judgment of the longshoremen now that their agreement has been clarified for them in very explicit language. I think we as members of this House would expect them as good Canadian citizens to live up to the law of Canada as it has been clearly placed before them and to honour their agreement which they bargained for and sealed about three months ago. I trust that the meeting this afternoon will consider all these aspects of the position they are now clearly in.



QUEBEC-LONGSHOREMEN'S STRIKE-SUGGESTED INTRODUCTION OF BACK-TO-WORK LEGISLATION BEFORE HOUSE ADJOURNS

Mr. Raymond Rock (Lachine):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Labour. Since it took the government eight weeks to find out through Judge Gold that the dock strike is illegal and since you are waiting until this afternoon for the decision-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should address his question to the Chair.


Raymond Rock: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. Since the Minister of Labour is waiting until this afternoon for a decision by the meeting of the dock workers, would the government consider introducing back-to-work legislation immediate-
June 30, 1972

ly before adjournment of the House, in order that Parliament will not have to be recalled for this purpose?


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question clearly has to be no. Surely it is not desirable. This House would not wish to be in the position of being called upon to pass legislation to order men back to work on the ground that they are breaking the law, because the law already requires that they go back to work. Legislation to require Canadians to do that which is already required by the law does not seem to me to be appropriate at this time.


Raymond Rock: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister, if at the meeting this afternoon the longshoremen decide to refuse to go back to work, what does Parliament intend to do?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Temiscamingue on a supplementary.


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Labour.
He has just stated that the law requires them to go back to work. Undeniably, the person mainly responsible for the situation is the president of the union, Mr. St-Onge. Is it not the minister's opinion that the government should teach Mr. St-Onge that the Canadian government is more important than the president of the union.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That, in my view, is an argument. I do not believe the question as worded is in order.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. I assume he has now had a chance to read the reasons for judgment in the case of Regina v. Brownridge dealing with an impaired driving charge and refusal to take a breathalyzer test. In light of that judgment I suppose the minister has had a discussion with other distinguished lawyers in the cabinet. Can the minister now indicate whether it is the intention of the government to bring back in legislation to nullify the effect of the judgment, or does the government accept the decision of the Supreme Court?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, there is no present intention to undertake legislation. The practical matter, I think, is that it is important to have working enforcement in connection with drinking drivers, and the breathalyzer is extremely useful in that regard. I do not at the present time see any inconsistency between that and the decision of the Supreme Court in terms of the ability to contact counsel in certain circumstances. A careful reading of the judgment indicates, I think, the court's concern that this should not interfere with the ordinary taking of breathalyzer tests. The only case I can see for further legislation is if there is uncertainty about
Inquiries of the Ministry
the extent of the right and the period of time which could be taken up in consultation with counsel.



INQUIRY AS TO PROCLAMATION OF SECTION OF CRIMINAL CODE PROVIDING FOR FURNISHING OF BREATH SAMPLE TO POTENTIAL ACCUSED

Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question deals with a companion judgment which came out at the same time. When does the government intend to proclaim that section of the act, now three years in arrears, regarding the furnishing of a sample to the potential defendant?


Otto Emil Lang: Work is continuing on the perfecting of an adequate device to allow such a sample to be taken and furnished. It is our intention to proclaim the section as soon as a reasonable and workable device is available.



NATIONAL REVENUE


Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. It is an all too frequent case pertaining to the adverse effect of bureaucratic red tape on industrial enterprise.


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


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have given the minister notice of this question. Why was the machinery part recently consigned to the Napanee Brick and Tile Works Limited from a firm in West Germany held by the customs office in Kingston for more than two weeks after arrival at great cost and inconvenience to the corporate and local economy?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will appreciate that normally a question such as this should be put on the order paper or considered at the time of adjournment. Since it is unlikely that we will be here at ten o'clock this evening, perhaps the minister might be allowed to reply.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for bringing this matter to my attention. I have given instructions that it be looked into and I will make a report as soon as I hear from my officials on the matter.

June 30, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry AGRICULTURE



PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND-INQUIRY AS TO REQUEST BY PROVINCE FOR REVISION OF DEVELOPMENT PLAN IN LIGHT OF DROP IN FARM INCOME

Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Has there been any request from the government of Prince Edward Island to revise the comprehensive development plan operating in that province as it applies to the agricultural segment of the economy in view of the drastic drop in farm net income in that province in 1971 to less than 45 per cent of what it was in 1970?


Jean Marchand: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker. I will have to check with my officials to see whether we have received a communication from the P.E.I. government.



ATLANTIC PROVINCES-REPRESENTATIONS BY PROVINCIAL MINISTERS CONCERNING UNITED APPROACH TO OVERCOME DECREASE IN FARM INCOME

John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture. Has there been any request by some or all of the Ministers of Agriculture of the five eastern provinces of Canada on the subject of the drop in net farm income in 1971 compared with the previous year with a view to a united approach of both levels of government in an attempt to alleviate this serious problem?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, there were some discussions about this several months ago when it was clear to us that this was going to be the situation, particularly in the latter part of 1971. There has been a marked improvement in the first part of 1972. I have had some discussions recently so that we can have policies and programs later this year to avoid what happened, for example, in the potato marketing situation.



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-POSSIBLE EXTENSION TO NON-STUDENTS

Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Secretary of State, primarily related to the Opportunities for Youth program.
Could the Secretary of State tell us whether the program was created exclusively for students or whether it also applies to unemployed young people in general?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I have already had the opportunity to clarify that point in the House. The program's main objective is to provide work for students during the summer vacation, but those in charge of the program were considering inclusion this year of an additional group of non-student young people who, after approval of the projects, will make up some 7
per cent of those availing themselves of the benefits of this program.



MANPOWER


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
In view of the fact that most elderly people recently received an increase of the old age pension and that many young people will be able to avail themselves of the Opportunities for Youth program, could the hon. minister tell us whether he has considered announcing the creation of a permanent program for the thousands of Canadians aged 45 to 65 who are unable to find jobs?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, the government has considered the matter, of course, but it does not come under the jurisdiction of my department and I do not believe I am qualified to reply to the hon. member's question.



UNITED STATES DISC PROGRAM-USE BY FORD AND CHRYSLER-POSITION OF GENERAL MOTORS

John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that the Chrysler Corporation has now joined the Ford Motor Company in exporting cars under the DISC provisions from the United States to Canada, can the minister inform the House whether or not he has obtained assurances that General Motors Corporation will not so act, or has he simply found out what General Motors intends to do?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: No, Mr. Speaker.


John Edward Broadbent: In view of the fact that Ford and Chrysler account for approximately half the production of automobiles in Canada, and as their parent firms are now operating under DISC in clear contravention of the auto pact, is it the minister's view that even if General Motors does not join with them this violation of the pact will result, in effect, in terms of its consequences on unemployment and on trade in the automotive industry, in the abrogation of all the positive effects of the pact that were intended when it was signed?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. My interpretation of the hon. member's question is that he is inviting the minister to express an opinion. In those terms the question is scarcely in order.

June 30, 1972



HUMAN RIGHTS


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Will the minister undertake an inquiry into the case of broadcaster, Roy Jacques, and specifically into the allegation of interference on the part of the Secretary of State and the Minister of State from Calgary South, in violation of the Bill of Rights of Canada in so far as it guarantees freedom of speech and of the press?


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker, I will not. I am satisfied there was no such interference of any sort.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Will the minister prepare legislation to establish the position of ombudsman reporting directly to Parliament so that citizens opposed to this government would have someone to turn to for the justice they cannot obtain from the government?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



UNITED STATES DISC PROGRAM-USE OF CUSTOMS PROCEDURES TO ASCERTAIN COMPANIES MAKING USE THEREOF

Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce supplementary to one asked earlier. Has he asked for the assistance of his colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, in scrutinizing and tabulating all invoices that accompany cars coming into Canada from the United States under the DISC program?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat what I said a week or two ago, which was confirmed by the Minister of National Revenue, that we are looking at a customs procedure by which companies using DISC, or similar direct export subsidies provided by countries other than the United States, would have to indicate that they were doing so through a customs declaration.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Do I understand the minister to say that they have not started this tabulation program? In the meantime, what records will be kept?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, this has not been set in motion yet.



CANADA-UNITED STATES-INQUIRY AS TO RESUMPTION OF DISCUSSIONS

David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, arising out of the questions that have been asked today may I ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce what is happening with respect to the trade talks between Canada and the United States? Have any steps been taken to
Inquiries of the Ministry
resume the trade talks, or is there nothing happening at the moment?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I was giving that answer yesterday when we were interrupted by a question from the gallery. If the hon. member will refer to Hansard he will find a very complete answer to his question.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. It concerns the plight of 120 men, each with over 20 years service, who are about to be laid off today at Camp Bouchard in Montreal. Would the minister use his good offices to see whether or not this lay-off could be delayed until such time as offers of alternative employment could be made to these men, many of whom are veterans and are married?


Hon. E. I. Benson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, J will look into the matter and report to the hon. member.



BROADCASTING


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State. In view of the stated intention of three major provinces, Alberta, Ontario and Quebec, to enter into the cablevision field, can the minister tell the House whether he has been able to negotiate an effective national cablevision policy to take into account provincial interests in this field?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, negotiations, as is well known, have been going on for over a year. I must say that certain results have been achieved, that others are expected and that we have not given up.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I have a supplementary question dealing more specifically with the cablevision field. Has the minister proceeded to act on the recommendation from the broadcasting committee on the Mississauga Cablevision decision rendered by the Canadian Radio-Television Commission that the cabinet review that decision, and the direct request by the corporation of Mississauga to the cabinet that it review the decision? Has any action been taken?
3696

June 30, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry


Gérard Pelletier: The request of the town of Mississauga has been considered by the government, Mr. Speaker, but it was rejected because the cabinet did not feel there was sufficient reason to warrant asking the CRTC to review or to change that decision.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It has to do with the undertaking by the government of Canada to the provincial governments that before any new winter works program is undertaken there will be consultations with them. Can he assure the House that such consultations will take place and, if so, when and in what form will they be conducted? Will they be in the form of a conference, or will there be consultations with individual provinces?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the House that any undertaking which was given by a minister of this government will be lived up to, in a manner to be announced.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture relating to hog deficiency payments. Inasmuch as many producers have not yet received their hog deficiency payments, and since it is rather difficult to trace the status of the applications, can the minister advise the House when the remaining applications will be processed and, in fact, paid?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give a precise date. I can say that almost all of the applications that were accompanied by original grading certificates have been paid or will be paid by the end of this month. The others will take somewhat longer because we require an audit to make sure there is not duplication of payments. I am sorry that it takes so long to make this investigation but we are obliged to do so.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Can the minister advise the House whether there is any mechanism set up to trace applications inasmuch as it is very difficult to find out whether or not applications have been received by the board?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: There is a mechanism, Mr. Speaker, but unfortunately it is a difficult one to go through rapidly. Until the applications do in fact come up for processing and then are indexed according either to area or in alphabetical order, it is a matter of ploughing through the thousands that are in the pile awaiting processing.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. In view of recent unfortunate events, will it be the policy of the government in the future to issue periodically lists of those sexwing prison terms for rape, murder and other crimes of violence who are from time to time on leave from the prison so that the public can be aware of this and be on the lookout for these dangerous criminals?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, if such a policy were to be adopted, it would be necessary to do it also in connection with those who defraud small savers by cheating on the Stock Exchange, by going into fraudulent bankruptcies or by getting hold of companies for illicit trade purposes.


George Harris Hees: Would the minister not agree that there is a great difference between those serving terms for rape, murder and other violent crimes and those who have defrauded customers in the stock market?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is an argument between the minister and the hon. member.



REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE TO CANMORE MINES TO MAINTAIN AND DEVELOP MARKET IN VIEW OF EMPLOYEE LAY-OFFS

Allen B. Sulatycky: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to direct to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce concerning the announced lay-off of two-thirds of the employees at Can-more Mines. Can the minister assure the House that his department will use its influence to ensure that the foreign markets of this company are maintained and that new markets are developed in conjunction with the government if his department is asked to assist in that way?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, we will try to do that. Canmore is actually renegotiating its contract with its Japanese clients. With respect to the international marketing of coal, last year we sent a mission to Europe and this year a European mission is coming to Canada. Sample sales have been made. We will also have a group going to Latin America soon to enhance Canadian exports of coal in that area.
June 30,1972



DEVELOPMENT OF EASTERN CANADIAN MARKET FOR WESTERN COAL-MEETING BETWEEN INDUSTRY AND GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS

Allen B. Sulatycky: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Is the minister giving consideration to convening a meeting of industry and government officials in order to attempt to develop an eastern Canadian market for western Canadian coal and to assist the industry generally in long-term aims?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, arrangements are now being completed to meet with western Canadian coal producers during the month of July to discuss both the shortterm problems such as Canmore and the long-term problems of the industry. I would anticipate that the issues discussed by my colleague and referred to by the hon. member would come up at that meeting.



AIR CANADA


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport I direct my question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the fact the minister has asserted on innumerable occasions that his job is to create employment in the Atlantic region of Canada, would he join with the Minister of Transport who is responsible for Air Canada and try to persuade that corporation to retain its present maintenance services at the Sydney airport as the removal of these services will create more unemployment and add to the already burgeoning load in that area?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I will surely be glad to discuss that with the Minister of Transport.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact that extradition proceedings against Umberto Pagan which were initiated by the United States have been dismissed by a judge, subject to appeal, will the minister undertake to permit Mr. Pagan to effect his voluntary departure to some country other than the United States so that the extradition proceedings which have failed will not be indirectly enforced?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Pagan arrived in Canada on August 31 on what is alleged to be a false passport and a false birth certificate and was subsequently arrested by
Inquiries of the Ministry
the RCMP and ordered deported. His case was referred to the Immigration Appeal Board which upheld the deportation order. I understand that his lawyer has now appealed that decision to the Federal Court, so anything I might say at this moment could prejudice the case. In regard to the extradition charges against Mr. Pagan which were dismissed recently by the courts, I understand that an appeal against that decision will be launched by the Puerto Rican government.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Assuming, however, that the extradition proceedings continue to be dismissed and the appeal is not allowed, will the minister, as I believe is the usual practice, permit Mr. Pagan to effect his voluntary departure?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will appreciate that the question is hypothetical phrased in those terms, or should be considered to be a representation for the consideration of the minister. The hon. member for Temiscamingue.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I would have liked to put a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, but since he is not here, I will not ask it.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Halifax-East Hants.


An hon. Member:: Come back here, Jean.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Halifax-East Hants has graciously resumed his seat. Obviously he will allow the Chair to recognize the hon. member for Temiscamingue. I will then go immediately to the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants.
(Translation]


David Réal Caouette: I thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Sometimes the minister moves so fast that we do not know where he is.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Did he recently meet Quebec officials concerning the establishment of new industries in Temiscaming? Has his department been making suggestions to the Quebec government or to businessmen concerning the establishment of industries in Temiscaming?
25319-48J

June 30, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry


Jean Marchand: I know some meetings were held, Mr. Speaker, and that discussions are continuing. However, I will have to inquire about the latest developments to answer adequately the hon. member's question.



HOUSING


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Would he arrange to have the Michael Dennis report on low-income housing tabled later this day should this interesting document arrive from the printer as I am informed will indeed be the case?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have no knowledge of that, Mr. Speaker, but I shall look into it.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister which I would direct to the Minister of Transport if he were here. Possibly the Prime Minister can be of some assistance. Can the Prime Minister inform the House whether an arrangement has been made between the Minister of Transport and the four Atlantic premiers to discuss specific problems in the field of transportation in the Atlantic region?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any such meeting but I shall inquire of the minister.


Robert Carman Coates: When the Prime Minister communicates with the Minister of Transport, will he ask him to make a statement indicating to the transportation industry in the Atlantic provinces and the people affected when such a meeting might be held?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I shall convey the suggestion of the hon. member to the minister, Mr. Speaker.



SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Science and Technology and is prompted by the report of the Science Council of Canada that spending on national research and development has fallen well below the target of 2 per cent of the gross national product. Can the minister advise what steps he will be taking to improve the situation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the minister could reply briefly but the hon. member is inviting the minister to make a rather general statement. The minister will be given the opportunity to make a very brief statement at this time.


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I think the implication is that a target of 2 per cent of the GNP was set. To my knowledge there is no such formal target. I think the right way of looking at research and development expenditures is to look at them on an individual basis in support of national policies and national objectives rather than to quantity them by 2 per cent or any other percentage figure.



PRICE OF NATURAL GAS-SUGGESTED REPRESENTATIONS TO ALBERTA BOARD TO PROTECT PUBLIC INTEREST

Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the position taken by the Independent Petroleum Association in representations before the Alberta Energy and Resources Conservation Board to the effect that the price of gas should be set not on the basis of cost of production but rather on what the market will bear, a position which would result in private greed working to the detriment-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is making a statement to the House. Perhaps he might ask the question.


Max Saltsman: I am coming to the question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister making representations before the board or does he intend to make representations before the board in order to protect the public interest?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the province of Alberta is the basic owner of these resources and it is within its rights to have this type of hearing and make its own decison about the type of price structure there should be for this as for other commodities. This government will, of course, accept the judgment of the government of Alberta with respect to a commodity such as this which is under the jurisdiction of the province.
June 30, 1972


Max Saltsman: In view of the harm that may be done to the industry and to consumers in general, is the government making any study or giving any consideration to public ownership of the oil and gas industry?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the hon. member that the government has a very extensive stake in Panarctic Oils, but otherwise we are not considering the hon. member's suggestion.



CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the grave concern over the sale of Connaught Laboratories, made famous by Banting and Best with the discovery of insulin, to the Canada Development Corporation and the fear of many diabetics and others that these famous laboratories will now become the pawn of a profit-making organization, can the minister assure the House that safeguards will be written into the contract to avert price increases in products like insulin, blood products and vaccines, and that research will be continued?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware that Connaught Laboratories had been sold to the Canada Development Corporation under duress. I would have thought the laboratory would find it very advantageous to be under the umbrella of the Canada Development Corporation.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. lack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State who is responsible for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Can the minister advise what progress is being made in the government's program which was announced many months ago to provide television communication facilities to isolated communities in those parts of the country that do not have them now?


Gérard Pelletier: Important progress, Mr. Speaker. The CRTC and the CBC have started consideration and planning of the development of transmitters and production centres which must be established in order to obtain the anticipated results, and the first part of this plan has just been submitted to the government.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member might be allowed to ask a supplementary. I understand the hon. member for Simcoe North had a supplementary which was lost when the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe was recognized. He will be recognized following this supplementary.


Jack Marshall: Will the minister look into the particular problem of northern Newfoundland as the people there have been waiting many years for a tower to be built to provide them with television facilities? Possibly the minister could reply by letter.


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, this question was taken into consideration not too long ago and I think that it will appear among the rather high priority objectives in the expected developments.



CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, the question I asked the minister was simply this: Would he assure the House that safeguards will be written into the contract to avert price increases in products such as insulin, blood products and vaccines? That is the question I asked.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I will look into that, Mr. Speaker.



INDUSTRY


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce relates to an earlier series about export and import problems. Is the minister aware that in spite of the 30 per cent Canadian music content required by the Canadian Radio-Television Commission for recordings played over radio stations in this country, it has recently been reported that Canadian recording production is down by approximately 50 per cent this year? Has the minister had an opportunity to find out anything about this phenomenon?


Jean-Luc Pepin: No, Mr. Speaker, but offhand I would say that it is contrary to everything I have read on the subject. However, I will look into the matter.


Mark Willson Rose: Does the minister have any evidence to come to the conclusion that perhaps United States recording companies with subsidiaries in Canada are cutting pro-

June 30, 1972
Canada Labour Code
duction in this country in order to profit from the DISC program in the United States?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the general situation about the effect of DISC on Canadian industry, I have developed a position which is to be found at the top right-hand side of page 2191 of Hansard. At that time I said I would look into any particular situation, and we will look into this one.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister state why nine ministers are openly defying his own roster system and attending the House today when they should not be here? Also, can the Prime Minister say whether this is a hangover from Harrington Lake on Wednesday night?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that this will probably be the last day of this Parliament, I graciously gave consent to these ministers to come and see the hung-over members of the opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Miller Bell: Is the Prime Minister not aware that this is the last time these ministers will be here in their present capacities?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, June 27, consideration of Bill C-183, to amend the Canada Labour Code, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West) moved:: That Bill C-183, to amend the Canada Labour Code, be amended by deleting lines 33 to 39 on page 3 thereof and by substituting therefor:
"(ii) entitled to receive remuneration for driving the vehicle in addition to and separate from the amount he is paid for providing the vehicle, and"

He said: Mr. Speaker, the gist of this motion is to register some concern about the fact that one result of the subclause which defines dependent contractor may be the demise of the independent contractor. This subclause of the bill as presently drafted appears to be the only attempt to differentiate between independent and dependent contractors, and is based on a common purchasing arrangement which does not take into account two distinct situations.
I would like to point out the situations of which I believe the government was not fully aware when drafting this bill which, of course, deals with the owners of trucks or the drivers of trucks, as the case may be. There are two distinct situations. The first is the truck which is owned and operated by a company. The problem arises in the second situation. This is where the same company is employing trucks, owned or leased and operated by persons on a contractual basis. In this regard, we have to ascertain who, in fact, is a dependent contractor and who is an independent contractor. I find no qualms with respect to giving the opportunity to a dependent contractor to become involved with this act but the subclause is drafted in vague generalities.
The purpose of this amendment is to at least clarify the difference between a dependent contractor, who in fact receives remuneration for the operation of his truck plus a further sum for the use of his driver, and an independent contractor who is usually paid one sum, whether it is a flat rate per mile or for the use of the truck in these particular circumstances. Although there is no question about the need for this particular subclause in. the definition section, I think it is too broad and we cannot afford the demise of the independent contractor. As a matter of fact, many letters have come to my attention, as well as to the attention of two other members, to the effect that the independent contractor does not like nor does he have the desire to be involved as a driver with drivers of company trucks. One can readily see that a very serious situation can develop when company drivers are involved in union matters or union agencies with independent truckers who drive their own trucks. It is obvious that this can result in some problem.
It has been pointed out to me by the independent contractor that he negotiates his own contract, owns and drives his own trucks, arranges his own maintenance, his hours of work are arranged to suit the operation of the truck and the hours of work, the working conditions and the earnings are not related to carrier-owned trucks or drivers. What I am seeking to do is to clear up cases which involve a contractor working under a contract which entitles him to receive remuneration for driving a vehicle in addition to an amount paid for providing a vehicle. The clause as presently drafted is not clear on this point; it covers common carriers and other employees. The amendment seeks to clarify a complex clause.


Abram Ernest Epp: This subject has been examined again by officials of my department. I have looked at it as well. I appreciate the hon. member having raised it previously in committee where a discussion took place, and again here this morning. He says he sees no difficulty about the provision in
June 30, 1972

principle, but finds it too sweeping and inclusive. On the other side, we think the definition proposed by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) is unduly restrictive. On balance, therefore, I would ask him to accept the best judgment of those familiar with the industry in my department and allow the definition to stand. If we followed the line he is suggesting, it would cover a very small category in our view.
The key to the definition is not really the question of remuneration but the use of the vehicle. If the vehicle is governed by a contract, that is the determining factor, not the manner in which remuneration is received. Undoubtedly, if the labour relations board were asked to determine whether such and such a person was an employee under the terms of this act, that is to say, a dependent contractor, the question would revolve around the use of the vehicle in terms of the contract. It would involve, also, the entitlement of the owner or operator to retain whatever amount was left over after expenses. That amount might, in the ordinary course, be thought of as remuneration but it could be a broader concept. I hope the House will allow us to retain the definition as it now stands.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Are we not placing ourselves in the position in which an independent contractor will be unduly affected by the definition section? In other words, will he not be associated for bargaining purposes, or when applications are made for union certification, with the drivers of a common carrier? Is this not the problem? Should there not be some concern in this regard?


Martin Patrick O'Connell: I do not share that concern. If a man is truly an independent contractor and can use his vehicle as he determines, the question of remuneration is not the governing one. I cannot see how a truly independent contractor would be pulled into a collective agreement or into a bargaining unit. The issue would hinge on the use of the vehicle as determined by the contractor.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
Motion No.2 (Mr. Alexander) negatived on division.


Mark Willson Rose: That Bill C-183, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code, be amended by deleting from Clause 1, lines 1 to 8 at page 4, and substituting therefor the following:
Canada Labour Code
"(b) a fisherman who is engaged in commercial fishing and accepting or receiving payment, according to the volume and price of fish caught and delivered, from a commercial buyer of fish, whether such fisherman (i) owns and operates his own fishing vessel, provided he as master-owner of a fishing vessel does not employ or engage more than two additional fishermen who share in the proceeds of the fishing voyages, or (ii) shares in the operation of a fishing vessel owned by another person and receives in payment for his services a share or portion of the proceeds of the fishing voyages, or (iii) operates a fishing vessel owned by another person under a rental agreement or conditional sales agreement or any other form of oral or written agreement, or (iv) receives wages for all or part of his employment on a fishing vessel or in fitting out a fishing vessel on which he will be employed."
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking on behalf of my hon. friend from Comox-Alberni in whose name this motion stands. I regret that my hon. friend is not here. He has been very diligent in pursuing this whole question during committee hearings. He has concerned himself with the representations we have heard from the Fishermen's Union and other groups interested in this matter.
It is an important matter to me because a great many fishermen reside in my constituency. Unfortunately however there are far fewer fishermen there now than there were before the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis) introduced his new licensing regulations. But that is another question.
A look at the motion reveals the nub of the issue in this case, which is whether or not fishermen can be regarded not as part of some shared venture but as employees for the purpose of this legislation. This question is extremely important to the fishermen. Their national annual income is not very high. It is true many of them work on a share basis, but in many instances they have no alternative. A great number of fishermen are not adequately represented by a union and because of this are forced to work under appalling dangerous conditions at not very remunerative rates at the behest of the large, well-organized, vertically integrated fishing companies. We all know what vertical integration implies. In my view these fishermen are in no way part of a shared venture; they are in fact, employees. The bait-if I may use a fishing term-that is dangled before them in terms of shares is acceptable to them only because up until now for many there has been no reasonable alternative.
During the hearings of the standing committee I was most impressed with the representations made by the United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union, and I should like to quote what one witness, Mr. Homer Stevens had to say, as found at page 10:49 of volume 10 of the committee proceedings:
We believe all fishermen, whether they are working aboard vessels owned or operated by fishing companies that are vertically integrated to the point where they own and operate the plants as well as the boats, whether they are employed on vessels owned by other fishermen who deliver under various forms of contract to those same companies or whether fishermen are employed on their own one-man or possibly two-man boats operated in a partnership in which they either own the vessel or are attempting to own it under various kinds of contracts, mortgage contracts or conditional sales agreements-all these should be covered under the new legislation so that the right to bargain collectively would be there to provide equal opportunity to them as with other employees and in order to have their unions certified under the

June 30, 1972
Canada Labour Code
law. This would remove the courts as they are now in the role of sole supreme arbitrator with the power to classify fishermen's unions as illegal conspiracies or during strikes, to state that fishermen are not on strike, that since there is no employer-employee relationship, in their opinion, they are nothing more than illegal conspiracies in defiance of various parts of the common law, with the end result being that fishermen who are attempting to improve their conditions of life, their job opportunities, earnings and so on can find themselves faced with heavy fines, goal sentences, damage suits and all the attendant legal expenses arising out of appeals on that kind of case.
I recognize that exists some doubt whether or not this amendment is constitutionally sound. There are various legal opinions on this and the department, through Mr. Mitchell, expressed one opinion. Various consultations with lawyers held privately by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni and others indicated that the constitutional question is not closed at all. The kind of thing envisioned by this amendment would do a great deal to enhance the security and the income of fishermen on both coasts and I think it should be tried.
I think it is well recognized that special provisions are made for fishermen under the unemployment insurance legislation. The reason is that, for the purposes of that legislation, fishermen are recognized as employees not as co-adventurers at all. I do not want to make a long speech on this subject since a great many words have already been said on it already. However, the evidence upholds the validity of UFAWU's argument, and I do not understand why the government tends to be reluctant to embrace this requested definition of an "employee" concept, unless it is because the government is unduly influenced by a strong lobby by the various wealthy fishing companies, though we do not need to use the fingers of both hands to count them since the number in this country is very small and is decreasing.
The position of these companies is virtually one of monopoly, of vertical integration. Therefore, I urge the minister in the strongest terms at my disposal to recognize the rights of these people as employees and to accept the motion.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remarks of the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose), who is not only giving his own views but those of his colleague from Comox-Alberni. The views of his colleague were very ably and extensively presented to the standing committee. I met at least twice with delegations from the United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union and I received representations from the Fisheries Council of British Columbia. In addition, I have had representations from my colleagues on this side of the House, the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Perrault) and the hon. member for Burna-by-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Goode).
There is a very high degree of interest in this question and I have publicly stated I am not unsympathetic to it. In fact, at one point I went further than perhaps I should when I said I thought the fishermen had an unassailable case. But sympathy for a cause does not necessarily make it legal to go further than we are proposing to go. There is no question that the modes of work in the fishing industry are quite varied. Where employees on fishing vessels work for the owner, the situation is clear cut. We have gone

beyond that and made available the benefits of the Labour Code to those who share the cash return, those who are co-adventurers, and this is a significant step forward. However, it still leaves out that group of fishermen who would undoubtedly benefit, as in my view the industry would benefit, from their inclusion in collective bargaining arrangements.
I cannot bring myself to ask this House to pass a provision which, according to the best legal advice that I have been able to get, would be ultra vires the powers of Parliament. We have therefore defined "employee" in such a way as to make available collective bargaining for more members of the fishing industry than has hitherto been the case. We believe that this is within our constitutional jurisdiction.
Although we are sympathetic to, and concerned for, this other group, I cannot ask the House to lead us into an area which in the present circumstances we think would be unconstitutional. There was a very extensive and useful discussion in the standing committee which is on the record, but I must ask my colleagues to let us proceed with the present definition, and to hope that as a result of provincial and federal activity in the future collective bargaining will in fact reach all of the members of this industry.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise to see whether even at this late date I can persuade the minister to ignore the bureaucratic legal advice that he has received and to look at this proposition more favourably. I address myself to him in what I hope is a co-operative plea that he reconsider his position. Let me put this to him. What he has done in the amendment he has proposed is to define the word "employee" as something beyond what an employee is under the common law. He has already taken the legal step which, in effect is that even where there is no employer-employee relationship as recognized in the ordinary law, such people can still come within the scope of the act.
If I may, I assure the minister that what I say is a correct statement because under various labour relations acts in this country, not only the federal act but also the Nova Scotia act, there have been cases before the courts where this has been decided. Without having had time to make a search, I can recall what I always have known as the Lunenburg case in which the courts of Nova Scotia held that co-adventurers such as are described in the amendment the minister has proposed to the bill are not employees. Because they are not employees under the common law, they cannot be considered to be employees under the Nova Scotia Labour Relations Act.
Clearly what the minister has done in the amendment he has proposed with regard to co-adventurers in the fishing industry has been to say in effect that, notwithstanding the fact that these people are not employees in the ordinary legal sense of the word, they are to be recognized as employees for the purpose of this act. I think that is a correct statement of what he has done. They are not employees and the courts have held that. That is not my statement, the courts have held that in the Lunenburg case and in others. They have held that co-adventurers
June 30, 1972

are not employees in the ordinary common law sense of the word. I repeat that what the minister is saying in this proposed law is that although fishermen who share the catch and are co-adventurers in their fishing trip are not employees ordinarily under the law, he makes them employees for the purpose of this act. This is clearly within the powers of the legislature.
What the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) and the United Fishermen's Union say to the minister is simply this, and I ask him to consider it in this light because, with great respect, I think he has misled himself: You are recognizing that a co-ad venturing relationship will be an employee relationship for the purpose of this act. We are saying to you that this only covers a small or large proportion and I really do not know which, of those engaged in the fishing business. There are other situations such as a fishing vessel with an arrangement with a commercial buyer. The commercial buyer will buy all the fish caught by that vessel and the remuneration to the fishermen engaged in the catching will depend on a division of the spoils, and they are usually pretty darn small, which they get from the commercial buyer. That is really what this amendment proposed by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni says.
The hon. member suggests four ways in which this may come about, and the minister could have changed the language to avoid some of the traps he thinks are there, but essentially what we are saying to the minister is that there is a large number of fishermen who are not coadventurers in the sense in which he describes them in his amendment to the law, but are co-adventurers in another sense. At the request of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni I read the minutes of the parliamentary committee and the discussion between the member and Mr. Mitchell from the minister's department. As a lawyer as well as Member of Parliament, I am really at a loss to understand the basis of Mr. Mitchell's argument. Surely, the situation is this. The entire labour code is applicable only to those areas of activity which come under federal jurisdiction. Anything that is in the labour code which goes beyond that is therefore ultra vires. It is still understood in the law in the many cases that have come before the courts that our federal Labour Code, under its previous name as well as its present name, applies only to industrial activities or operations, whatever you want to call them, which come under federal jurisdiction.
That is how the minister is saddled with the longshoremen's problem in Montreal. Some years ago there were cases before the courts in which stevedoring companies took the position that all the activities connected with stevedoring that take place as they do in Toronto, Montreal, Trois-Rivieres or Quebec, come under provincial jurisdiction. I forget the name of the case, but it is there and the minister's advisers can find it. That case went to the Supreme Court of Canada which held that in view of the specific provisions in Section 91 of the British North America act, making shipping and related matters federal, all the operations which relate to or are connected with shipping operations come under federal jurisdiction. That is how the poor minister is now loaded with the problems of the longshoremen. There was an argument as to whether it came under federal jurisdiction and the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that since it was connected with an
Canada Labour Code
operation which was specifically under a heading in Section 91 of the BNA Act, it was federal. I say to him that fishing is under a specific heading, I forget which one, in Section 91 of the BNA Act. Therefore, if he accepts this amendment he would be in no different position from the one he would be in as a result of the amendment he has proposed.
I cannot understand the legal argument that was made because the amendment he proposed will be constitutional only to the extent it is held that co-adventuring operations in which fishermen participate come under federal jurisdiction. In the same way, the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni would be constitutional to the extent that the operations of fishermen there defined come under federal jurisdiction. What in heaven's name is the difficulty?
The minister cannot now decide whether these operations will come under provincial or federal jurisdiction. I say to him in all kindness that it is impossible for Mr. Mitchell or anyone else to make that decision, because that decision can only be made by the courts after they have heard the facts of the case, after they have had before them all the facts of the relationship regarding the operation and the facts regarding the way in which the fishing is done. That is the only way a decision can be made. It cannot be made in the abstract, and I am surprised that the legal advisers are trying to make it in that way.
Let me repeat again my plea that the minister reconsider, because I am bold enough to suggest that the legal advice he has given needs at least a second look. The legal principle is not different as between the amendment he proposed and the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. As far as the legal principle is concerned there is no difference. Either both of them are unconstitutional or both are constitutional, and I think they are the latter. They are constitutional only to the extent that a court would hold the operations being carried on are operations under federal jurisdiction because of the presence of fishing under a specific heading in Section 91 of the BNA Act.
It is really just as simple as that at this stage. It may be very complicated later if a buyer of fish, for example, challenges it and goes to court. That may be a complicated case, but I suggest to the minister, and I am putting it strongly, that it is wrong for him to decide in the abstract now that his hands are tied. There are many things which have been passed by Parliament and by our legislatures which have gone to the courts and which the courts have said are ultra viries. This would not be the first time that has been done. That result has come about following some legislation. I do not think the minister is right in deciding that in this case he will make this decision now concerning its constitutionality, instead of taking the position that he wants to extend this law to the fishermen of Canada so that they may have advantage of the Labour Code and collective bargaining. He should extend it within the parameter of the constitutional provisions and let the courts decide on that parameter as no doubt they would do.

June 30, 1972
Canada Labour Code
The merchants of fishing are a pretty tough lot and they may take the matter to court. It may be that the minister's argument will lose. We do not guarantee that it will win. However, I suggest the minister really is being misled in his view in deciding that he cannot now have this House pass this amendment, because I am confident in my own mind that in some areas this amendment would stand up as valid, just as I think there are possibly other areas in which the amendment would not stand up as valid. That would depend entirely on the decision of the courts. I repeat that the minister cannot make that decision when he does not have the facts. That decision can be made only on the facts of each case and to make that decision in abstract is a disservice to the fishermen. He cannot, in my opinion get away with dealing with some of them and not dealing with the others. In legal principle, both are in the same boat if I may put it that way. I earnestly appeal to the minister and say to him that I believe this is an important matter for the fishermen.
Since the minister has agreed to take a partial step, he ought to take the complete step and not be, as the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) would put it, pusillanimous about it. He should take a chance and let the courts decide. If the courts should knock him down, he would not be the first minister to be knocked down by the courts.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The minister has spoken. If there is consent of the House, the minister may speak again. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief. I listened with a great deal of interest to the line of argument presented by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis). I think I will have to resist any temptation to enter into a legal debate with such a distinguished lawyer and counsel. First, may I say that I am satisfied with the advice I have had from my officials and with my own study of the situation. Perhaps I ought to enter into a little of the legal argument which has been presented. I do not wish to provoke any further argument, but I feel it is necessary at least to show the hon. member some of the grounds for the position in which I find myself.
It is true that the proposal in the bill before us may indeed be tested in the court. I am confident it will be upheld. I am equally confident at this point of time that to move beyond the position we are now in would be to tempt the fates, and might indeed jeopardize the step we are already prepared to take into an area which may not be absolutely clear constitutionally but which, in my view, will stand up constitutionally when tested but which might fall down constitutionally if it over-reached itself. We are in the position of I believe, Macbeth, of whom it was said, vaulted ambition over-leaped itself and fell on the other side. I do not want to be in that position. I do not want to place the House of Commons in the position where the courts would say it has over-leaped itself. I say that for this reason.
It is true that section 91 brings fishing under federal jurisdiction. The bill before us, however, is concerned

with employers and employees who happen to be in the fishing industry, but we have to find an employer-


David Lewis: No.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: -if we have a fisherman, who is employing that man. This labour bill is about collective bargaining between employers and employees.


David Lewis: Who is the employer or co-adventurer?


Martin Patrick O'Connell: I am asked who is the employer or co-adventurer. We think we can discern an employer who is the owner of the boat, or the other persons can be deemed to be employees of an employer among themselves. But the employer is not a fishing company on shore.


David Lewis: That is legal nonsense, for heaven's sake.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: The hon. member says that is legal nonsense. He will soon be leading me into a legal debate, and I have said that I do not wish to co-adventure with him in that boat. I would merely state that we feel the step we are taking will stand up and that the next step would take us into an area where we could not find an employer under federal jurisdiction but would find somebody on the shore, perhaps a fishing company which is a processor not within our jurisdiction. I think there is a difference between the two positions advanced. I should like to accede to the very cogent case put forward by the hon. member for York South, but I must persist-


Stanley Howard Knowles: In being wrong.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: -in being not pusillanimous, whatever the word is. I hope the bill as it is will be supported.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what that bad word is either, but if it means pussyfooting around, the minister sure is doing that. The minister rose to explain why he does not intend to accept this amendment. I certainly do not intend to become involved in the argument because fishermen are rather scarce in my area. What really bothers me about much of this legislation, however, is that the minister obviously is not able to change his mind because his officials have decided that is the way it is to be.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: That is not so.


William Arnold Peters: I am sure it is. This minister is considered to be one of the smart ministers in this House, a man who can make up his own mind. He heard a very good argument. I do not think he disagreed with it but decided that it did not meet the views of his officials. He sounded more like Paul Martin than a bright young cabinet minister in 1972.


Stanley Howard Knowles: His name is Martin.


William Arnold Peters: It seems to me the whole situation has changed, particularly in respect of western fishing. I have listened to the argument of Homer Stevens for many years now. It seems to me that as a result of the license changes and the assistance we have given in terms of
June 30, 1972

developing very large canneries on the west coast, where we have in effect amalgamated all the facilities, we have made it impossible for most fishermen to own their own boats. We have amalgamated them into what the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) would call a more viable industry. We have made so many changes that the people who are engaged in the fishing industry on the west coast are having considerable difficulty in labour relations or in understanding whether or not the fact that they are fishing from the boat means that they are employees of the man who owns the boat, employees of the man who buys the fish or, as the minister said, co-adventurers.
I know nothing about the law but I think it is not my job as a legislator, and I suggest it is not the job of the Minister of Labour as a legislator, to decide whether or not the Supreme Court, under a given circumstance would make a favourable decision. But I do suggest that we have an obligation to meet the condition as we see it today, and to draft legislation that will solve that problem. So far as I am concerned if the Supreme Court decides that we were wrong, then we have an obligation to come before Parliament again and change the legislation to accomplish what we wanted to do in the first place. If the Supreme Court says that it must be done in another way, we should pass amending legislation.
The role of the legislator is to solve the problems of the people whom he represents, and in this case those who are engaged in the fishing industry are in serious difficulty. They are in a totally unique industry in which the Unemployment Insurance Commission has had to make all kinds of exceptions. There are other industries in the same position, but it seems to me that until cabinet ministers decide, after hearing the advice, that they know the problem, until they make up their minds to introduce legislation that will solve the particular problems affecting the Canadian people without always looking with one eye at the civil servants, who obviously feel that they would be in a bad position if they recommended any course which would not be upheld by the Supreme Court, we have to press the Supreme Court to make decisions. If the Supreme Court is the viable body that it must be in making final judgments it will also look at modern, up-to-date conditions rather than attempt to interpret the legislation in a cold and distant way. I suggest that we should press the Supreme Court to make decisions and in this way our constitution will be viable and up-to-date.
If the minister will not even introduce legislation that will enable the Supreme Court to make a favourable decision, then he is less than responsible and certainly not very adventurous.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I realize that I have already spoken but may I, through you, ask for consent to take two or three more minutes?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) have consent to make additional remarks?
Canada Labour Code


David Lewis: I just want to address myself again to the legal point which the minister raised. It is the advice which he received that makes me so upset about the decision he made. If Mr. Mitchell or any of the minister's other advisors are in the gallery, I hope they will forgive me for speaking frankly, as I do. What the minister has said, and what the argument of Mr. Mitchell was as I read it in the committee's proceeding, is that they are probably dealing with a person, using "person" in a legal sense, namely a company, that does no more than purchase and sell the fish or does no more than process the fish. What right has the minister or his advisers to make that decision? If those are the facts in a particular case, if the company in fact has nothing to do with the fishing operation, then there may be constitutional difficulties, although I would not be certain of it even in that case. But in the modern fishing industry and in other industries as well, those are not always the facts. A company that purchases or processes is often very likely to have made some kind of capital advance to the owner of the vessel or may even own the vessel or may have some kind of business arrangement with the people who operate the vessel.
There are all sorts of sets of facts that may come before the Court. We are dealing in this case, as in many other cases, with an integrated industry, and frequently the buyer and the processor have an interest in the fishing operation in one form or another. For all the minister knows, he may find cases, and I have read about them in the law books when I practiced labour law, where the company has the authority to decide who will be master of the vessel and to decide who will be hired to operate the vessel. I say to the minister that these things are not simple. They are complex sets of facts, and I can visualize a situation where it would be possible to persuade the court that the particular set of facts in that situation, the involvement of the purchaser and the processor in the fishing operation, is such as to make him a fishing employer for the purpose of this act.
This is the situation, and the minister is really running away from his responsibility by taking the advice which he has been given on the basis that this is a simple factual situation. Well, it ain't, Mr. Speaker, if I may use that well known Oxonian term. These things are not like that at all. In labour relations, with regard to the constitutional problem, there have been cases which have turned on the facts of the case, cases which may appear to the minister or to me to be very similar which have gone in the other direction because of facts which were brought before the court. I say to the minister that there is nothing in the situation that would justify his acceptance of the advice which he has been given, there is nothing that would justify his assumption of facts which have not been tested, and I think that his duty is to enable all the fishermen to come under the Labour Code now that he has taken that step. I congratulate him for taking it. I am very pleased that he has done so, and so is the hon. member for Comox-Alber-ni (Mr. Barnett) and all my other colleagues.
I suggest to the minister that it is his duty to take this step and to let each case depend on its facts. The courts will decide. There is nothing humbling or humiliating about this Parliament saying that we want the fishermen covered by this law and then finding that in some cases
Some bon. Members: Agreed.

June 30, 1972
Canada Labour Code
the courts say they are not covered by this law because the law to that extent is invalid. To assume that a particular company carries on certain operations and therefore cannot possibly be involved in the fishing operation is a false assumption; it is just not factual. The facts will be the basis of any court decision, and the minister should not make the decision without giving the court a chance, and without giving the fishermen a chance, to fight their case in court. Let them go to court and fight the case. It will not be up to the minister to fight it. In any problem like that, even though the constitutional argument may be involved, it is not necessarily the Attorney General of Canada or of a province who is involved because they are usually given notice so they can be there if they want to, but it is not necessarily they who carry the case. In this case it will be the fishermen and the alleged employer who will carry the case. I do not think the minister should take from the fishermen the opportunity to fight their cases through the courts. Some cases they will lose and some they will win, and those that they win will be very important for the people involved.
Again, I appeal to the minister not to rest on the advice he has received. Since we are almost at one o'clock, and if the minister is ready to reconsider, we might call it one o'clock to give him another opportunity to discuss it with his advisers. But if he is not ready to reconsider it, what can one do?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the said motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11) the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That Bill C-183, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code, be amended by deleting lines 15 to 22 on page 4 thereof and substituting therefor:
"employee" means any person employed by an employer and includes a dependent contractor and a private constable, but does not include a manager or supervisor or any other person who, in the opinion of the Board, performs management functions or is employed in a confidential capacity in matters relating to industrial relations;"


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the said motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11) the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That Bill C-183, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code, be amended by deleting lines 33 to 40 on page 17 thereof.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the said motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it. The motion is negatived on division.
Motion No. 5 (Mr. Alexander) negatived.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That Bill C-183, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code, be amended by deleting line 44 on page 35 thereof and substituting therefor:
"logical change, or"


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


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I have a suggestion to make at this particular time. Since some government members have an interest in this motion, and have indicated that they want time to look into the matter further, in order to acquiesce in their suggestion I would call it one o'clock, if I may.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will put the matter so that hon. members may indicate to the Chair whether they are in agreement. Is there agreement to call it one o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is no consent.
June 30, 1972


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of those who said no on the government side, I would like to say that the suggestion I put forward came to me from the government side, and in order to co-operate I was prepared to do that.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Let us try it again.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I think it is extremely unfair. Some members really do not know what is going on. They have holidays on their minds, and from force of habit stand up and say no.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They did not even stand up to say it.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: They did not have the courtesy to stand up so that at least they could be recognized. I am sick and tired of that type of pussyfooting. The only thing I was trying to do was bring some sense of responsibility to the House. I repeat that the suggestion was made to me by a government member. I do not want to single out any particular government member; I don't think that would be fair, but it came from one in high authority. It was he who came over and asked me if I would defer this particular motion. I might say that it was the Minister of State from Calgary who voiced one very loud no. Now that he knows what the situation is, perhaps the suggestion could be put once again.


Mr. Mahoney:: Mr. Speaker, if it is the wish of the hon. member to stand the motion, perhaps he could ask consent of the House to stand it.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: No, that is not the point.


Mr. Deachman:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, during the course of this discussion we have come so close to one o'clock that I think we would be prepared to call it one o'clock and rise.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there agreement of hon. members that I call it one o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. When the House rose at one o'clock we were about to consider Motion No. 6.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, this is one of the more interesting sections in the entire bill. First, we would be faced with a situation that we did not have to be concerned about in the present labour bill inasmuch as we have brought into play the results of technological change and its effects upon employer and employee.
Canada Labour Code
I should like to say that notwithstanding what we may do regarding the bill presently before us management and labour, particularly labour leaders, must realize that it is important and necessary for them to have at least three criteria in order to save the whole collective bargaining process. I shall elaborate on them in this way.
First, we cannot continue to have the collective bargaining process involved with confrontation rather than negotiation. It is necessary that the parties realize that the third party involved in the collective bargaining agreement, that is the Canadian public, is becoming very involved in them even though it does not sit at the bargaining table. It is, therefore, incumbent upon labour and management to bargain in good faith and this should be one of the foundations of the whole system. At the present time I do not think that employers and labour leaders are bargaining in good faith.
The second criteria to be met is that the two parties should approach the bargaining table from flexible positions. We will never get anywhere unless they do.
The third criteria would provide for full disclosure. There is no point in going to the bargaining table unless all the facts are put on the table so that solutions can be arrived at which will benefit the employee, the employer and, more important, the third party.
When this bill was first introduced as Bill C-253, there was a great furor and cries of dismay and despair. And rightly so, Mr. Speaker, because in the first place, there were no escape clauses. There was no way for management and labour to decide by themselves whether they could reach the type of agreement that this bill calls for in terms of the effect of technological change, so in its wisdom the government introduced another bill. And this is where we come in now, Mr. Speaker, at clause 149, which I refer to as the escape section.
There are three instances, and I shall not elaborate upon them, in which the parties would not have to rely on clauses 150, 152 and 153, which are the basic clauses dealing with technological change, if, first, notice is given prior to entering into a particular collective agreement. The second escape clause is, of course, 149(2)(b), which reads:
the collective agreement contains provisions that specify procedures by which any matters that relate to terms and conditions or security of employment likely to be affected by a technological change may be negotiated and finally settled during the term of the agreement;
As I understand it, Mr. Speaker, there was some question whether these two clauses were disjunctive. We now know that is so and we have two escape provisions so far. The third escape provision is the one referred to in clause 149(2)(c) which reads as follows:
the collective agreement contains provisions that
(i)	are intended to assist employees affected by any technological change to adjust to the effects of the technological change; and
(ii)	specify that sections 150, 152 and 153 do not apply, during the term of the collective agreement, to the employer and the bargaining agent.

June 30, 1972
Canada Labour Code
What concerns me, and this is the gist of my motion, is that subclause (c) is not just junk. I pose this question because it seems that within subclause (2)(c) you have some groundwork whereby if the parties in the collective agreement can bring about some formulae which are intended to assist employers affected by technological change to adjust to the technological change, that should stand by itself and rightly so. If two parties can sit down and say this is what we will have in our agreement in order to show an intention of what labour and management desire in terms of the effects of technological change, why can it not stand by itself? The government says no, we cannot do it that way; we have to bring in the words "and acquire a waiver".
This is the part that not only bothers me, but many on this side of the House as well as many on the other side of the House. The government says you can make such an agreement, but at the same time you must acquire a waiver. In this regard, a waiver of the provisions of clauses 150, 152 and 153 is a further burden on the negotiating process inasmuch as management will have to attempt to buy that labour in order for it to have any meaningful contract in the long run. On the other hand, as it has been explained to me, the union will in turn have to go back to its membership and say, before we can enter into an agreement under this particular section, we must get your permission to exclude a waiver of something which is legally yours. This places the union in a very peculiar situation, a situation which they do not accept nor want.
Why can the second portion of subclause (c) not stand by itself? In other words, instead of having the word "and", why can it not read, "or specify that clauses 150, 152 and 153 do not apply". What is wrong with leaving that decision to labour and management? Surely they can, through any means which they can conceive and devise, say they will agree to this; we do not have to worry about the technological change because we know what is going to happen; we can guarantee security, jobs or anything that affects the employee without having to go into the act. It should be their right to say that they can opt out of the technological change sections of this bill.
There are a lot of reasons for asking the government why they are now imposing this particular section on labour and management when, in effect, technological change and its effects should be something that is settled around the bargaining table. There is a great concern in management. I could read off many other points of concern, but I do not want to waste the time of the House. They are afraid of harrassment. They are worried that there will be more negotiations, more strikes, unnecessary government interference, as they call it, double jeopardy, planning difficulty and disclosure of the technological change. They have every right to be concerned. The concern would be minimized if we could be assured that labour and management would approach the bargaining table in good faith, with flexible positions and make full disclosure. I am trying to arrive at industrial peace. That calls for the opportunity of the parties opting out of the technological change section. It is not a difficult argument
to follow. It just depends on whether the government believes there is some merit in this type of argument.
I am concerned about the technological section. If we relate our thoughts to the present situation of a Montreal port strike, we have a labour bill, a collective agreement, an arbitrator who has handed down a decision, union leadership and the wishes of Parliament as expressed through the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) all being ignored. Even if we pass this bill, it probably will not have any effect because of the attitude that some union leaders have taken that they are expressing the wishes and desires of the whole trade union movement. I disagree with this. There is one thing we have to be concerned about, and that is the public interest.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The public interest must prevail no matter what the two parties may be thinking or may conclude. As Parliamentarians, it is our job to step in when the public interest is being adversely affected. Certainly, the collective bargaining process is the best process so far, but we have to question it at this time because it is not working. What I am trying to do with my amendment is make it work because with the imposition of the technological change section and the resultant ultimate need to reopen a contract that has already been duly signed, there is a great fear. If no agreement can be reached, there will be a strike. This is what many people fear. The Canadian people would be concerned if they knew that that is the principle behind this bill.
The polls are giving us some indication that governments must be responsible. I am not talking only about this government. I do not intend to be partisan this afternoon. I have a charitable spot in my heart because I hope we are going home. Here is an opportunity to show that we are bringing in an innovation, something that has never happened before, whereby a collective agreement which has been duly signed can be reopened if there is a disagreement and the possibility of a strike. This is what many people are concerned about in 1972.
All I am trying to do is look at the situation and throw in another escape clause. I think the parties are entitled to it. When two parties come to an agreement, they can say this is what we intend to do if technological changes affect a significant number of people within any organization. They make their decision and the contract is closed. On the other hand, if the union and labour can make some arrangement whereby they can maintain the security that employees are rightly seeking without having any recourse to this bill, why can they not do that? That is what I am talking about. This clause, together with clauses 150, 151, 152 are the clauses of the bill on which the most emphasis has been placed.
There is some talk about the balance of power. I do not know who, in fact, has the balance of power, but I do not want to talk about that. I want to talk about what is good for the Canadian people. This bill can only be good for the Canadian people if there are enough escape clauses in it in order that the true collective bargaining process can be left to those who are directly involved. We cannot sit idly by and hope things will get better. There are indications right now that things are not going well with the collective
(Mr. Alexander.]
June 30, 1972

bargaining process. Here is an ideal opportunity to relieve some of the fears of both management and labour. The clause will work much better, if amended, because there will be more avenues through which to proceed. If better prospects for industrial peace are what we want, I respectfully suggest that hon. members give this motion profound thought.
We cannot afford industrial strife and subsequent strikes leading only to unemployment and lost markets. Right now there is a strike in progress which is costing Montreal, I have heard, $1 million a day. And that is only an estimate for Montreal itself. Heaven knows what it is costing the Province of Quebec or, indirectly, the Province of Ontario, the rest of Canada and western Canada in particular through its affect on the grain trade. It is bound to be an astronomical figure. With these things in mind we should attempt to amend the bill so that its shortcomings are corrected to some extent. This is all I am asking-that sub-clause (c) should use the word "but", making it disjunctive, rather than the word "and" whose presence would result in a most complicated process being followed.
You see, Mr. Speaker, the unions will not ask for a waiver. They could not get one, because their membership would not agree. So they will rely upon subclause (b) or upon subclause (a). Thus, instead of having three options available the number of options will in practice be reduced to two. I am trying to ensure that there will be all three as intended by the minister. Why should the unions ask for a waiver? Why should they ask to be relieved of their rights? Unless the disjunctive word "but" is introduced, the subclause will not work. All I am trying to do is to get some sense into this bill and have a clause which would have some chance of working.
I have attempted, to the best of my ability, to present the motion and explain the reasoning behind it. I now hope that hon. members, after some debate, will accept the proposition I have put before them and vote in its favour.


Mr. Charles H. Thomas (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to add a few words in support of the proposition which the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) has so eloquently placed before the House. This is probably the most important motion before us today.
As my hon. friend has said, industrial relations at the present time could be a great deal better than they are. The general public is dissatisfied with the way in which collective bargaining is working. They fear their interests are being completely overlooked in the course of the continuing battle between management and labour. One would have thought that at a time like this, in the course of the critical situation facing the Port of Montreal, any government would hesitate before doing anything which might in any way heighten the tension which exists between the two parties to a labour dispute. One might think that any government worthy of the name would be solely concerned about bringing in legislation which would lessen the tension between the two parties to a dispute, that it would introduce changes to the Labour Code designed to lessen mistrust and antagonism between the parties involved.
Canada Labour Code
Reading the preamble to this bill one receives the impression that the government did intend to do something to improve industrial relations. The last paragraph reads:
And whereas the Parliament of Canada desires to continue and extend its support to labour and management in their co-operative efforts to develop good relations and constructive collective bargaining practices, and deems the development of good industrial relations to be in the best interests of Canada in ensuring a just share of the fruit of progress to all-
This would encourage one to believe that something was contained in the legislation which would improve the bargaining process. Mr. Speaker, when the forerunner to this legislation, Bill C-253, was introduced it was immediately attacked both by management and by organized labour. It was criticized by management because of the clause concerning technological change to which my hon. friend has referred. This clause was included, ostensibly, to give both parties a better basis upon which to bargain. But according to management, instead of improving relations it would damage relations between the parties. It might be said that management has certain vested interests and, of course, this is true. But regardless of this aspect, the clause is disliked by management, whether its position is right or wrong. Thus, rather than contributing to the lessening of tension, such a provision could only contribute to the growing distrust between the parties. To me, this is the most objectionable feature of the bill.
I have read the briefs and I am aware of the representations which have been made. In the circumstances, I am amazed that the minister can be so intransigent. He refuses to compromise. He says, in effect: This is what I have decided and this is what you will get. My hon. friend, in his wisdom, has suggested a way out which may appease one side at the bargaining table and which will certainly not damage the other. I think the provisions are strong enough. We are now entering a new area of bargaining and destroying the sacrosanct nature of a contract. We are saying that under certain conditions contracts can be broken. It seems to me that if you are bargaining in good faith and arrive at a contract, both parties to the contract should be bound by it. It is very disturbing to see a situation exist in this country today in which parties to a contract not only refuse to honour the contract but refuse to obey the law, and publicly so state, in which event, to use a common phrase, the contract is not worth the paper it is written on.
What is the point of trying to legislate for co-operation and for bargaining in good faith? Legislation cannot produce that. You must convince parties to an agreement that both must act and bargain in good faith. Unless that is done all the legislation in the world will not make them reach an agreement that either of them would respect. That is the dangerous part of this clause. I should like to see the entire clause deleted. It is amusing to sit in committee and listen to various witnesses and departmental officials say that most contracts now contain provisions to cushion the effects of technological change, but that because there is the odd employer who does not agree to such provision the government must bring in an allembracing clause like this and thus drag everybody into

June 30, 1972
Canada Labour Code
the net. In my opinion, this kind of provision endangers the entire collective bargaining process.
I think we should admit that we have given up trying to get the government to withdraw completely the clauses dealing with technological change. But in all fairness to both parties to a dispute the government should be prepared to accept the amendment that has been put forward by my colleague which provides one more opportunity for two parties to reach agreement. I strongly urge the minister to accept the amendment in the interests not only of management and labour but of good relations and industrial peace.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise for just a moment or two to express the hope that on this occasion the Minister of Labour (Mr. O'Connell) will not be pusillanimous. I hope that he will reject this amendment. As I see it, what we are dealing with in global terms at this point is the whole business of writing a technological change provision into the labour code. We think it ought to be there, that it ought to be stronger, but at least there should be support for it in the legislation as far as it goes.
What we are dealing with in the immediate amendment to the escape provisions of the bill is an attempt to make it possible under certain conditions for the technological change provisions not to apply. Clause 149(2) provides a set of conditions under which the technological change provisions need not apply. The one in particular that is dealt with by the amendment moved by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) is a two-part escape provision providing, in effect, that the technological change provisions do not apply if both of two other provisions are written into a collective agreement: one, a provision intended to assist employees in the event of technological change; two, specific recognition of the fact that the technological change provisions of the bill do not apply.
I suggest that if you change the "and" to "or", you will make the escape clause that much wider. You will make it possible for the technological change provisions not to apply, on the very flimsy ground that there can be found in the agreement provisions which might seem to assist employees affected by technological change. The provisions in this whole area of the bill are weak enough as they are that I do not think that they should be weakened further. If the minister will indicate his opposition to this amendment, he will find that we will support him.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, in this discussion we are again at the very heart of the Labour Code. A very important section of the bill is clauses 149 to 153. These provisions bring into the collective bargaining process the impact on employees of technological change. The object of these clauses we are currently debating is to ensure that the provisions are viable in the administrative sense, that they do contribute to constructive industrial relations, and that they bring about equity as between the two parties.
I was very interested in the case made by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Thomas) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) as they strug-

gled with this, as indeed the standing committee did over an extended period. I am not adopting a position of intransigence, but I am not able to compromise on these provisions, as suggested to me, since what has been suggested as the compromise would undermine my view of constructive industrial relations as they bear upon technological change.
It has been suggested that we make paragraph (i) and paragraph (ii) disjunctive. At the moment the two paragraphs are connected with an "and", which it is suggested we change to "or". In my opinion, the effect of that change would jeopardize agreements that are made between employers and employees and would, from the employers' point of view, expose them to a reopening of the bargaining to which they have been party. If we accepted the amendment we would indeed open the door to the reopening of collective agreements after they had been sealed with the intention that they remain sealed.
What we have been trying to do in constructing the sections of the bill that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre described as escape clauses is truly to make agreements final from the point of view of equity between the two parties. There must be a seal on the agreement, and the only way to seal it is to leave the word "and" connecting paragraph (i) and paragraph (ii) of subclause (c) of clause 149(2).
Let us consider what would undoubtedly happen when a technological change occurs in a situation where an employer and the employees have agreed upon a substantive provision to deal with it. Let us assume we are in the position the hon. member for Hamilton West suggested, and we have made this disjunctive. The bargaining agent may take the position before the Canada Labour Relations Board that he has provision for technological change as a result of bargaining, but not for this particular change. He may say the union did not contemplate this change when they made the bargain, and this is an extraordinary change which is going to significantly affect in an adverse manner a number of employees. There would be constant litigation in that event before the Canada Labour Relations Board, because the parties would not have sealed the bargain and said for the term of the agreement, two years or three years, they had provided for technological change with these substantive provisions and, as risky as it may be, they are acting in good faith.
The bargaining agent may say to the employer that the union has bargained for these provisions and will live with them for that period without opening the agreement or running to the Labour Relations Board to plead that this was not the kind of thing about which they were thinking.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That section will never be used.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: If that is what is being suggested I must be intransigent, but that is the position I have to take.
It has been said that trade unionists will find it virtually impossible to follow because the bargaining agent will not want to go before his men and say he has made these various bargains, accepting this and giving up something
June 30,1972

else, but on the whole package he is satisfied; now, he must tell them about the technological change provision. In order to get this and this and this, there are these technological change provisions and we are required to waive our further rights to open the agreement to deal with technological change. That may be difficult to do.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That is what they told me.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Yes, that is what they may have told you. It may be difficult to do but it is their business to do it, and if the men do not want to agree to that waiver then the employer knows where he stands and will know this could happen. He knows what kind of provisions he is satisfied to give in exchange for the protection to which he is entitled. Again, if that is a difficult thing for the men to agree to or for the employer to agree to then there are other avenues. They may fall back upon the giving of notice or upon some method of resolving the dispute in a binding and official way when difficulty arises over the question of technological change. So, the employees are not necessarily closed off. Those employers who have made provisions and have gone the whole way-


Charles Humbert Thomas: They don't need this act.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: They do need the act. If they have made these provisions, they should be protected against reopening, and it is the "and" that protects them. The provisions are there, and the parties agree that those provisions are sufficient for the purposes of this act for this period of time. I am sure it is not in the mind of the hon. member for Hamilton West or the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Thomas) to expose agreements to reopening. They simply see the difficulty in the ordinary course of bargaining. I agree there will be difficulty, but that is why there are bargaining agents.
I think the hon. member for Hamilton West said these are issues for the bargaining table. I certainly agree they are, and that is the place to settle them. That is where assurance should be given the employers, just as it is given the employees, that these are bargains struck in good faith.
I said in opening that to make this administratively feasible we need the "and", so the Canada Labour Relations Board is not continuously drawn into litigation over whether this provision did in fact deal adequately with the situation. Without the "and" what would the question before the board be? The bargaining agent could then say they have some provisions but they are not adequate to cover a certain change. We have then transferred the question of adequacy away from the bargaining table and put it before the board. The board should not be drawn into this kind of question at all. We say to the parties, if you bargain for these then seal them, close the matter and accept it but do not ask another agency to enter into bargaining and tell you whether you have done an adequate job.
From an administrative and an equity point of view I suggest the "and" is necessary. The employer would undoubtedly trade the technological change provisions for the non-reopener clause. He does not want things reopened. From the point of view of the trade union in accepting these provisions, it must have known that the
Canada Labour Code
employer offered the provision to the union in order to get a closed contract. Having gone through all that, it would not contribute to constructive industrial relations to then leave an opening for reopening because of the inadequacy of the deal that was arrived at. That would create a situation which I do not think any of us would want.
In closing, let me say again that this was thoroughly reviewed in the committee. I have spent many hours considering this and discussing it with employers and associations of employers. I have discussed it with trade unionists as well. Many hon. members, particularly those on this side from British Columbia, have made a very strong plea and presented a very cogent case during the number of occasions I have met with them. They have a particular interest because employers on the west coast have put a strong case to them. I feel very strongly that I would be letting down the employers as well as the trade unionists if I gave in on this point. At the risk of being what is called intransigent, I must ask the House to resist the amendment before it and accept the original proposal advanced in the bill.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The question is on the motion moved by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander). All those in favour of the said motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: All those opposed to the said motion will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The House will now proceed to the consideration of Motion No. 7 standing in the name of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert).


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That Bill C-183, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code, be amended by deleting lines 1 to 34 on page 44 and substituting therefor the following:
"Revocable Check Off
162. (1) Any employee who is represented by a bargaining agent may authorize his employer in writing, at any time after the date on which the bargaining agent becomes entitled to represent him, to deduct from his wages the amount of the regular monthly membership or union dues payable by him to the bargaining agent and to remit that amount to
(a)	the bargaining agent; or

June 30, 1972
Canada Labour Code
(b)	the registered Canadian charitable organization, as defined
in the Income Tax Act, designated by the employee, and the employer shall deduct and remit that amount in accordance with the authorization.
(2)	An employee may, by notice in writing to his employer, revoke an authorization given by him pursuant to subsection (1), and that revocation shall have effect thirty days from the date upon which it is received by the employer.
(3)	For the purpose of exercising any rights he may have under this Part, an employee who exercises his right under paragraph (l)(b) shall not thereby lose the status of a member in good standing of the bargaining agent.
(4)	No person shall discriminate against an employee who exercises his right under paragraph (l)(b) either in regard to employment or any term or condition of employment or in regard to membership, for the purpose of exercising any rights he may have under this Part, in the bargaining agent or any term or condition of membership.
(5)	Nothing in a collective agreement that is inconsistent with the provisions of subsection (1) is valid."
He said: Mr. Speaker, I had some considerable discussion in the committee with regard to the principle advocated in this amendment. It also represents the heart and core of private bills I have presented in this House since 1969. In 1971, the bill was known as C-138.1 shall not go through a recital of the other numbers. However, they stem from the Hoogendorn case in Ontario and similar instances of that kind in the province of British Columbia, in my own province of Alberta and I am sure other provinces. As an individual, I was absolutely repelled and amazed that here, in Canada we would allow to happen what happened in those cases. These cases involve the fact that, by reason of conscience, a man or woman objects to belonging to either a closed shop or a union shop organization. Such a person does not believe in that type of unionism. This is a matter of true conscience. Yet, the effect of the closed shop and the union shop is that such an individual cannot maintain his or her employment.
This might involve the case of an individual who had worked in some undertaking which was not unionized, and then later the work force became organized. He or she is forced to belong to the union and to pay dues to the union in order to maintain employment in complete contradiction of that person's bona fide religious beliefs. That is why I have put forward this motion. I suggest the Labour Code is in fact contrary to the Canadian Bill of Rights, insofar as it says to unions that they can deprive individuals of their work because of their religious beliefs. I am not arguing here the validity or otherwise or the justification or otherwise of the religious belief held by the individual. I may say, however, that there are many people of the Reform Church in this country who do not believe in this. In addition, I have before me a letter from the General Counsel of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in Canada. For the benefit of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) who argued against me on this matter, may I say that this letter comes from the executive offices of that church in Oshawa. I want to read the letter:
The members of our communion have long felt that closed shop and union shop contracts in many instances force them to belong to unions when their conscientious convictions prevent them from

doing so. The provision that your bill would make in the federal legislation would certainly meet this problem.
Seventh-day Adventists do not wish to enjoy the benefits that come from the work of trade unionists and trade unions. However, some of the methods employed by trade unions in achieving their goals are such that conscientious Christians with strong views against the resort to violence and intimidation find themselves in a difficult position. They are prepared to make a contribution equivalent to union dues to some charity of the union's choice and even go so far as to have the union get credit for this contribution. They would appreciate the opportunity to work, in return, without in any way frustrating or thwarting the legitimate aims of their fellow employees who happen to be members of a trade union. But, neither do they wish to be forced to join an association or organization where conscientious scruples prevent them from doing so.
I hear snorts of disbelief from the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby who I say, frankly, epitomizes to my way of thinking some of the worst features of big unionism in his attitude toward this matter.
While I may not agree with the Quakers or others who for reasons of conscience do not accept that they should bear arms in service of our country, yet we accord them this privilege. They enjoy the full benefit of membership in Canadian society. It is asserted that because these individuals about whom I am concerned share some of the benefits-not all because the unions do not get all the benefits on behalf of their workers even though they believe they do-they must make their contribution and must belong. It is suggested that they should be grateful to belong. Since there is a limited amount of time, I wish to read and place on the record what is stated in the Canadian Bill of Rights. I shall read, first of all, from the preamble:
The Parliament of Canada, affirming that the Canadian Nation is founded upon principles that acknowledge the supremacy of God, the dignity and worth of the human person and the position of the family in a society of free men and free institutions:
I would reiterate the acknowledgement of the supremacy of God, the dignity and worth of the human person and the position of the family in a society of free men and free institutions. That is something many people appear to wish to deny today. The quotation continues:
Affirming also that men and institutions remain free only when freedom is founded upon respect for moral and spiritual values and the rule of law;
I commend those words to hon. members, and particularly to those who wish to steamroller individuals who would dissent.
And being desirous of enshrining these principles and the human rights and fundamental freedoms derived from them, in a Bill of Rights which shall reflect the respect of Parliament for its constitutional authority and which shall ensure the protection of these rights and freedoms in Canada:
Then, the following is enacted:
1.	It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely:
(a)	the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the
person and the enjoyment of property, and the right not to be
deprived thereof except by due process of law;
This is the provision regarding the right to work. Then, we have paragraph 2:
2.	Every law of Canada shall, unless it is expressly declared by an Act of the Parliament of Canada that it shall operate notwith-
June 30, 1972

standing the Canadian Bill of Rights, be so construed and applied as not to abrogate, abridge or infringe or to authorize the abrogation, abridgment or infringement of any of the rights or freedoms herein recognized and declared,
Then, there is a particularization, but no limitation. Part II, section 5 (1) reads:
Nothing in Part I shall be construed to abrogate or abridge any human right or fundamental freedom not enumerated therein that may have existed in Canada at the commencement of this Act.
Then, sub-sections (2) and (3) state:
(2) The expression 'law of Canada' in Part I means an Act of the Parliament of Canada enacted before or after the coming into force of this Act, any order, rule or regulation thereunder, and any law in force in Canada or in any other part of Canada at the commencement of this Act that is subject to be repealed, abolished or altered by the Parliament of Canada.
3.	The provisions of Part I shall be construed as extending only to matters coming within the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada.
It is clear to my mind that, in so far as the Canada Labour Code refuses to recognize the right of the individual as propounded in the amendment, it is an infringement of the Canadian Bill of Rights. The government of Ontario in 1970 amended its labour code and put in section 35(a) to take care specifically of the point that I have put forward. Unfortunately, I think the government of Ontario did not go far enough because this provision indicates that if an individual joins an organization where there is a collective agreement in force, and it is one of a closed shop or union shop nature, the act shall not apply to that person. But in effect I say that the rights granted under the Ontario amendment of 1970 are more illusory than they are real.
I say that we should recognize the principle that there is a freedom of conscience, a freedom of religion. There has to be something that is real, or do we just pay lip service to it? I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the failure of the government to include such an amendment as I have put forward, or a provision to accomplish the same end, means that the government is paying less than lip service to the rights of Canadian workers as enumerated under the Canadian Bill of Rights.
I hope that the House accepts my amendment. If it does not, I can promise hon. members that I will be back next year with a similar type of amendment if I am a private member. This is a matter that goes to the heart and core of labour law in this country. After all, so many of the people who belong to the party on my left talk about the right of individuals to dissent from the political views of the government and of other people, but when it comes to conforming to union law there is no right to dissent.


Douglas Charles Rowland: That is rubbish.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: One must conform or lose one's employment. Under the closed shop and under the union shop, as these workers conceive it in their conscience, they are unable to dissent.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to take part in this debate, but my hon. friend who is figuratively and literally on my right has
Canada Labour Code
provoked me to say a few words in support of the bill as it now stands and contrary to the amendment that is supported by the Conservative party. I would like to come to grips with what I think is the essential philosophical point of dispute here, and that concerns something called one's conscience.
The argument offered by the hon. member who preceded me was that the state must take into full recognition the obligations that one imposes upon oneself because of conscience. I say to the hon. member with all respect that never in my studies of philosophy and ethics have I had much intellectual respect for that kind of argument. I will tell the House why. If you study history you will find that the most scandalous deeds ever performed were often performed by men who claimed they acted in conscience. Men who have performed the most vile and inhuman practices in human history almost invariably have said they did them according to conscience, and indeed in many cases I would be prepared to accept that they were acting according to conscience; in other words, that they were doing what they deemed to be right and correct.
However, in any ethical decision it seems to me that one does not primarily consider motives but, rather, one has to consider the implications and the consequences for society as a whole and for other members of the group affected. For example, I could cite cases in medieval history of Catholics who thought it was entirely morally appropriate to torture, to put on the rack and to burn at the stake early Protestants because they as Catholics were acting in good conscience, they thought it was entirely appropriate and justified to so act.
Would we now sanction, in terms of our perception of morality, of our understanding of what is socially good, such activity? With respect, I would say no. One could cite in early renaissance history similar acts by Protestants who thought it was entirely appropriate and good to burn a Catholic every Thursday afternoon at three o'clock if they could get their hands on one. These Protestants in our history also thought they were acting in good conscience, and I would say with respect that they were acting in good conscience. It is simply a matter of ethical right and wrong, in my view, that their conscience was leading them to profoundly immoral acts.
In short, conscience is by no means a sufficient criterion to judge the goodness or badness of an act. Therefore, I submit that the argument put forward by the hon. member that conscience is to be relied upon, that conscience may lead one to a conclusion contrary to that which is proposed by this legislation, is without any serious philosophical justification. To cite a particularly horrendous and unrepresentative example, perhaps there were literally thousands of Germans in the 1930s who thought that the political actions of a man called Adolph Hitler were entirely good and appropriate, and that a German in good conscience could do nothing other than support the kind of policies that Hitler was advocating.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: You don't need to go that far; you can refer to the government.


John Edward Broadbent: Therefore, we come to the matter at issue. If we dismiss the philosophical argument of the conscience, and accept the utilitarian argument that you

June 30, 1972
Canada Labour Code
have to look at social consequences, then it seems to me that the legislation before us, and not the amendment, must be supported.
I categorically reject the anti-union attitude of the hon. member who preceded me, because most unions in this country are democratic organizations and are very much concerned with improving the well-being of their members. To suggest that they are always, or even usually, dominated by so-called big trade union bosses misses the point of reality.
The point is that by passing this kind of amendment we would be saying to a member of a trade union that although in most instances it was the trade union that had led to the doubling of that person's income in recent years, that the union had got him benefits so that he could no longer be fired at the whim of his employer, that the union had succeeded in getting him paid holidays, that the union had done for working people what political democracy in this century had done for society as a whole-that is, it had brought a degree of civil rights and civil dignity to the working people in Canada-the member had no financial obligation to that organization if he deemed it to be a matter of conscience. We would be saying to the worker that if he thinks it is not a matter of philosophical commitment, then he does not have to support the union; he does not have to support the thousands of workers who preceded him, who had to strike, on many occasions in terribly bad weather, in order to attain the financial gains and civil liberties in the workplace that he now enjoys.
I for one will not support a measure that gives a worker the right to opt out of a union and no longer pay his share toward achieving very desirable social aims.This is analogous to saying to the citizen of a democratic state, "You no longer have an obligation to pay your taxes if as a matter of conscience you are in profound disagreement with the government." I dare say that some members of the Conservative party Eire in profound disagreement with the present government. Therefore, if we followed the logic of the hon. member who preceded me they would be under no obligation to pay taxes to such a perfidious regime.
If it is wrong to say that to a citizen of a democratic state, I say it is equally wrong to say to a member of a democratic union that he has a right not to pay his share if he disagrees with the union. I urge that the House strongly vote against this amendment.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Mr. Speaker, I realize that we are in a very tight time situation. We have heard two points of view that explore this complex and difficult question which involves conscience. I point out that it goes further than that in the amendment; it involves the right of persons to be members in good standing in an organization, and taking its benefits, without being fully pledged to it in the sense of responsibility. That subject was canvassed quite thoroughly in the standing committee.
I read with a great deal of interest the presentation made by one group on this matter. I have listened to the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) and I simply conclude by saying we would be well advised to accept the bill as it presently stands.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: I declare the motion negatived on division.
Motion No. 7 (Mr. Lambert, Edmonton West) negatived.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Motion No. 8 as follows:
That Bill C-183, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code, be amended by deleting lines 45 to 48 on page 63 thereof and substituting therefor:
"194.(1) Except with the consent in writing of the minister, which shall not be unreasonably withheld, no prosecution shall be instituted in respect of an offence under this part.
(2) Where the minister withholds his consent, he shall do so in writing within two weeks after the application for his consent and shall state his reasons therefor."
He said: Mr. Speaker, this amendment is quite simple. Clause 194 reads at present:
Except with the consent in writing of the minister, no prosecution shall be instituted in respect of an offence under this part.
It stops there. I think it is time we looked at the arbitrary power given to the minister. I can give one example which is of prime importance and will bring home to hon. members the reasoning behind my amendment. Some time ago during the Montreal port strike, the Maritime Shipping Association asked for the minister's consent in order to prosecute the longshoremen's union for certain actions which it took. The minister in fact denied his consent, but the application was on his desk for heaven knows how long until I asked a question about it in the House. Now that we see the result of his arbitrary decision, we wonder whether it was the right one for him to take. My amendment stipulates that no prosecution can be launched without the minister's consent "which shall not be unreasonably withheld", and then I add a second paragraph which is of importance. It reads:
Where the minister withholds his consent, he shall do so in writing within two weeks after the application for his consent and shall state his reasons therefor.
We do not know his reasons for denying consent in the Montreal port case. Denial of consent may vary from one minister to another. This minister chose not to give consent; another minister might have given it. I do not know whether the minister's predecessor would have given his consent; but I do not want to get involved in personalities
June 30, 1972

because that would not be fair. Another matter that bothers me is that a minister may give his consent if it is politically expedient to do so. In other words, if there is an industrial dispute, and it enhances the attractiveness of the government to the public for a minister to give his consent to a prosecution against a union, he may be tempted to do so.
I hope the minister will see some merit in my amendment, but I know what his answer will be; I heard it in committee. He will say that this is making provision to adjudicate on whether the minister unreasonably gives or withholds his consent. Again I say the minister should not be given this total power to make arbitrary decisions and not be required to give reasons for those decisions.
I think it is high time we checked on this sort of attitude. I believe it gives too much power if we do not know when the minister gave his consent and what the reasons were. I should like to know right now his reasons for the decision regarding the Montreal port strike. Maybe somebody on the other side knows why he did not give consent. Without being repetitious, Mr. Speaker, I hope the minister sees some merit in my motion.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will be very brief. I support the legislation as originally drafted, and oppose the amendment. The amendment does not say so, but in effect it throws into the courts, into litigation, a review of the minister's judgment in this matter. The minister is responsible to this House and I do not think the courts are responsible in any way to the House. This is clearly an administrative matter and one of very delicate discretion, in view of all the circumstances. I would much prefer to have this sort of thing determined in the House by a minister rather than being a matter of litigation in the courts.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I will only say a few words in respect of the amendment to clause 194 dealing with the consent of the minister before prosecution.
This matter has been raised very often and it assumes that a strong relationship exists between the judiciary and the political powers. The mover of the two amendments has in mind the protection of the legislative authority, that is the authority of the Canadian people to express itself against those two powers.
It seems to me that both amendments should be passed since the minister is responsible before Parliament and not before the judiciary. It would be quite acceptable, Mr. Speaker, that the minister should agree to include in the legislation a provision making it necessary for him to state the reasons for his acceptance or refusal of a request to prosecute. Otherwise, it becomes a unilateral decision and, in any event, it could be construed as being a matter of political interests.
This is why these amendments should be passed both for the protection of the House of Commons and the parties involved.
Canada Labour Code


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. ^embers: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Gerald William Baldwin: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: I declare the motion negatived on division.
Motion No.8 (Mr. Alexander) negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: The House will now proceed to the consideration of Motion No. 9 by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander).


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That Bill C-183, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code, be amended by inserting therein, next after the heading "Promotion of Industrial Peace" where the same appears above line 1 on page 64, the following:
"194A. For the better assuring that industrial relations continuously serve the promotion of the common well-being as well for the better promoting of industrial peace in the public interest, the Minister shall promote and encourage, in the field of labour-management relations,
(a)	research in the social, political, economic, legal, psychological and other aspects of such relations, including employer and employee organization, personnel administration, social security, and labour legislation;
(b)	full discussion and the exchange of ideas regarding the planning and conduct of such research;
(c)	the public dissemination of significant results of such research;
(d)	the improvement of the materials and methods of instruction used in such research; and
(e)	the planning, supervision, co-ordination, analysis, and appraisal of industrial relations for the purpose of securing the most efficient co-operation of all groups and persons engaged in the production and distribution of goods and the provision of services."


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, motion No. 9 points out the necessity to stress once again the need for industrial peace. The heading of this section which appears on page 64 of the bill refers to the promotion of industrial peace.
Mr. Speaker, I beg your indulgence to give credit to the parliamentary intern who assisted me on this bill, Miss Kathy Swinton. Many of us who have had an opportunity of working with parliamentary interns hope that the government, although I understand the foundation is a little short of money, will promote this internship. These

June 30, 1972
Canada Labour Code
interns give us valuable assistance, because it is impossible for many of us to keep up with our chores without their help.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I think that all members who have had an opportunity to work with these young men and women and avail themselves of their expertise would appreciate the program being continued.
Mr. Speaker, the preamble to this bill can only have strength if the bill has some guts. My motion suggests the inclusion of the following:
"194A. For the better assuring that industrial relations continuously serve the promotion of the common well-being as well for the better promoting of industrial peace in the public interest, the minister shall promote and encourage, in the field of labour-management relations,
(a)	research in the social, political, economic, legal, psychological and other aspects of such relations, including employer and employee organization, personnel administration, social security, and labour legislation;
(b)	full discussion and the exchange of ideas regarding the planning and conduct of such research;
(c)	the public dissemination of significant results of such research;
(d)	the improvement of the materials and methods of instruction used in such research; and
(e)	the planning, supervision, co-ordination, analysis, and appraisal of industrial relations for the purpose of securing the most efficient co-operation of all groups and persons engaged in the production and distribution of goods and the provision of services."
The minister will probably tell me that is what he is doing now. But where does he get the authority? All I am asking is that the act give some guts to the preamble. Without some meaningful direction such as this, I feel the preamble is nothing but window-dressing, a political gimmick to appease one side of the bargaining process. I do not think I have to elaborate on this motion any further, Mr. Speaker. I hope that at long last the minister will think kindly toward this side.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I think kindly of all the remarks and the many contributions made by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) during the committee hearings and today. I want particularly to congratulate him on the work of his parliamentary intern who has done the right thing in drawing attention to the needs for a vastly expanded research effort to support industrial relations in the federal jurisdiction.
The hon. member asks where the authority and impetus is for research and publication of material. Mr. Speaker, it is in the very statute that founded the Department of Labour in about 1900. That was a very skimpy little act because in those days perhaps there was not much support for a federal role in labour relations. One thing in that act, however, is the requirement to establish the Labour Gazette in order to publish statistics.
On the basis of that we are raising a major research effort which will cover many of the grounds put forward by the parliamentary intern and which were mentioned this afternoon by the hon. member for Hamilton West. As he knows, I have asked the department to expand in a

significant way the non-legislative initiatives that we need in this field. Basic to them is an enlarged research effort. We have gone through Treasury Board with that effort and we are now in the clear. We are going to put a major shoulder to the wheel in that field. The hon. member will be happy to see the result. It is in the statute establishing the department and it really does not need a home in the bill before us, worthy as the idea may be.


Douglas Charles Rowland: Will the minister permit a question?


Mr. Speaker:: Will the minister accept a question from the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Rowland)?


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Douglas Charles Rowland: Mr. Speaker, as a sort of prologue to the question, I understand the reason for rejecting this amendment; but cannot the minister find a way of providing the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) with some of the information he seems to require, so that for his next intervention in a debate on labour the hon. member will be better informed?


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on a question of privilege?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I listened to that snide, nasty remark which just came from one of the uninformed members to my left. He has not had anything to say in this debate since it began. He did not attend any of the committee hearings. That shows how much he is interested in this subject.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should indicate his question of privilege. Would the hon. member resume his seat. If the hon. member has a question of privilege, he should indicate it. From what the hon. member has just said, the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Rowland) may have a question of privilege in relation to the words spoken by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander).


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege revolves around the fact that by implication the hon. member has suggested that I am misinformed.


David Lewis: It was a joke.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Maybe I am also joking. Now and again some of these members have to be spanked, and I am big enough to spank most of them around here. If the hon. member wants to interject in a debate, he should have at least made a meaningful contribution prior to his interjection. We could then have allowed his interjection, which certainly was not called for.


Mr. Speaker:: That, of course, is not a question of privilege; it is debate between the hon. member for Hamilton West and the hon. member for Selkirk. Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
June 30,1972

Divisions
Messrs:


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the said motion lost on division.
Motion No. 9 (Mr. Alexander) negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: House will now revert to the deferred divisions on motions Nos. 3, 4 and 6. Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The House will now consider motion No. 4.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The House will now consider motion No. 6.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Abram Ernest Epp: that Bill C-183, to amend the Canada Labour Code, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third time?


Some hon. Members:: By leave, now.


Mr.   O'Connell moved@: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


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


Gerald William Baldwin: On division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT DEFERRED-HOUSE TO MEET NEXT ON JULY 4 AT 2 P.M.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Allan ]. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council): Mr. Speaker, at eleven o'clock I asked that the adjournment motion stand in the expectation that the situation in Montreal might have clarified in the meantime so that the motion could be put and carried at this point. However, I am advised by the Minister of Labour (Mr. O'Connell) that the situation has not cleared up sufficiently that it would be desirable from the point of view of the government to put and carry the adjournment motion at this point.
Robert Jardine McCleave: In other words, "See you on Monday".


Gerald William Baldwin: No, Tuesday.
Canada Labour Code


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to ask whether we come back on Monday or on Tuesday. We on this side are as confused as perhaps they are on the other side. On which day do we return?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, if I may respond to the question raised, under Standing Orders the House would normally meet on Monday at 2 p.m.


J. Michael Forrestall: Why don't you call an election and quit playing games with the people of Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) has the floor.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I understand there might be disposition by the House to agree that we meet on Tuesday and that this could be ordered now.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have considered that point. In view of the arrangements many members have made, and the fact that members of the staff could normally expect a holiday, I would be agreeable to our meeting on Tuesday if that is the general wish of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As hon. members know, according to Standing Orders we would be required to be here on Monday, but we can dispense with the provisions of the Standing Orders by unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It appears there is unanimous consent that the House will reconvene on Tuesday next.
May we have order, please. Hon. members should realize that the House is still sitting. If hon. members, and particularly a number of ministers, wish to have conferences I suggest those should be carried on outside the House.
It being after four o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, notices of motions and private bills.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Stanley Howard Knowles: that Bill C-21, to amend the Canada Labour Code (provision for ten general holidays with pay), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I dare to hope that the action the House has just taken in agreeing to take a holiday on Monday puts this House in a favourable mood toward my Bill C-21 which has now been called for second reading. In fact it is a bill which proposes that two additional
3720

June 30, 1972
Canada Labour Code
holidays be added to the list of general holidays in the Canada Labour Code. Perhaps I might be permitted to point out that the Canada Labour Code does not cover the holidays we observe in the House of Commons; rather, we are governed by our own Standing Orders. We have just demonstrated that by unanimous consent we can alter our own rules and in this instance it is good that we have done so.
Bill C-21, as I have already indicated, relates to the Canada Labour Code, the legislation we have amended today by the passing of Bill C-183. My bill proposes an amendment to another part of the Canada Labour Code and I hope it will find favour with the faithful members who have remained for this final hour.
The Canada Labour Code as it now stands provides for eight general holidays-that is the legal term in the legislation, although most people call them statutory holidays- and I suggest that two more should be added. May I make it clear that this bill is a successor to a bill that I have put in a good many times in which I used to ask for one additional general holiday each year. The one that I asked for was the first Monday in August.
That bill, when it was reached in former sessions, was always attended by an interesting debate but I thought that the debate the last time this bill came up for second reading was particularly interesting. There was some criticism of the fact that I had not put a name to the holiday which I proposed for the first Monday in August. One of my friends to the right said he thought it would be awkward to suggest that this was the "first Monday in August holiday" every time we wanted to refer to it. At any rate, the criticism was that an appropriate name should be found for the holiday that we would provide for the first Monday in August.
Obviously, I have avoided using the term "civic holiday" because that might suggest to someone that a constitutional argument could be raised since we are dealing with the federal labour code. The other criticism that I met with last year came, I suppose, from skiing enthusiasts and such types who felt that if we were going to have a ninth general holiday it should be in February rather than in the middle of the summer. The point was made that there was a fairly long gap between the Christmas and New Year period and Easter, and that it was in that part of the year that an additional holiday should be provided.
Well, I am one to listen to criticism of my proposals and of my bills, and it seemed to me that the obvious answer to the suggestion that the holiday should be in February rather than in August, particularly in view of the fact that some members thought it should be in August, was to bring in a bill providing for additional holidays in both of these months. This bill, in that it provides for an additional holiday in August and an additional holiday in February, is genuinely and honestly the result of discussion that has taken place on the floor of this House of Commons.
Regarding the point about naming these holidays, about which there was criticism last year, I am trying to meet that by suggesting in the bill that either in the committee or by a proclamation made afterwards appropriate names could be put to these two holidays. It seemed to me that

that was wiser than for me to try to name them. The choice that I prefer is that the names might be decided by the committee to which this bill would be referred after second reading, but in any case I hope that I have met the criticisms of last year and that the House will look upon this bill with favour.
As I say, it is a very simple bill which proposes that the Canada Labour Code provide for a total of ten holidays. The two additional ones that I am suggesting are a holiday in February and a holiday in August, so we meet the wishes of both the skiers and the swimmers, and that the names of these holidays be decided by the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration to which this bill would be referred.
I would point out that the general provisions in the labour code regarding holidays, regarding pay for those days, regarding the possibility of substituting some other day if that is desired in some part of the country, and all other such provisions remain as they are. The bill does nothing extraneous; simply proposes these two additional holidays, one in February and one in August, the names of both of them to be determined either by the committee or by a proclamation to be issued by the governor in council.
I might also point out that this bill would govern only those who come under federal labour jurisdiction. It would not govern us in the House of Commons-but we look after ourselves very well; we demonstrated it just now when we decided on a holiday for Monday even though it is not in our rules. As for those who come under provincial jurisdiction, it is a historical fact in this country that when a lead is taken in one jurisdiction, whether it is federal or provincial, in the course of time the other jurisdiction tends to follow. My hope would be that if we put ten general holidays into the Canada Labour Code, in due course that would be the number of holidays in the various provincial labour codes as well.
I think this is a sensible and desirable bill. I do not take all the credit for its being sensible; I give credit to the House because, as I said, when the House discussed last year my bill for a ninth general holiday the upshot of that discussion was that there should be a ninth and a tenth holiday, one in August and one in February, and appropriate names should be affixed to those two holidays. So I give back to the House the bill that it proposed last time we discussed this measure, and I hope the House will see fit to give it second reading and send it to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration in the hope that it might meet during the holidays and advance this bill a further stage.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I want to address myself specifically to the announcement just made by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen). I am sorry he is not here because in my judgment he is the outstanding parliamentarian on the government side-and that is not because he is Gaelic as I try to be. I will speak with more brevity than the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) but probably with less profundity.
I commend the President of the Privy Council for noting and appreciating that Dominion Day is the most
June 30, 1972

important day for Canadians who want to celebrate that particular historic event which made a new country on this great North American continent. I commend the hon. member, who is a professor and a man of knowledge in history, for noting this. Personally, I would like to have Dominion Day celebrated on July 1, regardless of the day of the week on which it comes, and I condemn wholeheartedly, completely and with all the strength of my being the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) who issued invitations to all and sundry for an event on a day which was called the "national day of Canada". According to the statutes, according to the law and according to the rules, July 1 is Dominion Day.
I commend the President of the Privy Council for his sensitivity. I think I speak for all my associates who love our country, who cherish its history, who prize and love those traditions which made this a great country, and for all my colleagues in the official opposition when I say that we do not want to be here on Dominion Day but the moment immediately thereafter we will be here to do the nation's business, despite how ill-organized may be the government's order of business.


Mr. Ray Perrault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I think the intervention by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) was hardly beneficial to the matter of considering the bill before the House and discussing its merits or shortcomings. And, of course, the official opposition had to seize on the opportunity to attempt to drum up the spurious idea that somehow the government is working against the best interests of national unity and national institutions. It was not the kind of attitude we expected on a day such as this.
The purpose of this bill, Mr. Speaker, is to increase the number of paid general holidays provided for in the Canada Labour Code from eight to ten by adding a day in each of the months of February and August, to be fixed by proclamation. At the present time, another day could be substituted for any of the holidays listed in the statute.
This is not the first time the hon. member has advanced a similar proposal; indeed, similar bills have been introduced on five previous occasions. What is the present situation? The Canada Labour Code in part III, labour standards, provides for eight general holidays with pay. It should be observed that this standard which came into effect on July 1, 1965-just about seven years ago to the day-was far in advance of the standards obtained by collective agreement in federal industries. The government then, as it has done in so many different areas affecting the working people of Canada, gave real leadership.
It is equally true that this agreement required a substantial adjustment by the employers under federal jurisdiction. As desirable as the proposal for ten holidays may appear to be, it is still far in advance of the general norm, although it is true that since 1965 there has been an increase in the number of employees receiving in excess of eight days' holiday. No federal government can be unmindful of the norms which prevail in the various regions of Canada. We have a responsibility to consider
Canada Labour Code
provincial implications and this responsibility extends as well, for example, to such areas as minimum wage legislation where there is substantial variation in minimum wages from east to west across the country.
According to the survey of working conditions conducted by the Canada Department of Labour on October 1, 1970, 71 per cent of all non-office workers in Canadian industries as a whole were receiving nine holidays or more in 1970. For office workers the corresponding figure was 84 per cent. The figures for ten days or more, however, were only 37 per cent of non-office employees and 51 per cent of office employees in 1970. Comparative figures for 1965 were, 44 per cent of non-office workers and 63 per cent of office workers receiving nine holidays or more, while those receiving ten holidays or more numbered 10 per cent of non-office workers and 40 per cent of office workers.
When we compare the proposal before us with existing provincial legislation, we see that only three provinces, Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Alberta, have legislation similar in principle to the federal holiday provisions. Three other provinces, Manitoba Ontario and Nova Scotia, have laid down requirements regarding pay for work done on public holidays. Saskatchewan and British Columbia provide for eight public holidays and Alberta provides for five. Both Manitoba and Ontario require payment of overtime pay for work done on seven public holidays. The Nova Scotia provisions, which are contained in minimum wage orders, require payment of overtime for work done on public holidays but do not stipulate the number of public holidays covered.
In the United States, the matter of paid general holidays has been left to collective bargaining. In the area of paid general holidays, the government of Canada, in establishing a minimum of eight paid days, may still be said to be in the forefront in this country, and indeed on this continent so far as legislation is concerned.
Part III of the Canada Labour Code dealing with labour standards is aimed at providing an acceptable minimum standard, and not at setting the pace for collective bargaining. Hon. members are aware that there has been no unwillingness on the part of the government to advance the boundaries of reform. When we talk in terms of providing better working conditions for Canadians wherever they live, we should remind ourselves that the minimum wage was increased by this government only a short while ago and may well be increased in the near future.
Maternity leave has been enacted for the women of Canada. There have been strengthened provisions for equal pay for equal work. Measures to provide protection against the adverse effects of technological change have been introduced, and today were passed by this House. We can look at the new unemployment insurance legislation which provides for sickness benefits, maternity benefits, and so on. There are few governments in the world which have advanced so much useful social reform in such a short period of time.
The government has concerned itself with progress and with the rights of the individual. When we look at the legislation as it exists with respect to the public holidays, we see that an employee in an industry to which the federal code applies is entitled to holidays with pay on
25319-49J

June 30,1972
Canada Labour Code
each of the following general holidays: New Year's Day, Good Friday, Victoria Day, Dominion Day, Labour Day, Thanksgiving Day, Remembrance Day and Christmas Day. The code also provides that under certain conditions an alternative holiday may be substituted for any of the eight holidays specified.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the
parliamentary secretary a question?


Raymond J. Perrault: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Since the parliamentary secretary is enjoying giving this bit of history, would he also note that when the statutory holidays provision was first brought in by the Liberal government, it provided for only seven general holidays, and that it was because I moved an amendment which was carried in the House that the number was increased to eight?


Raymond J. Perrault: Mr. Speaker, I think that in many areas we have made progress in Canada, and I think any government member would be the first to acknowledge that government supporters do not possess all of the desire for social reform in this country. There have been useful contributions made by members who sit in all parts of this House; that is freely acknowledged.
Earlier in his speech the hon. member pointed out that what we do here is very important provincially, that provincial governments are affected by the laws we pass. This is a factor in the thinking of the government. For example, when it comes to minimum wage legislation, the fact, for example, that in Manitoba the minimum wage is lower than it is under federal jurisdiction, as it is in some of the other provinces, has an affect on the federal government when it moves to set an adequate federal minimum wage within its jurisdiction. Because we know that our actions affect the competitive situation in the provinces, if we fail to take into account their standards, unilateral actions here would be the actions of an irresponsible federal government. The relevant federal statute provides:
If Christmas, New Year's Day or Dominion Day falls on a Saturday or Sunday that is a non-working day for an employee, he must be given a holiday with pay on the working day immediately before or after the general holiday. These provisions regarding alternative days off do not apply, however, to employees covered by a collective agreement that entitles them to at least eight paid holidays a year.
Mr. Speaker, other members wish to speak on this bill and I do not want to continue my remarks at their expense. It can be seen that the picture is a rather mixed one across the country and that different standards appear to apply, depending upon regional considerations. Undoubtedly, the hon. member's proposal may come to pass in time, but the time may not yet have arrived.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It will come in time, but not in Liberal time.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: I have the honour to inform the House that the following communication has been received:



GOVERNMENT HOUSE OTTAWA

[Stage Direction]
30 June 1972 Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Roland A. Ritchie, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 30th day of June, at 4.45 p.m. for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain Bills.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant, Andre Garneau Colonel
Administrative Secretary.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) that Bill C-21, to amend the Canada Labour Code (provision for ten general holidays with pay), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the Canada Labour Code has provided so far for eight general holidays a year with pay for all employees under the jurisdiction of the Canadian government.
Bill C-21, moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), does not amend in any way section 51 of the Code under which, in order to conform to special or local conditions, another holiday may be substituted for one of those listed in the act.
The new provision, increasing the number of holidays with pay in the year from eight to ten would allow all employees covered by the federal Labour Code to benefit from at least ten holidays with pay during each year of employment.
Here are the proposed holidays: New Year's Day, Good Friday, Victoria Day, Dominion Day, Labour Day, Thanksgiving Day, Remembrance Day, Christmas Day- these are the eight days already provided for in the Labour Code-plus the two new holidays with pay cov-
June 30, 1972

ered by the bill: one day in February and another in August, to be fixed by proclamation.
The definition of "holiday" appearing in section 26 of the Canadian Labour Code would be repealed and replaced by the one appearing in section 1 of Bill C-21 today before the House, reading as follows:
"general holiday" means New Year's Day, a day in February to be fixed by proclamation, Good Friday, Victoria Day, Dominion Day-
-or Canada Day, according to the expression used- Labour Day, Thanksgiving Day, Remembrance Day and Christmas Day and includes any day substituted for any such holiday pursuant to section 51;"
Subsection (2) of section 51 of the Canada Labour Code is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"(2) Where a collective agreement that is in effect on the day this Part comes into force provides for at least ten holidays with pay in each year, exclusive of any annual vacation, the employer who is bound by the collective agreement may designate a holiday specified in the agreement as a holiday in lieu of a specified general holiday under this Division and, on notification thereof to the Minister, that designated holiday shall, for those employees of the employer who are mentioned in the collective agreement, be a general holiday for the purposes of this Part during the period the collective agreement is in effect.
This proposal by the member for Winnipeg North Centre is a definite improvement over the conditions prevailing in the industry. We must recognize, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Perrault) did, the value of some representations made by members opposite. However, we note-and we hope that hon. members opposite do as well-that since 1965 the number of employees who have more than eight days of general holidays has substantially increased.
Thus, according to the survey made by the federal Department of Labour, on October 1, 1970, 71 per cent of workers other than office employees enjoyed nine days of general holidays. For office employees, the proportion was 84 per cent. According to the same survey, relating to ten paid holidays, the percentages are as follows: 40 per cent for office employees and 21 per cent for other employees.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration said earlier that only Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Alberta have legislation similar to that of the federal government. Thus, for example, the first two provinces have eight paid holidays and Alberta five. In Manitoba and in Ontario, it is stipulated that work done on any of the seven holidays will be paid at overtime rates. In Nova Scotia, the number of paid holidays is not stipulated. In Quebec, legislation provides seven days when stores must close.


Mr. Jerry Pringle (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in this debate because I have always had a great deal of respect for the hon. member who proposed the bill. Although the proposals made in other years were not successful, this bill now before us gives an opportunity to look at the whole picture of statutory holidays.
The concept of general holidays with pay as a legal requirement was introduced in 1965. Holiday observance
Canada Labour Code
is a matter of custom which has been built up over the years. Whilst these holidays usually apply to people who work from nine to five, I think we should consider the many people in this country who must work on statutory holidays. I refer to the farmer, the fisherman, the selfemployed man for whom such interruptions of work are not always possible. For this reason we should think seriously about increasing the number of statutory holidays. In certain agricultural areas, for instance, there has been some difficulty with regard to daylight saving time; some farmers have had difficulty in adjusting to it. I believe, too, that today's system of collective bargaining gives an opportunity to workers and management to work out proposals together without it being necessary for the government to legislate their rights. This is another case in which we would be doing just that.
We talk about days of celebration such as Christmas. In Canada we also celebrate Boxing Day, a custom which is not practised in the United States. I do not know whether it is generally known, but in the United States Good Friday is not a statutory holiday. We in Canada celebrate it. We celebrate Labour Day, which is a tribute to labour. That is certainly a holiday we should recognize. We also have other holidays in the year, such as birthdays of monarchs, and so on. These are not another day off for everybody. Through collective bargaining, hours of work are regulated. We do not put in nearly as many hours of labour as we did in years gone by.
It appears, Mr. Speaker, that I have had the last word in this House of Commons.


An hon. Member:: Until Tuesday.


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



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the House that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
Bill C-195, an act to amend the Adult Occupational Training Act-Chapter No. 14
Bill C-204, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act- Chapter No. 16
Bill S-3, an act to change the names of the territorial court of the Yukon Territory and the territorial court of the Northwest Territories-Chapter No. 17
[Stage Direction]
June 30, 1972
Canada Labour Code
Bill C-221, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending 31st March, 1973-Chapter No. 15.
At 5.10 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, until Tuesday, July 4, at two o'clock p.m., pursuant to special order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday. luly 4, 1972