1973-08-30

Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have the honour of informing the House that pursuant to a resolution passed by this House Friday, July 27, 1973, as recorded on page 521 of the Votes and Proceedings, concerning the adjournment of the House, I had a notice published in a special edition of the Canada Gazette as of Tuesday, August 28, 1973, to call this House to meet today.
I now table a copy of special issue No. 26 of the Canada Gazette dated Tuesday, August 28, 1973.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move the following motion:
That this House urges the government to present to parliament, immediately after the disposition of the railway strike legislation, measures to cope effectively with the high cost of living, and that such measures be dealt with prior to any adjournment of this House.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion, presented under the terms of Standing Order 43, requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


TRANSPORT
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order
43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity dealing with the many effects the rail strike has had and is having across this country, in particular, the effects of the rail strike on isolated communities all across the country. I move, therefore, seconded by the hon. member for Mal-peque (Mr. MacLean):
That the government take immediate steps to provide vital services to alleviate inconveniences suffered by travellers on our island provinces, to facilitate movement of feed grain to livestock producers, to provide vital food supplies to isolated northern communities and to ensure that the health and welfare of all Canadian citizens are not affected in any way by the detrimental consequences of this national strike.


Mr. Speaker:: As hon. members well know, a motion presented under the terms of Standing Order 43 requires unanimous consent. I will inquire whether there is unanimity.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, seconded by the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Dionne), I request the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion that this House put adequate pressure on the government in order that a commission of inquiry be set up to analyze fully the administration of the Canadian National Railways, and particularly any question as to unjustified expenditures at the executive level of the Canadian National Railways and all related administrative problems.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the hon. member's motion. Under Standing Order 43, this motion requires unanimous consent from this House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent. The motion cannot be put.
6060

August 30, 1973
Old Age Pensions
[ English]


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the denial of the government of France of any mistreatment or beating of the crew members of the Greenpeace III, and in view of the production of factual photographs to the contrary, I ask leave of the House under the terms of Standing Order 43 to move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. O'Sullivan):
That this House instruct the Prime Minister to demand a public apology from the government of France and to demand that those involved in this assault be brought to justice and that compensation be paid to those injured in this unprovoked assault which took place on one of our ships in international waters.


Mr. Speaker:: Under the terms of Standing Order 43, the hon. member's motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimity?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, hoping that by this time the House is prepared to agree to a motion under Standing Order 43, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That this House urges the government to place on the Order Paper forthwith its proposals relating to the quarterly escalation of Old Age Security and Guaranteed Income Supplement payments and that this legislation be proceeded with immediately following the disposition of the railway strike legislation.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43 to move a motion dealing with a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. The export controls on beef and pork have had the effect of sharply reducing farm income while no simultaneous steps were taken to reduce farm costs. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan):
That the matter of beef and pork export controls be referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture for study and report.


Mr. Speaker:: I will inquire whether there is unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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

[ Translation]



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I ask unanimous consent of the House to study a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that the Canadian consumer must have priority, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise):
That this government apply immediate controls on meat exports, including those covered by contracts already signed and in force.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion is moved under the terms of Standing Order 43 and requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: As there is not unanimous consent, the motion of the hon. member cannot be put.



FOOD PRICES REVIEW BOARD


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move a motion under Standing Order 43, seconded by the hon. member for Toronto-Lake-shore (Mr. Grier):
August 30, 1973

That this House urges the government to present forthwith legislation to establish a prices review board with power to cope with high costs-[DOT]


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should be given an opportunity to put the motion for consideration.


Winona Grace MacInnis: I ask leave under the terms of Standing Order 43 to move, seconded by my hon. friend from Toronto-Lakeshore:
That this House urge the government to present forthwith legislation establishing a prices review board with power to cope with high costs in all areas-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Winona Grace MacInnis: Wait. I have some other ideas.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Winona Grace MacInnis: -including power to order price roll-backs and that such legislation be proceeded with immediately following the disposition of the rail strike legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No!


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.



HOUSING


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. It concerns the fact that we are now approaching a period in Canadian history when mortgage rates will be at the highest level ever, pricing homes beyond the capacity-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is now presenting an argument in support of the motion he proposes. He should indicate the terms of the motion.


John Edward Broadbent: I will read the motion now. It is seconded by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre.
That this House urge the government to present immediately legislation making it mandatory for banks and other federally-chartered financial institutions to make mortgage money for housing available at an interest rate not exceeding 6 per cent.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No!


Mr. Speaker:: There is not.
Railway Operations Act HOUSE OF COMMONS



IDENTIFICATION OF MEMBERS REFUSING CONSENT- REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION

Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity to move a motion under Standing Order 43, seconded by the hon. member for Timiskaming. The motion is:
That those Liberals and Conservatives who said "no" to any of the preceding motions be required to identify themselves.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I have already heard a number of "Nos" in response to the motion proposed by the hon. member. There is not unanimous consent.


Mr. Hees:: Paper tigers!



MAINTENANCE OF RAILWAY OPERATIONS ACT, 1973 MEASURE TO PROVIDE FOR RESUMPTION OF OPERATIONS AND SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES

Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-217, to provide for the resumption and continuance of operations of railways and for the settlements of the disputes with respect to terms and conditions of employment between railway companies and their employees.


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


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, I rise in order to seek consent of the House to proceed with second reading of this bill later this day. If this were possible, we would call it as the first item when Orders of the Day have been dealt with.


Mr. Baldwin:: There has been some discussion of this question through the usual channels and we would be prepared to give our consent to this agreement. We feel, however, that we are entitled to examine the bill to see what the government has put together, and I believe there is an understanding that any debate which may take place on the bill will not begin until a period of two hours has elapsed during which all hon. members will have an opportunity to study the legislation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member for Peace River has stated the substance of the agreement we reached a while ago. We are prepared to stand by that agreement, namely that we are willing for second reading of this bill to be called for debate later this day. By that we mean there shall be a two-hour suspension of the sitting of the House at the end of the question period, and when those two hours have gone by, and we have had a chance to study the bill, the House can be
26454-19)

August 30, 1973
Non-Smokers Relief Act
summoned again to proceed with debate on second reading.
We are also prepared to agree now to the suspension of the private members' hour today.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, we have participated in the discussions concerning this request for unanimous agreement to consider a motion for second reading of this bill today; we have given our assent as well as for the two hour delay that we requested in order to be able to give this bill appropriate consideration. We are here to work and are prepared to do so.


Mr. Speaker:: The understanding of the Chair is that there is to be a two-hour suspension of the sitting immediately after calling second reading of this bill, by leave and by unanimous consent. Is this agreed and so ordered?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I also understand that the private members' hour will be dispensed with today. Is that agreed and so ordered?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



FAMILY ALLOWANCES ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the Order:
July 19, 1973: Mr. Stackhouse-Bill intituled "An act to amend the Family Allowances Act".
Mr. Speaker:: I believe that the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. Stackhouse) introduced his bill in the first instance some weeks ago before the House recessed for a short while and that there was some difficulty in relation to possible financial provisions to the bill. It was agreed that the matter might be allowed to stand for the time being. I suggest to the hon. member that perhaps later on there might be argument heard from the hon. member or others in respect of the acceptability of the bill in question, so the bill will stand.



NON-SMOKERS RELIEF ACT MEASURE TO PROVIDE RELIEF TO NON-SMOKERS IN TRANSIT

Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey-White Rock) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-218, respecting relief to nonsmokers in transit.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I think you and the House for recognition of this bill which was placed on the Order Paper just before the House recessed. The purpose of it is to give relief to travelling non-smokers by requiring that railways, planes and buses under federal jurisdiction provide them with separate seating accommodation. This is in line with the fact that there is now medical evidence that secondary smoke inhalation not only causes distress to

non-smokers in Canada, who constitute a majority, but can jeopardize their health, particularly if they suffer from respiratory or lung ailments.


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


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister a question or two, not about specific items and measures, but in respect of the fact that the annual rate of inflation is now about 8 per cent. I should like to ask whether the government has prepared a comprehensive and decisive program to deal with this rate of inflation and halt it and, if so, when that program will be instituted, and, most specific of all, when those measures and that program will be presented to this House?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the government is most anxious to use the fact that the House is reassembled to take steps to deal with the hardships which have been caused the people of Canada as a result of inflation. As soon as the House can dispose of the bill in front of us now on the railway disputes, we will be anxious to give leadership in the other field.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: He gets marks for a sense of humour, anyway.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It worries me, Mr. Speaker, that I am so popular on that side of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SOCIAL SECURITY
Robert Lorne Stanfield: hope the government will do something to provide some form of leadership besides leading prices upward. I should like to ask the Prime Minister when we may expect the measure adjusting old age pensions and the guaranteed income supplement to a quarterly escalation and whether we can expect that will be immediately and whether the
August 30, 1973

date for the commencement of the adjustment will not be October 1 but July 1 last.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the support my answer brought on this side of the House indicates the willingness of our members to assist the government in getting the government's legislation through. I am sure it is the will of all members on both sides of the House to get on with this action. The question asked by the Leader of the Opposition relates to an announcement I made during the first part of August. If he looks back at that statement, he will see we indicated that this escalation would take place on October 1st, and would take into account the increase in the cost of living which happened before October 1, so the answer to his question is that we are going to follow on the announcement I made in early August and will do so in a way that the pensioners will have the benefit of their escalation dated from October 1.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In other words, Mr. Speaker, the answer is that the change will not be effective as of July 1, as I requested. One final supplementary.


Mr. Sharp:: He did not say that.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Yes, he did. Mr. Speaker, may I seek clarification. I do not want any misunderstanding among my friends opposite. I asked the right hon. gentleman whether he would make this measure effective as of July 1, and he said no, that it would be effective October 1.


An hon. Member:: Right.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Leader of the Opposition is now on a point of order, a point of debate or some point, but I respectfully think we should make an effort to get on with the question period which is a 40 minute period. I am sure that many members are anxious to ask questions. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition might ask his supplementary and the Prime Minister could reply.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary relates to the pricing of wheat for domestic consumption. In view, among other things, of the call by the Food Prices Review Board for this subsidy as a matter of great urgency, I should like to ask the right hon. gentleman whether his government intends to inaugurate such a subsidy to revise the price of wheat for domestic consumption, and if so when?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition would want me to clarify the unintentionally misleading impression he gave about my first answer. The answer is that the cheques, of course-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The cheques cannot be issued before this date. They will only be issued on the date of October 1. But it is our intention to ensure that the cheques do take into account the increase in the cost of living which took
Oral Questions
place since July 1. So, I think that the intention of the Leader of the Opposition is the same as that of the government.
On the second part of the question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure at this point whether the Prime Minister is on the point of order or is answering the supplementary question of the Leader of the Opposition. Obviously, we are not making much headway and I would ask for the co-operation of both the right hon. Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition to try to get through the question period a little faster.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I would like the right hon. gentleman to answer my last question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I resent his suggestion that I made a misleading interpretation of his answer to my previous question. It is very clear.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: May we have order, please? I am sure hon. members can see that perhaps there is no point at all in having a question period if we do not have order and if we spend the time on points of order and arguing about what was said. Following the next question and reply, I will recognize the hon. member for York South.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I just want to remove any suggestion that I misinterpreted the Prime Minister's answer to me. His answer to me indicated that the increase in pension cheques would start after October 1, but they would take into consideration the increase in the cost of living up to that time. What I asked the Prime Minister was whether he would commence the increase in the cheques as of July 1, rather than October 1.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the cheques for July have already gone out.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: What I was telling the Leader of the Opposition, in answer to his question, was that rather than wait for the escalation, which would be annual based on the increase in the cost of living, we will do it quarterly, but the first quarterly increase which we will bring in from October 1 will take into account all increases in the cost of living until that date. Surely, the Leader of the Opposition is not suggesting-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder whether we might now go on to the next question. If hon. members feel they want a debate on this interesting point, it could be taken up some other time. Is the Leader of the Opposition rising on a point of order? Perhaps he might allow me to complete the first round of questioning, and I will return to him if he wishes the floor at that time.

August 30, 1973
Oral Questions
[ Translation]


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: I should like to put a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member allow me first to complete the first round of questions and then we may perhaps be able to get back to the subject that he wants to discuss?
I recognize the hon. member for York South.


POSSIBLE INCREASE IN SUBSIDY ON WHEAT-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr.   David. Lewis@York South: Mr. Speaker, before we got into this confusing exchange, the Leader of the Opposition did ask a question that I was going to ask. May I put it to the Prime Minister now. Does the government intend to increase the subsidy on wheat in view of the fact that it reduced it from $1.04'/2 to $1 and in view of the fact that the price of wheat has gone up considerably? Is the minister considering adopting the recommendations made by Mrs. Plumptre and the review board that there be an immediate increase in the subsidy on wheat?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the Leader of the New Democratic Party is not linking the two premises when he says that we reduced the subsidy from $1.04 to $1.00. This, it should be well understood, is not the reason the price of wheat has gone up the way it has.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think every member of the House is aware that the price of wheat has increased considerably, and this is well beyond the question of the subsidy. On the other question, I shall have to ask the Leader of the Opposition and all members of the House to wait until we have dealt with the bill, then we will see what action we are prepared to take on that possibility.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I think all members of the House on whatever side appreciate that the details of any program that the government may or may not have will be presented to us at some future date. I want the Prime Minister, none the less, to inform the House, if he can, whether a program to deal with the cost of living that he proposes eventually to present to the House will be limited to the matters he mentioned in early August or whether his program will go beyond those matters to deal with such things as greater powers to the review board or the government, whichever it may be, to

roll back prices and other subsidization of basic foods and costs?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the Prime Minister might be allowed to reply to the hon. member's question now.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that I will have to ask the Leader of the New Democratic Party to be as patient as everybody else on this subject, and perhaps more patient. We feel that the House was brought back for a very urgent matter, the matter of getting the trains running again. We will-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: They should not have stopped.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for York South for a supplementary, and then the hon. member for Temiscamingue who has a supplementary or supplementaries on the same subject.


REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ON RATE OF PRICE INCREASE DURING 1973
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the ever wise Minister of Finance who is so good at forecasting. May I ask the minister whether he can give the House any idea of the information he has with respect to the rate of price increases that we may face in the course of the full year of 1973 related to the productivity or to the gross national product increase and the difference between actual figures and real figures?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give that answer because a good deal of the price increases in this country are affected by world commodities, both agricultural and non-agricultural. There is no way I could estimate the conflicts of demand and supply forces around the world and pinpoint them as accurately as the hon. member wants.


Mr. Bell:: Don't forget the weather, John.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member.
Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


David Lewis: On a brief one, Mr. Speaker. My point of order is that the Minister of Finance cannot be serious when he says this today-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


David Lewis: -or alternatively, could not have been serious when he informed the House-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!
August 30, 1973


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member is not serious when he suggests that is a point of order.


SUGGESTED HIGHER GRANTS TO CONSUMERS
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
In view of the fact that the No. 1 problem in Canada affects the consumer rather than the producer, are the Prime Minister and this government considering seriously the need to make more substantial grants available to the consumers so as to help Canadian producers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer the hon. member in very specific terms but if he looks at the measures announced by us in August he will see that they are in fact aimed at increasing the purchasing power of some consumers. We talked about older people earlier and we want to increase their purchasing power.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
The Prime Minister says that some categories of people in Canada are receiving increased pensions, which contributes to increasing their purchasing power, but does the government think about consumers as a whole which would help avoid situations as disgraceful as those we were faced with at noon time in front of Parliament?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Finance in his last budget reduced the income taxes of all Canadians and at an average rate affecting people up to 13 per cent it was a way of giving them greater purchasing power.


TRANSPORT
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. May I ask whether, since he made the announcement at that rather uncertain western economic conference in Calgary that he was asking for an 18-month freeze on freight rates, it has been brought about?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I think what I said exactly in Calgary is as follows: I said that I would ask the railway companies, and particularly Canadian National Railways which is state owned, not to increase their rates for 18 months and up to now they have accepted what I asked them to do.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Have the railway companies agreed? Then, I ask the minister as well, in the event that they did apply for increases and they were granted by the Trans-
Oral Questions
port Board, would the government turn down such increases?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The right hon. member appreciates, as the minister does I am sure, that the question is hypothetical as asked in those terms.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I will not ask any hypothetical question. I will ask the Minister of Labour why we are here today, because on August 21 he made the statement in Montreal as reported in the press, "We will end the strike tonight". Then, describing himself in the Imperial and plural "We" said, "We are down here to wrap this up". What took place that prevented this wrapping up operation in this and the other pronunciamentos that were issued by the minister?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the quotations that the right hon. member for Prince Albert has mentioned are precisely accurate.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carr Munro: There is no doubt that it was my firm hope, and there seemed to be-


John George Diefenbaker: Not a hope, but a statement of fact.


John Carr Munro: Could I finish answering the question please? There was a hope on the part of all parties involved that we might-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the hon. minister who is attempting to reply to the question asked by the right hon. gentleman. I have two reservations about the question as it was asked and the answer which the hon. minister is quite rightly attempting to give. I have indicated to hon. members before that we do not achieve very much by initiating debate on statements made outside the House. According to the rules and long established practice, questions should be asked directly rather than asking ministers to confirm or deny statements made outside the House.
My second difficulty in relation to the second question of the right hon. member is that it is anticipating an order of the day. I gather that later today, and for some time after, we will be discussing a very important piece of legislation, and I hope that hon. members will not get themselves involved in discussion of that situation too deeply at this time.

August 30, 1973
Oral Questions


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the last thing in the world I want is to indulge in anything that would be contrary to the rules.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, Ringling Brothers never had such trained seals.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister this. In view of his definite statement on August 7, that he, describing himself as "we", "will end the strike tonight," and that "we are down here to wrap it up," what happened between the time that he uttered those immortal words and the fact that his words were not accepted?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It might have been easier to allow the Minister of Labour to reply briefly to this question in the first instance. The right hon. gentleman has simply repeated the question which I suggested to him was not in order. But the question having been asked twice, the minister should be allowed to reply, and we will try to make some headway afterwards.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I have already cast doubts on the accuracy of the quotation; but there is no question that it was my hope-


John George Diefenbaker: It was a statement of fact.


John Carr Munro: -that there was some basis for optimism that we could get a settlement-


John George Diefenbaker: We.


John Carr Munro: -without the necessity or recalling Parliament. That did not prove to be the case. I am sure, as Mr. Speaker has indicated, when we come back after all parties in this House have had a chance to study this legislation, that I will be prepared to answer all questions along the lines that the right hon. member for Prince Albert is asking.


TRANSPORT
Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the many hundreds of tourists who are stranded in Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island, and in view of the fact that essentials such as food, oil and gasoline are not available to isolated communities across the nation, can the Prime Minister advise this House what immediate steps are being undertaken to relieve this critical situation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have already had occasion to reply to that question by way of telegram to Premier Moores, and I

believe also that the hon. member has had communications from people in my office indicating to him what had been done. Certain measures had been taken, such as airlifts to help people to move from where they were stranded. As to the question of moving vehicles, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government is not equipped to satisfy all requests in that regard.


Jack Marshall: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I thank the Prime Minister for the answer. In view of there being some 300 American tourists stranded in Newfoundland who have no quarrel with the strikers, has the Prime Minister been in communication with the United States, to try to obtain relief for the situation in which these tourists find themselves?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the best way we could try to assist them, beyond the measures which have already been taken, would be if the House would co-operate in getting this legislation through very quickly so that the railroads can begin working again.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence. Since one of the missions of the Department of National Defence is aid to the civil powers, would the minister be prepared to send in air transport aircraft to carry some of the citizens and vehicles, which they are capable of doing?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: No, Mr. Speaker.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Justice. In view of the far reaching decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Lavell case, will the Minister of Justice give consideration to introducing an amendment to the Canadian Bill of Rights, to make it clear that the provisions of the Bill of Rights dealing with discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex are to prevail over any other legislation and invalidate any other legislation of Parliament inconsistent with the Bill of Rights?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the question raised by the hon. member is an extremely important one and, of course, requires a careful analysis of the judgment and its implications before any opinion can be finally arrived at. We will be certainly looking at it from this point of view, to see if any further legislation is required.
August 30, 1973



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the statement earlier this month by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs that the government is considering legislation to make price gouging a criminal offence, in order to modify the sharp increase in food prices, does the government intend to introduce such legislation in the near future and, if so, when can it be expected?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would refer to my own statement made at the same time, he would see that it was indicated by the government that its intention would be to seek parliamentary authority to prevent such abuse of the market system, if and when required. We said we would be waiting for reports from the Food Prices Review Board and indications that such "gouging" was taking place to see what the best way would be to bring an end to it.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings on a supplementary, the hon. member for St. John's East on a supplementary and the hon. member for Skeena on a supplementary to the previous question. I hope that we can proceed quickly with those three supplementaries.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is this. As several weeks have passed since the Prime Minister and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs made that statement, has the information that the government received since that time indicated to it that it should introduce such legislation right now, and will it be introduced at this present sitting of the House?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member would be able to answer that for himself-


George Harris Hees: Why don't you answer it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Because you should be reading what the board reported publicly, George.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for St. John's East. I ask the co-operation of hon. members.


George Harris Hees: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I have read those reports and they indicate that the government should be taking that action right now.
Oral Questions TRANSPORT



REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE TO ALLEVIATE SHORTAGE OF SUPPLIES IN NEWFOUNDLAND

Mr. James McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the very critical situation developing in the province of Newfoundland as a consequence of the strike and in view of the very strong representations from the government of Newfoundland and the constitutional responsibilities of the federal government in relation thereto, may I ask the Prime Minister if he intends to enter immediately into negotiations with the government of Newfoundland, to provide special assistance and special means to alleviate the very serious and critical shortages, especially in northern communities?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I answered a moment ago that I had already sent the Premier of Newfoundland a telegram on this subject. I take it that he has made the representations to me that he wanted to make, and I answered him.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a supplementary question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development related to the response just given by the Minister of Justice. Will the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development reconfirm that it is his and his government's intention to prepare amendments to the Indian Act after listening to what the Indian people have to say and not what the Minister of Justice might have to say.
[ Transla tion]


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, we have already started reexamining the Indian Act with the Indians themselves; we financed an Indian committee to draft a bill that we could reexamine but we have not yet received its report.



FINANCE


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Finance.
Has he made inquiries from the chartered banks of Canada which over the past couple of months have announced two or three successive increases of their interest rates which are decidedly abusive.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have contacted the President of the Canadian Banking Association and, although there has been no thor-
6068

August 30, 1973
Oral Questions
ough investigation, I have conveyed some points of view as to our banks' present profit margin.
4=	*	*
I English]



HOUSING


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In view of housing prices having risen across the land at an alarming rale in the past year, in my area by $10,000 per home, a 35 per cent increase in 12 months, and in view of predictions currently that they may rise by another 15 per cent in the current year, has the government decided to introduce legislation of a tax nature, or at least to relieve such capital and land cost increases? If so when?
9 (1450)
Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister)- Mr. Speaker, on the question of future legislation, I am afraid the hon. member will have to await any action or announcement in the House. Since he is interested in land costs, I might refresh his mind by recalling that the government has already approved $100 million per year for five years so the provinces can embark upon useful land assembly programs. No province except Newfoundland has decided to act on this. I wish hon. members would urge provincial governments toward more action in this regard.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



SUGGEST ROLL BACK OF INTEREST RATES UNDER NATIONAL HOUSING ACT

Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A supplementary question. Since mortgage rates have jumped along with house prices so that a $10,000 increase in the price of a home results in an extra cost to the owner of $27,000 by the time his mortgage is paid in full, and with the prediction that mortgage interest rates may be as high as 10'/a per cent or 1014 per cent by the end of the year, is the government now going to order CMHC to roll back its increase in the NHA mortgage interest rate and, if so, when?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is undoubtedly an expert on high interest rates.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, 75 per cent of the CMHC lending is made at rates of 8 per cent which is 3/16 less than the level approved by parliament in June.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I remind the minister that all Canadians are now experts on high interest rates.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members appreciate that this kind of intervention is debate. We will proceed with the question period as expeditiously as possible.
[ Transla tion]
The hon. member for Shefford wanted to ask a supplementary question a while ago. I apologize for not having immediately recognized him.



FINANCE


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance.
Does he intend to let interest rates go up or will he take steps to control that condition which is the prime cause of the cost of living increase at the present time?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we may have the opportunity to deal more extensively with this matter next week.
sfc 4c 
| English]



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in connection with the rail strike. Has the minister yet requested assistance or set up contingency arrangements with the Department of Transport to provision isolated northern communities along the Arctic coast whose supplies are initially dependent on transportation over the Pine Point railway?
[ Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we are now considering the situation and my department is ready to do its utmost to solve the problems of those remote communities as we generally do throughout Canada.
[ English]


Miss MacDonald:: Is the minister prepared to make a report to the House later today as to the situation of these northern communities at the present time?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, if there are some particulars to communicate to the House, I will readily do so.
August 30, 1973



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the boarding of the Greenpeace III in international waters and the apprehension of the crew and the manhandling of Captain McTaggart, has the government of Canada made any representations or protests directly to the government of France and what was the nature of those protests?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we were informed of this incident by the French government. In response to our responsibility for Mr. McTaggart as a Canadian citizen, we arranged to have an eye doctor sent to Tahiti, as well as a consular official, to ensure that Mr. McTaggart was released as soon as possible, which we were successful in doing. At the same time, the French ambassador in Ottawa was called in and we registered with him a very strong protest about the legality of the boarding. We are now seeking further information as to the nature of the alleged maltreatment of Mr. McTaggart. When we have further information, we will decide what further action is appropriate.



ALLEGED MISTREATMENT OF CREW MEMBERS OF &quot;GREENPEACE III&quot;-POSSIBLE REFERENCE TO UNITED NATIONS OR WORLD COURT

Mark Willson Rose: I assume the minister and the government are considering the matter of reparations and compensation. I will not deal with that. In view of the seriousness of this incident, involving what has been called piracy on the high seas, is the government considering taking this matter either to the security council of the United Nations or the World Court?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we have not ruled out any action. What we want to do, and I am sure that this is what Mr. McTaggart wants us to do, is try to persuade the French government not to engage in nuclear testing in the atmosphere. That was the purpose of Mr. McTaggart's trip which he undertook on his own responsibility. We are very anxious to see that the law of the sea is observed. There is the second question as to whether Mr. McTaggart should be compensated for damage for assault upon him. The French government takes a completeley different view of this incident from Mr. McTaggart. We are now looking at the evidence. If the evidence justifies us taking appropriate legal action, this we will do. I cannot say in what court this would be taken at the present time.
Oral Questions LABOUR RELATIONS



SUGGESTED ESTABLISHMENT OF PUBLIC INTEREST DISPUTES COMMISSION-GOVERNMENT POSITION

Mr. Don Blenkarn (Peel South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact work stoppages in essential industries and services cause irreparable harm to Canada, is the government prepared to introduce legislation to create a public interest disputes commission, as recommended to it in 1968 by its own Woods Commission report?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have no announcement to make in that regard today.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Can the government assure this House it will introduce legislation so that it will never again be necessary for Parliament to be called to settle industrial disputes?



GASOLINE-BASIS FOR JUSTIFICATION OF INCREASE IN PRICE-REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION

Mr. Ian Arrol (York East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the fact that the price of gasoline in Canada has always been higher than the price of gasoline in the United States, even taking into account the difference in the size of the gallon and the current shortage of gas in the United States, on what basis are the recent increases in the price of Canadian gasoline justified?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I expect to be speaking to the industry on price increases in the very near future. I will be glad to report to the House any consequences of those discussions.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are running short of time. I know hon. members are anxious to proceed with the business called for today. Perhaps the hon. member might be recognized for one supplementary.


Ian MacLachlan Arrol: Is the government considering regulation of the oil companies under the National Energy Board? Is the government planning to investigate increases to determine if the cost increases are real or whether there is collusion? Will the minister's investigation include such points as these?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I should indicate that an inquiry has been launched under the Combines Investigation Act against the petroleum industry.
26454-20A
Oral Questions GRAIN

August 30, 1973



FEED GRAIN-ALLEGED LOSS TO WESTERN PRODUCERS AS RESULT OF LOW PRICE IN EASTERN CANADA

Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. As a result of the minister's intended feed grains policy, feed grain has been selling in eastern Canada at about $1 a bushel less than in the world market. Does the minister intend to compensate western producers for this loss of revenue which would have been received had the grain been sold at the regular price?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must be looking at some strange prices because the policy is not yet in effect. It is expected to be in place by the middle or end of September. The point of the policy is, of course, to ensure that the same price prevails for producers all across the country who want to buy grain for feeding to animals, subject, of course, to proper estimates of the cost of carrying, storing, and so on.


Stanley James Korchinski: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister carrying on a day-to-day investigation into the effects of the Wheat Board pricing policy, and would he inform the House-


Mr. Horner (Crowfoot):: Ottawa sold out Saskatchewan.


Stanley James Korchinski: -whether there is a reduction in the price of grain in eastern Canada relative to the world price at the present moment?


Otto Emil Lang: As I made clear a moment ago, no action-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Ottawa sold out Saskatchewan.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Obviously we are not going to make much headway. Perhaps this matter could be proceeded with during another question period. I believe the hon. member for Peace River rises on a point of order.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I want to follow the scenario which a kind member of the press gallery wrote for me and ask the President of the Privy Council what is to be the business of the House for next week.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am not in my usual forthcoming Thursday mood, so I think I shall have to wait a little longer before I can indicate with any precision what we shall be doing next week.


An hon. Member:: Capital punishment?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: Because of the unusual nature of the answer, I should like to ask one question in light of the fact the Prime Minister has hinted at a number of propos-

als to deal with the serious issue of inflation. Is it the intention of the government to put all these proposals into one package and try to secure from the House a renewal of the confidence which it gained last January but which has since lapsed?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to the special order made earlier this day, the sitting of the House stands deferred until the call of the bell at 5.05 p.m.
SITTING SUSPENDED At 3.05 p.m. the sitting was suspended.



SITTING RESUMED The House resumed at 5.05 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
[ English]
Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to indicate that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr.	Roche)-Government
Administration-Suggested moving of some services to Alberta; the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave)-Agriculture-Feed	grains-Request	for
announcement of policy; the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp)-Post Office-Re-examination of requirement for establishment of rural routes in western Canada.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[ English]

Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to special order made earlier today, Mr. Munro (Hamilton East), seconded by Mr. Davis (Capilano), moves:
That Bill C-217, an act to provide for the resumption and continuance of operations of railways and for the settlement of the disputes with respect to terms and conditions of employment between railway companies and their employees, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, as members of this House, I am sure, are well aware,
August 30, 1973

the bill which is now before them concerns the government's legislative proposals respecting the resumption of rail services. The reasons for these proposals are, I believe, equally well known. The suspension of railway operations and subsidiary services which began regionally on July 26 and nationally on August 23 has resulted in widespread economic loss to the extent that the welfare of the nation has become imperilled. As the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has indicated, it is essential to the interests of the people of Canada and the welfare of our nation that railway operations be resumed immediately.
Before examining these legislative proposals in some detail it would be appropriate for me to outline to hon. members the sequence of events leading up to the recall of parliament. First, however, I would refer to the parties involved in the present, three separate disputes: these are the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific Railway companies along with other short-line companies while, on the union side, the associated non-operating railway unions, the United Transportation Union and division No. 4, Railway Employees, department of AFL-CIO, representing the various shopcraft unions. In all, the disputes involve approximately 91,000 employees across the country.
The current strike involving the non-operating unions stems from unsuccessful attempts to renegotiate a collective agreement that expired on December 31 last. Disputes involving the shopcrafts and the United Transportation Union also result from agreements unrenewed since the same date, but in these disputes no strike action has as yet been taken.
In all cases early mediation assistance was sought, and this my department provided in full measure. With regard to the dispute involving the non-operating unions, failure to negotiate an agreement after intensive mediation led to the appointment of a conciliation board chaired by Mr. Justice F. Craig Munroe of the Supreme Court of British Columbia. The board report, which was released to the parties on July 13, recommended the following wage increases: effective January 1, 1973, 30 cents an hour or 8.5 per cent of the basic rate; effective January 1, 1974, an increase of 5 per cent on the rates in effect as of December, 1973; effective July 1, 1974, an increase of 3 per cent on the rates in effect as of June, 1974.
Subsequently, the union announced its intention to conduct selective strikes. The first such strike occurred on July 26, and others followed in other regions of the country. On August 7, I appointed Judge Alan B. Gold, of Montreal, as mediator and he met with the parties continuously over the next 11 days to try to bring about a settlement. The non-operating unions began their national rail strike on August 23. Since then I made a further effort and, with the assistance of experienced mediators in the department, explored every avenue to find a solution short of recalling parliament.
On August 27, after a complete review of the situation with my officials, I advised the Prime Minister and my colleagues that, in the public interest, parliament be recalled to restore railway service. With regard to the dispute involving the shopcraft unions, a conciliation
Railway Operations Act
board was established on June 26, 1973, after the union membership had rejected a negotiated settlement. The board's majority report, which was received on August 13, proposed a wage increase of 8.25 per cent effective January 1, 1973; an increase of 6V2 per cent on January 1, 1974, based on wages in effect as of December, 1973; and an increase of 1V4 per cent as of July 1, 1974, based on wages in effect in June, 1974.
Two days after the release of the board's report, the president of division No. 4 advised that his negotiating committee, representing 22,000 employees, had rejected the majority report. The shopcraft employees were in a position to strike on August 21 and are presently conducting a strike vote, with the results to be known about September 10. With regard to the dispute involving the United Transportation Union, which represents some
14,000	trainmen, conductors and yardmen, a conciliation board was established on May 29, 1973, chaired by R. A. Gallagher, Q.C., of Winnipeg. The board held hearings in Montreal on July 25, 26 and 27 and the report was received on August 24. The board report contained no recommendation on wages. At present, the general chairmen of the UTU are considering the board report and would be in a legal strike position on September 1.
This brief resume, while by no means a complete analysis of the events backgrounding the situation facing us today, does, I think, provide some useful perspective. Many are the opinions that can be ventured, many are the criticisms that can be levelled; but at this juncture, to no avail. Suffice to say that this strike has occurred despite the most sustained and painstaking efforts at mediation; that the task now before parliament is to restore rail operations and allied services and to provide a process that can fairly and equitably settle, finally, the terms and conditions of employment of the employees involved for the years 1973 and 1974.
The proposed legislation now before hon. members may be cited as the Maintenance of Railway Operations Act,
1973.	Basically, the provisions deal with the three disputes individually. However, there are a number of provisions that are common to all, and with hon. members' consent I will enumerate those major provisions affecting all three groups. Firstly, in so far as the resumption of services is concerned, in this most vital area the act states that every company and every employee shall resume work, or continue work, as the case may be, forthwith upon the coming into force of this legislation. This order invalidates and overrides any prior authorization that may have been given to take strike action. The act also forbids any railway company personnel to refuse to permit any striking employee from resuming work duties forthwith. Further, no such striking employee may in any way be disciplined for having been on strike.
Secondly, the act provides for the extension of all collective agreements pertaining to the three groups, with certain important amendments to the agreements which I will explain in a moment. In all cases, the extension will be from January 1, 1973, to the day on which any new collective agreements come into effect, or December 31,
1974,	whichever is the earlier. This extension, and the amendments, are binding.

August 30, 1973
Railway Operations Act
Thirdly, the act orders all railway companies and unions involved to resume negotiations forthwith with a view to settling matters presently in dispute. It further orders that they negotiate in good faith and make every reasonable effort to conclude a new settlement. Any new settlement, it should be noted, can in no event expire before December 31, 1974.
Fourthly, the act empowers me, as minister, to appoint mediators in the reopened negotiations. In addition, the governor in council may, on my recommendation, appoint an arbitrator whether or not a mediator has been appointed.
These four areas that 1 have mentioned are common to all three groups. I will now deal with those provisions that affect the groups individually. First may I deal with the non-operating employees. The amendments to the nonoperating employees contract are as follows, as set out in this bill: an increase of 30 cents per hour effective January 1, 1973; an increase of 5 per cent effective January 1, 1974; and an increase of 3 per cent effective July 1, 1974. In each case the increase refers to each hourly basic rate of wages. It will be quickly realized, I am sure, that these increases are those recommended by the chairman of the conciliation board.
3 (1720)
Shoperaft employees are the next group. The amendments to the shoperaft employees contract are as follows, and are identical with those recommended by the report of the conciliation board: an increase of 8!4 per cent effective January l, 1973; an increase of 6Vi per cent effective January 1, 1974; an increase of IV2 per cent effective July 1, 1974. In each case the increase refers to each hourly basic rate of wages.
The third group is the railway operating employees. The amendments to the railway operating employees contract are as follows: an increase of 8!4 per cent effective January 1, 1973; an increase of 6V1 per cent effective January 1, 1974; and an increase of IV2 per cent effective July 1, 1974. In each case the increase refers to each hourly basic rate of wages or mileage basic rate. I should emphasize that the wage increases for all employees involved in the three disputes, which are provided for in this act, are minimal. Any subsequent negotiated wages settlements or decisions reached through arbitration can in no case reflect wage increases which would be lower than those stated in this act.
Now I would like to speak about pension plans. Hon. members are well aware I am sure, of the significance of the question of pensions and their costs throughout the negotiations. I understand that a number of members of all parties have received representations on this subject. Agreement with all unions bargaining with the railway companies on the matter of pension benefits was reached on March 16. It should be emphasized that pension gains made by all the unions acting in unison are a major accomplishment in the history of railway negotiations.
However, there has been some controversy concerning the railways' cost estimates of such benefits, estimates which are alleged to be exaggerated. I have come to the conclusion that harmony will not prevail among railway employees unless this cost question is aired and answered

by an independent inquiry. Consequently, I have appointed an industrial inquiry commission, pursuant to part V of the Canada Labour Code, to estimate the cost of the negotiated settlement relating to pensions and comment on any differences between its cost estimate and that of the railway companies. I might add that today I appointed John Deutsch to be the industrial inquiry commissioner to conduct this inquiry.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carr Munro: In making any recommendation to the governor in council regarding the whole matter of an arbitrator, to which I have referred, I intend to recommend that in addition to the matters that would be referred to him he should consider the results of the inquiry into pension costing that I have previously mentioned. This important proviso will, I am sure, meet with the fullest approval of the employee unions concerned in these disputes.
It is obvious, I think, to all members that the question of job security, which is of grave concern to all rail workers, is one of those items that would be considered during the mediation process, or by arbitration. I think this should be underlined and noted by the employees and the unions concerned.
Before attempting to answer any questions there may be concerning the legislation that I have outlined, I should like to respectfully reiterate a statement made by the Prime Minister when he announced the recall of parliament on August 27. He said:
In recalling parliament our first priority will be the immediate restoration of rail service throughout Canada. I also want to assure the railway unions and managements that the government will continue to respect their interests.
I am satisfied that both these priorities will be achieved by the legislative proposals and the inquiry commission whose appointment I have just announced. I might add, in terms of some of the concern that has been expressed by the workers with reference to the cost of living, that the increases now being implemented-and of course this will involve retroactive payments to all those concerned back to January 1 of this year-can be taken into account by any arbitrator who might be appointed with reference to this dispute.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carr Munro: I am also confident that the Maintenance of Railway Operations Act, 1973, will serve to protect all Canadians and the Canadian economy as a whole from further serious suffering. I hope, therefore, that the intent of this legislation will serve well the workers involved and the country as a whole.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, we meet here today on the seventh anniversary of the last occasion when parliament was recalled to deal with a national rail strike. The legislation now before the House is in many ways similar to the bill that was introduced on August 29, 1966. This is the third time in less than 25 years that parliament has been called upon to take this kind of
August 30, 1973

extraordinary action. There are some striking coincidences that should be noted for the record. First of all, as I have said, it is seven years to the day since the previous bill of this kind was introduced. Second, the chairman of the conciliation board in the present dispute is the same Judge Munroe who presided over the conciliation board in the 1966 dispute; and I might say, for the trained gentlemen opposite, that we have the same Liberal government in power.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: There is no doubt in anyone's mind that inflation, which is currently running at an all-time high of 8 per cent, and the failure of this government to successfully tackle it is the cause of so much labour unrest in this country at present. Mr. Speaker, my leader has put forward a position on inflation on a number of occasions both inside and outside this House. We advocated, back in February, an immediate 90-day freeze across the board on all prices, wages, incomes and dividends. We all know how the situation has deteriorated since that time; it has deteriorated to the extent that the February 19 budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) is today a shambles.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: The consumer price index for the month of July recorded an annual increase of 14.7 per cent in food prices, the highest such rise since World War II. Mr. Speaker, since contract talks first commenced between the railways and the non-operating unions back on November 1 last, inflation has already robbed railway workers of 3.5 per cent as reflected by a 3.55 per cent increase in the cost of living for the first five months of 1973.


An hon. Member:: You are slipping.


James Aloysius McGrath: You are slipping; and you are the one who needs help, my friend.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: It is interesting, Mr. Speaker, to see what the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), the leader of the New Democratic Party, said during the course of debate on the 1966 bill. His remarks can be found at page 7847 of Hansard for that year. They are relevant to the present debate and are as follows:
What we are really suffering from in Canada, I suggest, is not fearful inflation in the economists' sense. What we are suffering from at this time is an increase in the cost of living for ordinary people, an increase in food prices, in rents, and in this kind of thing. These increases are due to the reasons that my leader, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) gave. They are due to administered prices; to increased mark-ups by the chain stores, and to profiteering of a kind which should not take place. This government and this parliament ought soon to do something about it.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman who made that speech back in 1966 now wields a big stick in this House; he now holds the balance of power in this parliament, and therefore he must share the blame with the government for the mess that we are in.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Railway Operations Act


James Aloysius McGrath: I suspect that for him and his colleagues it is too late because, as my friend the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) said so eloquently, the hon. member for York South keeps huffing and puffing but never brings the House down.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: We are about to pass a law-and this is a very serious matter-that will in effect take away the right that is presently written into our laws, the right of these unions to strike. What we are saying to these men and women is, "We realize you have a legitimate grievance, but the national interest demands that you must accept the wage offer contained in this bill. Accept it as a floor"-I emphasize, as a floor, and only as a floor-"for further negotiations so that you can get back to the negotiating table and work out a fair and just settlement to this dispute." We are not here to settle this dispute, Mr. Speaker. That is not our role; that is the role for the conciliators and the mediators.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: We are here, Mr. Speaker, because there is in this country a national rail strike, and this legislation is necessary in order that the trains of this country can start moving again. In the meantime, we are aware of the fact that inflation, if it is allowed to continue unchecked by this government, will continue to erode the value of every dollar earned, while food prices continue to soar. The cost of shelter has risen to the point where only those in the higher income brackets can afford to buy a house.
It is easy for us to forget, as we talk in terms of percentages and millions of dollars, that it is human beings that are involved here-men and women and families. Mr. Speaker, they have to pay the same inflated price as you and I have to pay for a loaf of bread, and the same inflated price for a pound of bacon. There is no doubt in my mind that railway workers have fallen considerably behind because they are an essential service and hence for them the right to strike, as their leaders have said, is only a theoretical right.
We have, therefore, a very special responsibility to the men and women of these unions. This is the message that we wish to get across to those who will be charged with the responsibility under this bill of bringing about a fair and just settlement to this dispute in the weeks and months subsequent to the passage of this bill. That is the message, that is the mandate we give them as they resume negotiations in this dispute.
As I have already said, Mr. Speaker, this is the third time since 1950 that we have had to legislate the railway unions back to work. It will be, therefore, painfully obvious that this bill is merely another band-aid. We really solve nothing by this bill; the problems of the railway workers-inflation, job security, collective bargaining and the right to strike-will still be with us.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: You can do better than that.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I do not expect the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) to understand that,

August 30, 1973
Railway Operations Act
and I do not expect him or his colleagues to provide the kind of leadership that this country needs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: I note that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) laughs, Mr. Speaker. Well, he should laugh because he is one of those who is responsible for the dispute taking place this very day.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: In his intemperate outburst at a very critical stage of these negotiations he said there would be a freeze on freight rates, and this caused the railways to take a hard line.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: This government, Mr. Speaker, in spite of repeated requests from the House, continues to ignore the recommendations of the Woods committee report which was presented to them in December, 1968. They ignored the major recommendations of that report, recommendations which addressed themselves to the problems I have outlined for negotiating strikes in essential services.
Our party has put forward a proposal based on many of the recommendations contained in the Woods report. We have said we would establish an essential services disputes commission which would define essential services and prescribe the procedure for settling disputes within these essential services. Accordingly, our party endorsed the recommendations made to the government back in December, 1968, in the Woods committee report for the establishment of a public interest disputes commission. This commission would advise whether particular services are essential, set out procedures for resolving differences where the public interest is threatened and, where it is unsuccessful, would report to the government for possible parliamentary action to end a strike or lockout. That is the kind of leadership this country needs.
There can be no doubt that the present rail strike constitutes a national crisis. We meet in an air of crisis. Neither can we doubt the fact that this government had ample warning. It knew this strike was coming, but did nothing about it. As a result, grain shipments have been stopped: this could have long-term, serious consequences to our wheat markets and to the economy of western Canada. Beef and produce are rotting on rail sidings. Ferry services to our two island provinces have been disrupted, stranding thousands of tourists in Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia.
What is even more important, serious food shortages are developing in many parts of the country. This is especially true in my own province, Newfoundland, which depends on the railways for most of its food, which has to be imported from the mainland. It is clear, certainly, to the government of my province and to the government of Prince Edward Island that the federal government has constitutional responsibilities to ensure that vital ferry services to those provinces are maintained.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, the government had ample warning. The question is: Why did they not act? What are the facts? They are as follows: negotiations for a new contract began on November 1, 1972. The government knew that the contract was expiring, or would expire at the end of that year. On December 21, 1972, federal mediation was required. On February 16 those negotiations collapsed and the assistant deputy minister of labour was called in.
On March 17 the minister was requested to establish a conciliation board, and the board was set up on May 16, 1973. Early in July the reports of the conciliation board were officially submitted to the minister. At this point I submit the minister should have intervened personally, but he did not. Instead, the government adjourned parliament, knowing full well that there was little or no hope for a negotiated settlement without government and parliamentary intervention. So we end up with a costly rail strike. Finally, on August 7, the minister appointed Judge Alan Gold of Montreal as federal mediator. Why did the minister not intervene? When he intervened, it was too late. When the minister finally decided to intervene, we were not witnessing rotating or selective strikes; we were witnessing a full-blown, national railway strike-and then it was too late.
We were all witnessess to the minister's performance. We all saw on television the charade and theatrics played by the minister in the hours leading up to the Prime Minister's announcement last Monday. There he was, with his collar open, running from car to car and from hotel to hotel, trying to make us believe that he was trying to bring about a settlement of this dispute when he knew that no such settlement at that point in time was possible. Just last night the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Turner) was quoted on the CBC national news as having said that the railways did not negotiate in good faith; they held firm, knowing that the government would have to intervene.


An hon. Member:: Right.


James Aloysius McGrath: He was dead on. He must be right, because the hon. gentleman is himself a former trainman, now Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour, and hence must have inside knowledge.
Certainly, Mr. Speaker, the railways did not bargain in good faith; that is a fact. Whatever else can be said about the railways, this can be said of them: they had their hands tied by the Minister of Transport and his intemperate outburst in western Canada. I say that the railways have a lot to answer for in this whole affair. Parliament has been denied, by this government, the traditional right to examine the Canadian National annual report in committee. That right has been denied to the members of this House for the past two years. What does the government and the railway have to hide? For the past two years we have been denied the right to a full examination of the budget and finances relating to the CNR and, as a consequence, no auditors have been appointed.
How can the government expect parliament to vote on the matter of wage increases when the financial position of the CNR, a Crown corporation, is unknown? Whatever can be said for Canadian Pacific-and I understand that
August 30, 1973

the CN usually falls into line with their thinking-there is no doubt in anybody's mind that we have a right and, indeed, a responsibility to have the management of this Crown corporation come before a committee of parliament and give a full accounting to the representatives of the people. If the CN annual report for the current year had been referred to a committee of this House, in keeping with past customs and practices, and if we had been given full and ample opportunity to examine in detail the CN financing bill, as we are entitled to do, we would have been in a much better position today to assess properly the attitude taken by the major employers, the CPR and CNR, in this dispute.
According to the evidence that is available, the railway companies are not too badly off. We understand that gross revenue for the CPR is up considerably. We know that the railways have had a good year. Last year, CN's profit was up to $48.3 million, their best year ever. Based on an average hourly wage of $3.64, a 10 per cent increase to all three union groups-that is, the non-ops, the shopcrafts and the trainmen-representing a total of 90,000 workers would cost a minimum of $68.1 million per year. That may seem like a lot, but when you think in terms of a gross revenue of $1,405.8 million for CN in 1972, that is not so much after all. Only then can one get a much truer perspective. We can better appreciate the human problems involved if we bring those figures down to human terms and think of the difference that an increase from $3 to $3.30 per hour will make to a man with a family, to a man who is bringing home the food, or bringing home the bacon as we say in Newfoundland. Of course, he cannot afford bacon today. Nevertheless, that is the issue. That is what this government fails to understand, because it is a government without heart.
Finally, it is unfortunate that this legislation will also cover the shopcrafts and trainmen, even though they have not exhausted the full process of the existing law with regard to a strike vote and final mediation attempts. Though the shopcrafts were much better off than their brothers in the non-ops, they had not had a change in their base rate for many years; and while they have rejected the report of the conciliation board, they have not yet taken their strike vote. Consequently, I am not too proud about what we are doing with respect to the shopcrafts union in this bill.
The United Transportation Union, or the trainmen, are faced with railway company demands to reduce train crews. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour knows what that means. If the railway companies get their way, it will mean a reduction in the work force of some 2,000 men. More important, Sir, this will create very serious operating hazards, and the hon. member for London East who is Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour knows this full well.
We need new ways of resolving disputes which arise within federal jurisdiction. There is no doubt in my mind that public interest sectors under federal jurisdiction, such as the railways, have not kept pace with all other aspects of society. They have not kept pace with their fellow workers because they are, by the very nature of their work, classed as essential. They know full well that if they resort to the ultimate protection the law affords
Railway Operations Act
them-that is, the right to strike-parliament will be recalled and they will be legislated back to work. As a consequence, they have fallen behind. We must start to find new ways to improve the bargaining process in industries under federal jurisdiction. By example, through that bargaining process throughout the country, we must find ways to make certain that bargaining takes place well in advance of the expiry date of a contract.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: In fact, one can almost make a good case for saying that negotiations should continue throughout the duration of a contract. At present there are too many advantages for both the union and the employer in delaying talks until the last minute. The eventual victim is the one body that does not have the right to strike-the consumers, the general public of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: We will move amendments when we arrive at the committee stage of the bill. We were going to put forward an amendment dealing with the differences of the two parties with regard to the administration of the pension plan. We would have much preferred the minister to insert a clause in the bill to ensure that this kind of independent, outside adjudication takes place. Nevertheless, he has announced the appointment of a well respected gentleman who will adjudicate this area of the dispute.
We will be moving amendments at the committee stage with regard to the time limit allowed for the various stages of the bargaining process, with a requirement that any settlement-this is the keystone of our policy-shall take into account the rise in the cost of living since the minister received the respective conciliation reports earlier this year.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether hon. members would permit me to call it six o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, we would, of course, agree to that, but we do have to get on with the legislation this evening.


David Lewis: If there is an objection, I can use up the five minutes remaining before six o'clock; but it would be much better if my speech was not interrupted.


Mr. Speaker:: We obviously require unanimous consent if we are to rise now.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I heard one "no". That is sufficient.


David Lewis: Let us not use up the time in getting consent. I have some useful things to say about the bill before us

August 30, 1973
Railway Operations Act
and perhaps I could get rid of a few matters with which I have to deal.
I do not know whether some of the political non-sequiturs in which the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) indulged require a reply. However, members of this House, and the unions concerned in this dispute and disputes that might occur in other areas of essential services, ought to know that the hon. member for St. John's East, speaking on behalf of his party, castigated the Liberals for having had to end strikes and send people back to work on three occasions in 25 years; it was necessary for parliament to be reconvened to do that. He ended that part of his speech by outlining the policy which he proposed. The policy terminated in a proposition that on every occasion, not three times in 25 years but regularly and permanently, there be advice to the government to take parliamentary action.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: No, no!


David Lewis: Hansard will show tomorrow that those were the precise words used by the hon. member. He said this new body should find new ways of negotiating. Following that, he said there would be advice to the government to take parliamentary action to end any strike or lockout that may occur. That will be shown in Hansard tomorrow. All through this dispute the Conservatives have talked, not through both sides of their mouth but they have managed to have six sides to their mouth.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: They have talked through every side of their sexagonal mouth. I do not agree with what they say, but one should make an honest argument. They do not have the courage to make an honest argument and say they are against strikes in the public service and essential services; that they propose some form of ending any right to strike in the public service. That is what they mean, but they do not have the guts to say it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: Without stretching, Mr. Speaker, may I now call it six o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to spend any more time on things which may have been said by spokesmen for the official opposition. Our appeal is to the government as well as to the members of the official opposition with respect to the bill which is now before us.
My hon. friends and I agree, of course, that a national rail strike causes extreme hardship in many sections of

the country and that it is very deleterious to the economy as a whole. We, of course, agree that parliament has a duty to the people of Canada and to the public interest, and that there comes a point in a strike such as a national railway strike at which members of parliament must take the responsibility of making certain that rail operations are resumed so that the harm, the difficulties, the hardship caused by the strike are ended.
To say this, however, is to accept only half of our responsibility as members of parliament-only half of the responsibility of parliament and of the government of Canada. It is not enough for us to say to more than 90,000 Canadians that their normal democratic rights are to be taken away, and to order them to go back to work on the basis of a settlement such as is contained in the bill before us, a settlement which is clearly inadequate and unjust.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: Therefore, in spite of our anxiety, which is as great as that felt by members in any quarter of the House, to see the rail strike come to an end, we cannot accept the bill as introduced by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro). It was suggested by the minister in his speech that the wage settlements proposed in the bill were minima. As a matter of fact, I suppose it was a slip of the tongue; he said they were minimal. He was right; they are minimal. But the word in the written version of the speech was "minima". The rest would be done by somebody else, by a mediator or an arbitrator. It was suggested by another speaker this afternoon that parliament would not negotiate an agreement, that this must be left to someone else. I think we should face the truth and acknowledge that this is precisely what parliament is doing; what we are doing is making amendments to the collective agreement of the railway employees involved.
There is provision in the bill for some things to be decided elsewhere, but we all know what will happen. I say to the minister that the proposal for further mediation which the bill contains is, to put it mildly, fatuous. Negotiations have gone on for nine months. There have been four mediators-Mr. Gibbons, Mr. Kelly from the minister's department, Judge Gold, and the minister himself. What more could be done by way of mediation? I say to the minister, because I have some experience in these matters, that once this bill passes and the men and women are ordered back to work-assuming for the moment that they obey the order-all the pressure on the companies, all the pressure on the mediator or arbitrator is gone. Perhaps after that some improvements will be made here and there, but no real justice will be forthcoming for the workers involved.
The minister said the wage proposal contained in the bill is the one suggested or recommended by the board. I am sure he knew this was a mistake. It was not recommended by the board, because there was no board report. It was a settlement proposed by the chairman of the board, Mr. Justice Munroe of the Supreme Court of British Columbia. What is more significant is that the proposal which the minister's bill contains represents the latest offer of the railway companies, the one they made just two days ago when they said they were prepared to accept the Munroe recommendation. So what the government is
August 30, 1973

asking parliament to do is to order the men and women now on strike, and those who contemplate going on strike, to accept the latest railway offer. If that is not serving the railways, I do not know what is.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: Other members of the House have already heard this and I am very sorry to have to put it on record in Hansard because, like every other member of the House, I regret any determination by any citizen of Canada or by any group of citizens of this country to refuse to obey the law. But it is a fact that the general conference of the non-ops met this afternoon, 60 of them, including the whole negotiating committee, and they have made public by now or are about to make public-I do not know the timing-a decision, taken unanimously, that they, and I quote, "will refuse to order our members back to work on the basis of the legislation as it has been introduced". If I have ever known a group of men who have been responsible and law-abiding and do not easily take steps of this sort-and I have had years of experience-it has been the leadership of the railway unions in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: Indeed, they have been so careful in their behaviour that they have unfortunately lost a great deal of the confidence of many of their members across the country; and that, too, I regret very much. I merely say that this parliament should not yield to threats of this sort or of any other sort, but the fact that responsible, law-abiding men who have always acted responsibly are forced by circumstances and a situation within their membership to make this kind of decision should cause the Minister of Labour, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), all the members of the government and all members of parliament to open their minds and to see that the bill which has been put before us is simply inadequate and ought not to be shoved down the throats of responsible Canadian citizens.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: There are seldom real negotiations between the railways and employees' organizations. Someone mentioned the fact that there have been three parliamentary actions in the last 23 or 25 years. That is true. None the less, I think we ought to recognize that while there was a strike and parliamentary action in 1950, there were settlements in 1952, 1954, 1956, 1958, 1960, 1962 and 1964, and it was not until 1966 that there was another disruption. Let us not say that the situation has been awful over the years, because both sides have behaved very well since 1966 when there were two negotiated settlements before the difficulties which have occurred at this time.
The reason for the difficulties are twofold. I am grateful to the hon. member for St. John's East who quoted words I uttered in 1966. I did not bother to look up my words of wisdom, as I often find when I look at them seven years later that they sound a great deal less wise than when I first uttered them. Of course that was the situation in 1966, and that is still the situation today; the rising cost of living and the non-action of the government to deal with it
Railway Operations Act
in some effective way has added fuel to the negotiating fires. The fact is that the railway employees have fallen behind lamentably. They have validated their case by facts which have not been controverted except by misstatements by the railways, to which I may come if I have time.
As of January 1, 1972, I think all of the employees covered by this bill, certainly the non-ops, received an increase of 7 per cent in their wages. The increase in the cost of living from January, 1972, to July, 1973, has been 10 per cent. They are now 3 per cent behind the position they held when they got their last increase on January 1, 1972. They are already 3 per cent behind. I suggest to the. minister that the roughly 8 per cent he proposes for the first year of the agreement, which is an increase of 30 cents an hour, will do no more for those employees than cover the likely increase in the cost of living in 1973-if it does that. I suggest the increase in the cost of living for this year will be between 7 per cent and 8 per cent, or higher.
What the minister is asking the employees to do is to kindly go back to work on the basis of the wage arrangement in this bill which takes them not one step forward but leaves them in exactly the same position they were in nine months ago.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


David Lewis: I ask hon. members whether any one of them would accept that kind of settlement at the end of a strike. And let me remind hon. members that some of the employees on strike have been out for weeks and have not received a single, solitary cent in strike benefit or strike pay. They have lived out these weeks on whatever little money they received before, or more likely have gone into debt.
The media have said that the proposal for the second year is 8 per cent. It is nothing of the sort. It is only 5 per cent for the first six months, and 8 per cent for only the second six months of next year. If you average that out, what is proposed in the bill is an increase for 1974 of 6.5 per cent. I suggest that in all likelihood the suggested increase will not even come close to covering the increase in the cost of living if the international situation remains the same.
I say, on behalf of my colleagues and myself, that we simply cannot accept this kind of injustice to the people concerned. I am entirely in favour of action by this parliament to end the strike, but on behalf of my party I demand that the action be just, not only to the Canadian community as a whole but also to the employees of the railways.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: That means the bill ought to give the employees, as a floor, what is recommended in the Weldon report, namely 38 cents for the first year, or 10.8 per cent on the $3.54 average wage rate for the group of non-operating employees dealt with in the first part of the bill. Even if that is done, this parliament will have given the nonoperating employees only about 3 per cent above the point of equalizing purchasing power as it was nine months ago. All we would give them, by the 10.8 per cent, is about 3 per

August 30, 1973
Railway Opera tions Act
cent more than the amount they require to catch up to the increase in the cost of living.
Whether you take general productivity in Canada, which is on average more than 3 per cent per year, or the increased productivity of the railways, which is over 6 per cent per year, surely these men and women are entitled to a 3 per cent cushion above the amount they require to meet the increased cost of living.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: I have had many occasions to participate in debates in respect of railway disputes. When I was able to practise law, before I was elected to parliament, I acted for the employees in various capacities, but when I was elected to parliament I felt there might easily be a conflict of interest if I continued to do so. During those years from 1952 to 1962, the area of comparability used related to the durable goods industry and there was an average developed between employees in the durable goods industry and non-operating employees so far as wages are concerned.
Let us consider the situation in respect of the traditional non-operating employee group, including not only those now covered by the first part of the bill but also those covered by the second part, namely the shopcrafts employees. I do not want to be technical about it, but I merely want to point out that in June, 1973, the average hourly earnings of durable goods industry employees was $4.17. The average rate of earnings of the non-ops in the first part of this bill is $3.64, or a difference of 53 cents between the two. Even if you take the traditional non-ops, in other words take the employees in the first part of the bill, together with the employees covered in part II of the bill, the shopcrafts, you have a difference of about 37 cents between the durable goods average rate of earnings and the non-ops average rate of earnings. Even on that basis of comparison, which is no longer valid in my opinion, the offer in this bill is just not enough and is unjust. It seems to me we cannot accept it.
There is just no question about the ability of the railways to pay. The hon. member for St. John's East dealt mostly with the CNR.


An hon. Member:: I wonder why?


David Lewis: One of my colleagues says he wonders why. I think the most important company to deal with is the Canadian Pacific Railway. We built that railway. It was built with millions of dollars donated from the public treasury, and with millions of acres of land donated right across this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: Indeed, years ago I heard that a high school teacher in one of his classes, when teaching Canadian government and the Canadian constitution, after he had finished asked a question. He was speaking to a high school class in Calgary. He said to the students, if they looked out of the window and saw a buffalo coming down the middle of the street, could they tell him whether it

would come under municipal, federal or provincial jurisdiction. A voice from the back of the class said it would come under CPR jurisdiction.
We built the CPR on the basis of the millions of dollars and millions of acres given by the people of this country. That company has built an immense economic empire without any risk. In 1972 the CPR increased its profits over 1971 by 27 per cent. In the first half of 1973 it increased its profits by 53 per cent over the first half of 1972. This is the company which we say ought to have the advantage of this parliament sending its employees back to work on the basis of this inadequate settlement. I say no.
The fact is that this poverty-stricken company received in subsidies, in 1972, more than it paid in taxes in 1972. It received in subsidies $30,367,000. That is the rail operation. I am not talking about the various gifts given by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce to Cominco and other subsidiaries. The CPR rail operation received subsidies amounting to $30,367,000 in 1972, and indicated in its 1972 annual report a tax liability of $30,200,000.
The fact is that out of that there is a deferred tax of $1Vi million, so that in 1972 this poverty-stricken railway company received about $2 million more out of the public treasury than it put into it in taxes. Yet we are told that this company is entitled to some consideration by this government and by this parliament. This corporate welfare bum had, as of December, 1972, deferred taxes totalling $143 Vi million. Those are taxes from the people of Canada, and that is an interest-free loan to the CPR. It is no wonder I have always had the view that the Canadian Pacific Railway should be nationalized and that we would take a big step forward if we did that very shortly.
There is no validity in any argument by the railways that they do not have the ability to pay any legitimate and just increase to which the employees are entitled. I want to make it very clear that I do not agree with the statement made by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) made an intemperate statement in Calgary, that there would be a freeze on freight rates for 18 months. He did not impose it, but said to the railways that there should be such a freeze. I would ask the hon. member who spoke previously to ask the Conservative Premier of Alberta whether he would agree that the Minister of Transport was wrong.
The railway companies, particularly if you take their entire empires, are well able to pay a decent wage to their employees. I say that this House ought not to pass any legislation that does not give them a decent wage and makes at least some advance. However, the Minister of Labour did not bring in a bill which even covers Mr. Justice Munroe's recommendation. It covers only the matter of wages. Mr. Justice Munroe made recommendations with regard to job security, which is of great importance to the non-ops in particular.
What hon. members and what the people of Canada, if I may say so without presumption, ought to realize is that the work force of the railways in Canada has been cut in half in the last 20 years. It has gone down by 37 per cent in the last 15 years. The work done by the railways, with half the force they had 20 years ago, is two or three times as great as the work done 20 years ago. With half the work
August 30, 1973

force, and therefore having to pay relatively half the wage bill they had to pay 20 years ago, their productivity is two or three times as high as it was 20 years ago. I simply ask, are not the employees of the railways entitled to part of that productivity increase? This productivity increase was created not only by additional capital, although that played a part, and not only by the capital to buy new equipment, although that played a part; it was also created by the employees of the railways doing their work in a better or newer fashion, in a better trained fashion. They made some contribution to the increased productivity of the railways; and I ask the members of this House, are they not entitled to part of that productivity increase?
The Weldon recommendation would give them no more than about 3 per cent above the increase in the cost of living. Surely they are entitled to part of the productivity increase of more than 6 per cent which annually has taken place on the railways. There are some other details with which some of my colleagues will deal. The Weldon formula suggests that if we are to do justice to the people concerned, we should have a more stringent guarantee that everyone will be employed if this strike ends and when it ends, and that there will not be the usual days of delay before some people are called back.
As a matter of fact, in the case of the shopcraft workers and members of the UTU, the bill does not provide any job security when the strike ends except for those who are on strike, and since none of them has been on strike but many have been laid off because of the non-ops strikes, there is no job security for those who were laid off and did not strike. The bill should contain a provision that the unions have argued for, namely, for job security.
Mr. Speaker, I think I have about six or seven minutes left. Let me take a minute or two to deal with that matter. I have said, and I say again, that in the last 20 years there has been a cut in half of the work force on the railways, and in the last 15 years a cut of 37 per cent. That has meant a reduction of a good many jobs. In 1957 I was involved in the dispute between the firemen and the CPR with regard to firemen on the diesel engines. The firemen were not very happy, but we finally settled the dispute, despite their unhappiness, on the basis that no firemen with more than two or three years service would be laid off-I forget the exact details-and that attrition would take care of the reduction in jobs. It took 10 or 12 years to achieve that, but finally it was adopted.
According to the report of Professor Weldon which gives the details on this, what the unions have asked for and what Dr. Weldon has recommended with regard to job security is that any person with four years' service should not be laid off. The unions have referred to two years' service; Dr. Weldon proposes this with regard to four years' service. Anyone with four years' service or more should not be laid off by the railway companies, and attrition will take care of the reduction in jobs. In this the unions have taken a step far in advance of any they have taken before. The unions, as well as Dr. Weldon, propose that if a job becomes redundant, the employee who has over four years' service should be given an opportunity to relocate, to retrain, to take another job in some other locality, and if he refuses the railways will be free to
Railway Operations Act
terminate his employment. This was a proposal they made to avoid any suggestion of featherbedding or make-work arrangements. I see no reason why this bill should not provide for job security.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: According to the Weldon report-I have known Dr. Weldon for many years and I am certain he would not state anything the factual accuracy of which he was not convinced about-30 per cent of the employees in the non-ops group, and here I am referring only to the non-ops group on the railways, have less than four years' service, and there has been a rate of attrition every year of about 4 or 5 per cent through ordinary resignations and deaths. So, as it were, the railways have a 35 per cent cushion in dealing with job security for the remaining 65 per cent of their employees who have had more than four years' service. It is obviously an ample cushion, and it would not cost the railways a penny to provide this job security.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, to the minister, to the Prime Minister and to members of the government that in my discussions with the non-operating employee leaders-and I have had many of them over the last few days, and indeed few weeks-the fact has been underlined that job security is a very important issue for the people concerned. In fact, it is of great importance to everyone in this rather uncertain and difficult world.
Despite what I have said about our anxiety to see resumed rail and other operations related to the railways, I must say to you, Sir, that we cannot support the bill as presently presented to this parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: I know that there are thousands of people across this country, perhaps tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, who are anxious for this strike to end, and I am as anxious as they are. But I would misread my fellow Canadians-


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: -were I to think that anyone would suggest that the Canadian people are ready to force the railway workers back to work without a just law. I was very pleased this afternoon to hear the hon. member for St. John's East say, if I heard him correctly, and I think I did, that he thought the railways-I am not quoting him but this is what I understood him to say-could easily give a 10 per cent wage increase to their employees. I was glad to hear him say that. I want to inform him and other members of his party, as well as other members of the House, that when we are in the standing committee or in committee of the whole House-it is not clear at first how this bill will be dealt with-we shall move an amendment to increase the wage offer in the bill precisely in accord with the Weldon recommendation, which proposes a little over 10 per cent.
I assume-and I say this without in any way wanting to trap anyone-that the statement of the hon. member for St. John's East meant that he would support such a proposal before the House. In order to make clear the

August 30, 1973
Railway Operations Act
position which my colleagues and I take, I will move an amendment to the second reading motion. I realize, Mr. Speaker, that you may raise some points about it, but I want to place it on record and I hope you will find it in order.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That Bill C-217 be not now read a second time, but that it be resolved that in the opinion of this House the government should give consideration to the introduction of a measure to provide Canada's railway workers the wage settlement recommended in the Weldon report, plus provisions for job security, and that there be no submission of work rules to arbitration.
The reason for the last phrase is that so far as the members of the UTU are concerned-the running trade employees involved in this bill-one of their major concerns is the demand by both railways to reduce the crews on freight trains. As hon. members may know, at present at the head of the train there is an engineer and a brake-man, and a conductor and a brakeman in the caboose at the end of the train, and the railways, particularly the CPR, are demanding that this work force be reduced by one so that there would only be an engineer, a conductor and one trainman to run a large freight train. I do not think that is a matter that should go to an arbitrator. This is a technical matter on which the parties concerned should continue their discussions. No one will be hurt if it is not resolved exactly in this year.
In short, I agree that there should be a law sending these people back to work and resuming rail operations, but that law should be just with regard to the workers whose rights are being taken away.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wish to bring to the attention of the House that the hon. member's time has expired, and at the same time the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) seeks the permission of the House and of the hon. member to ask a question. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John George Diefenbaker: My question to the hon. gentleman is this: If the amendment that he is moving passes the House, will he regard that as a vote of non-confidence in this government?
# (2040)


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the right hon. gentleman, who is a practised cross examiner, is that I will consider that question when his-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Alexander:: You had your chance.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please! Order, please!


David Lewis: I should have the opportunity to complete my answer, Mr. Speaker. The hon. gentleman of the Conservative Party-you just wait a moment, you smart alecks.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: My answer to the right hon. gentleman is that I will consider that question when his colleagues have the courage to vote for the amendment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: The same old pussy-footing.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please! Order, please! May we have order please?
I am tempted to suggest at this time that the question asked by the right hon. gentleman is hypothetical in that it assumes that the amendment is in order-something about which I have serious doubts.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I am prepared to make a ruling on the amendment immediately but if hon. members would like to attempt to convince the Chair that the amendment in those words is acceptable I will hear them. However, I must tell hon. members in all honesty that I have very serious reservations about the procedural acceptability of the motion proposed by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) and I am prepared to rule.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


Some hon. Members:: Filibuster!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, this is not an occasion for a lengthy discourse-


An hon. Member:: You are right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -on what is a reasoned amendment, and if Your Honour finds that this amendment is not in order at this stage of our proceedings we shall endeavour to make appropriate amendments when we are in committee on the bill. However, Sir, I should like to quote once again a portion of citation 382 of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition, which reads as follows:
It is also competent to a member who desires to place on record any special reasons for not agreeing to the second reading of a bill, to move as an amendment to the question, a resolution declaratory of some principle adverse to, or differing from, the principles, policy, or provisions of the bill.
Sir, there are a few more lines to citation 382 but they are not relevant, and my not reading them is not a case of leaving out anything that is important. As a matter of fact the same description of a reasoned amendment is found on page 487 of Erskine May's 18th edition, and reads as follows:
It is also competent for a member who desires to place on record any special reasons for not agreeing to the second reading of a bill, to move what is known as a "reasoned amendment".
Then, after a few words of connection, there are given three headings under which such a reasoned amendment can be moved. The first one is:
(1) It may be declaratory of some principle adverse to, or differing from, the principles, policy or provisions of the bill.
August 30, 1973

Sir, the amendment moved by my leader, the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), states our opposition to the bill. There is nothing contingent about it. It is not a case of trying to have it both ways. The amendment states our opposition to the bill and advocates principles and policies that differ from and are adverse to those in the bill. It says those things clearly by saying that we do not want a wage settlement that we regard as inadequate and calling rather for the wage settlement recommended in the Weldon report. It also calls for provisions for job security which are not in the bill and for a declaration against referring work rules to arbitration.
We submit, sir, that this is a reasoned amendment in that it offers an alternative to the present bill. I do not think it could be argued that all this could be achieved by the making of amendments to the bill, though we shall try that if we have to do so. What it really calls for is a whole new bill based on the principles in the speech made by my hon. friend. Therefore, for these reasons, we hope you will find this amendment in order.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) for his enlightened comments but I am sure he appreciates the difficulty of the Chair in respect of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis).
There are very few amendments that can be moved on second reading. Hon. members know what they are: they are the traditional amendments such as the three months' hoist, the six months' hoist and the referral of the subject matter of a bill to a committee. There is also the reasoned amendment. It is somewhat difficult for the Chair to make rulings in a general way as to which amendments, which so-called reasoned amendments, are acceptable, but it is fundamental in understanding reasoned amendments that members should be aware that such amendments must attempt to indicate why one proposes to vote against the bill. There must be something in a proposed so-called reasoned amendment which indicates why the mover of the amendment will vote against the bill.
In this particular instance it seems to me that what the hon. member is doing, rather than what I have just suggested, is to propose an entirely new proposition. It is, I suggest to the hon. member, in this way somewhat irrelevant. It is always difficult for the Chair to suggest an amendment is irrelevant. I use this word with some caution and care because I am not suggesting that there is no relevance at all between the amendment proposed and what we have before us, but the precedents and the authors have required that these amendments be particularly relevant, and in some cases the authors and precedents have stipulated "strictly relevant".
When an amendment of this kind seeks to propose, for the consideration of the House, an entirely different proposition I suggest to the hon. member that to this extent it is not relevant in the way that our precedents require.
For this reason, and also because in my view the amendment proposed by the hon. member to some extent anticipates the committee stage, I would think that the amendment should not be accepted.
Railway Operations Act


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-217 proves to us, beyond any doubt, the inconsistency of the present government with regard to labour relations. In fact, looking on the one hand at the law that allows public sectors to strike and on the other at the government which convenes parliament at this time to put an end to a strike it has itself authorized, we must recognize the stupidity in this state of affairs through which the public sector is deprived of the right to strike it was granted by law. And we are not the only ones to have noticed this inconsistency!
This afternoon, we had a striking example of it in front of parliament when 1,200 strikers walked up and down in front of the parliament buildings. At one point, hundred or so strikers decided to shatter the glass doors leading into parliament, and shatter the glass windows and doors of the library.
Listening to the news a while ago, I heard that people from Montreal were responsible for what happened this afternoon. Mr. Speaker, I have even been told that fanatic PQ supporters from Montreal found their way in the ranks of the strikers to cause trouble in front of parliament in Ottawa. They sneaked in among the strikers whose case we are now discussing. That gives us an idea of the mentality created by Rene Levesque in Montreal and the province of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, I also heard on the news this evening that the leader of the NDP (Mr. Lewis) tried to address the strikers. About half of them did not want to listen to him, whereas a few did. The leader of the NDP was trying to make political hay out of the poor CN and CP employees by extoling the beauties of socialism.
So, I say to the members of the New Democratic Party that instead of trying to settle the rail dispute here in Ottawa, they ought to go to the aid of their little friend, Mr. Barrett, in British Columbia, in order to settle the strikes which the government of British Columbia is facing.
These people dare tell us what to do but they cannot do anything when they are in office. That is exactly what is happening in British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, never before has a BC government been so stuck with government corporations than since the election of CCF or New Democrats in British Columbia.
Mr. Speaker, it is very well to try and stir up the poor railway employees and, as the hon. member for York South was saying earlier, the spokesman for the Progressive Conservative party spoke about the Canadian National, but he forgot about the Canadian Pacific. His solution would be to nationalize the Canadian Pacific which is making profits in order to turn it into a deficit ridden company like the Canadian National. That is his solution!
Mr. Speaker, private enterprise is always to be blamed. We say: why not nationalize it and then we will support it with public monies. In fact, $291 millions have been granted to the Canadian National Railways and Air Canada, while private companies are showing profits-this is what the hon. member for York South was saying-in charging the same freight rates and the same fares for passengers.

August 30, 1973
Railway Operations Act
If a privately-owned company is reaping profits, we say: let us nationalize it. But in the case of state-controlled services we tolerate deficits after deficits, with a possible tax increase for those who make use of them.
Mr. Speaker, unsightly demonstrations like those we had this afternoon remind me of what is going on in Chile, in Argentina and in most socialist countries. Some people have the nerve of attending such demonstrations.
Mr. Speaker, the NDP does not have any solution, nor has the government. Bill C-217 is ordering the employees back to work. If they do, it will be against their will and this will not solve the dispute. This is so true that, as someone said a while ago, Parliament has had to reconvene three times in the last 20 years to settle rail strikes. But it is not settled yet.
This means I am right when I have been saying for at least 30 years that, if it is ever proven to me that a strike has solved the labour problem, I shall join the picket line, but not before that. It is so true that the strike is not settled and will not be with Bill C-217.
What I find amusing is the fact that some people change their mind depending on which side of the fence they stand. And within a few years-I see the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) sitting on the front benches of the Government. For those who do not know he once was the president of the CNTU-


Mr. Prud'homme:: The CNTU was reasonable in those days.


David Réal Caouette: During the Asbestos strike, the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau)-


Some hon. Members:: That strike has been settled.


David Réal Caouette: -not to forget the hon. Minister of Communications (Mr. Pelletier).
In 1949, those three musketeers took part in the Asbestos strike in the province of Quebec. The Prime Minister wrote that the late Maurice Duplessis was a dictator, that he was forcing the employees to go back to work. That is what is being done with Bill C-217. Let us ask that to the hon. Prime Minister.
Do we think, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Transport was saying to the Asbestos workers to go back to work? No, he was telling them: Face up to the Canadian Johns-Manville Co. Ltd., to Duplessis. If you have to throw stones at the Quebec policemen do so. The Prime Minister was throwing stones, Mr. Speaker. And so did the Minister of Communications; he was communicating then!
The Minister of Transport was then saying the opposite of what he is saying today since he is telling the striking CNR Canadian National employees: Gentlemen, go back to work, otherwise you will have to bear the consequences.


An hon. Member:: Go back but with what?


David Réal Caouette: With .30c an hour from January 1, 1973. And let us note that I believe that ,30c an hour is reasonable. But what is not reasonable to

me is to wait until now to tell the people to go back to work whereas, especially in the public sector, the whole mechanism of employer-employee relations should have been established long ago to avoid a strike as disastrous as the one we are now witnessing.
Mr. Speaker, we do not want compulsion; on the contrary we want order in the public sector as far as the
56,000	people on strike are concerned. I was reading this morning a press release from a certain Mr. Smith; according to Mr. Smith and to the people who discussed with him, the Associated Non-Operating Railway Unions, representatives, it was reported, and I quote:

First, we want the MPs to consider the merits of our case, instead of just acting as strikebreakers for the companies.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, those are NDP words, that is clear; they must have had the visit of the NDP then. I come back to the quotation:
[ English]
We now regard Parliament as our last court of appeal. [Translation]
Parliament should have long ago passed legislation whereby the workers or the strikers in question should not have had to submit to Bill C-217 now before us.
I go on quoting:

We will have the spectacle of 264 Parliamentary Pilates,- [Translation]
If I say "Pilate" they will think I mean aircraft pilots. [English]
-piously washing their hands of a serious moral issue, and handing our members over to the companies to be underpaid and overworked for another two years.

It is as if we were here, Mr. Speaker, to martyrize workers whereas I believe each member of Parliament is sincerely trying to give a maximum of justice to groups of Canadian workers and not only to the 56,000 railway employees. Even if there were 560,000 of them instead of 56,000, it would not prevent me from saying what I think.
For example, it is clear that with the increase in the cost of living, the employees-any employees-want better wages to face the rising cost of living. Everyone knows it but higher wages paid directly from taxes or from Crown Corporations funds or other funds are an increase in the cost of living or in the cost of production and that leads to inflated prices. Salaries run after prices and prices run after salaries, just like a dog which turns in circles to catch its tail and never succeeds in doing so. That is exactly what we are doing.
Mr. Speaker, salaries going into costs bring about higher prices. The increase in freight rates brings about a higher cost of living. We suggest an increase in purchasing power through new credit, and not price increases. Price increases breed inflation when-


Some hon. Members:: No.
August 30, 1973


David Réal Caouette: Some say "no". Members of the New Democratic Party think that is funny. That is funny! Let us tax the big to give to the small so that in the end there are only small people and no more big people. That is a logical system in which the number of small people increases, poorer than ever before, while the big disappear. Once they have disappeared, you hear: we won, we are poorer than ever, but we won; that is the rationale of the New Democratic Party.
Mr. Speaker, it all boils down to the cost of living, inflation, the decrease in value of our dollar. Here is what we could read on this subject in the daily Le Droit:
The climbing prices in the food products sector have forced a lot of people to reflect upon the solutions to be brought about in order to allow the consumer to come out of it alive.
One cannot say that everybody drew a lesson from it. Some seem unable to comprehend the problem, others do not want to see the true solutions, others finally admit them with reluctance while those who propose valid solutions find it impossible to put them into practice-
-It has always been said of the Conservatives, even when they top it with "Progressive", that they are people "trailing the field."
They do not change much, they are behind the times.
They are traditionalists-


Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: They are what?


David Réal Caouette: Traditionalists.


William Heward Grafftey: What is that?


David Réal Caouette: Not only that, but you are limited to that-"blinkers".
-fear change and want to preserve old things.
Just like the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey): old potatoes!
Furthermore, as their leaders and main supporters are recruited mainly in the ranks of the well-to-do-
-that is true; look at the member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) -
-and as they have strong ties with big business, the Conservatives are reluctant to accept any change.
Let us proceed slowly, not too fast!
To wit, their attitude towards the price escalation. They have been unable to come up with any original suggestion. They saw that the United States, where capitalism flourishes and where big industry and finance rule the roost, had adopted a policy of price and wage freeze. The Conservatives followed suit. They asked the Canadian government to freeze prices and wages in Canada-
-for 90 days.
Well, that policy was a real flop in the United States; it resulted in the artificial shortage of food products and a still greater price advance; yet, the Conservatives are still struck on the idea of price and wage freeze in Canada. And they have the nerve to call themselves "progressive".
As for the NPD-
To cope with price increases-
-because I like them, I would like to make them understand, but it is a hard job!
Railway Operations Act
To cope with price increases, one of the first reactions of the NDP was to suggest price controls without, of course, mentioning wage controls.
Let us control prices only, not wages. For a smart solution, that is really smart. As for wages, they will get them from the man in the moon!
Now one measure is unthinkable without the other. How is it possible to prevent prices from rising if one of their components, namely salaries, can rise quickly because of union pressures and strikes? (The strike of the railway non-ops is a conclusive example.)
The NDP has revised its policies and no longer talks about price controls.
That is true, Mr. Speaker. Let us listen to them; they find it embarrassing now to speak about price controls.
But strangely enough, it so happens that the NDP, instead of taking up the cause of consumers and demanding direct assistance to consumers, has come to plead in favour of production concerns. The corporate bums, as they were so blithely referred to by Mr. Lewis during the last election campaign, should be subsidized from the taxes collected by the federal government.
It is a bit thick! The NDP who wants to subsidize the large flour mills, dairy farms and packing houses! Obviously the NDP has gone right off the track. Wishing to save its bacon while protecting the Liberal government, Mr. Lewis' party is becoming inconsistent.
-but it is adept at manoeuvring. I saw at 6.30, the leader of the NDP doing some fancy work, but he does it well. He pretends to be dead against the government, but when it is time to vote, he supports it, because he does not want to defeat it now. He waits and tries to keep the government under his control and decide when the election will be called.
Mr. Speaker, this is a misuse of power.
coming back to the Liberals-
With time, will the Liberal government improve like a good wine-
-according to the Liberals.
-or is the fear of being defeated making them wise?
Mr. Trudeau has rejected the idea of a price and wage freeze like in the United States. On that point, the facts have proved him right, thus bitterly disappointing the Conservatives.
And now, following the suggestion of the NDP, the main supporter of the Liberal government, asking that producers be subsidized, Mr. Trudeau answers, according to La Presse of August 22: "The Trudeau government has indicated up to now that it is clearly in favour of income support measures for individuals and families."
If the Liberal government intends to subsidize consumers instead of producers, why not do it right away?
Are the timid measures intended to increase the benefits for senior citizens and the reshaping of the Family Allowances Act as proposed by the Liberals enough to bring an efficient and definite solution to the problem of price increase and inflationary spiral?
Do the Liberals-


An hon. Member:: We are not Socreds!


David Réal Caouette: I know that but it's about time you did!
Do the Liberals and Mr. Trudeau believe that by staying, like the Conservatives, as retarded and reactionary when it comes to reforms that must necessarily be applied in the field of the financial system, they will provide good solution to the problem of price increase and inflation? Do the Liberals think that by further taxing producers, industrialists, manufacturers and workers,

August 30, 1973
Railway Operations Act
which has the effect of reducing everybody's income, they will really check rising prices? On the contrary, in reducing the income of manufacturers, industrialists, and workers by imposing heavier taxes, the government simply invites industry leaders and manufacturers to boost their prices and workers to ask for higher wages.
The Creditists agree with the Liberals-


An hon. Member:: This is difficult to swallow.


David Réal Caouette: Wait a minute! One must not say "agreed" too soon.


An hon. Member:: Who wrote that?


David Réal Caouette: Real Caouette.
The Creditists agree with the Liberals to reject the price and salary freeze and they do agree with the Liberals when they proposed as a solution to subsidize the consumers instead of the producers.
But what the Creditists do not admit is that these subsidies must necessarily come from taxes. Social Credit has always claimed and still claims today that the total sum-
Let us look and listen well, instead of trying to talk nonsense.
-of prices which is linked to the total production is always superior to the amount of money paid in purchasing power in respect of this production.
The reason for this is quite simple: any producer, industrialist or manufacturer is in business for making profit. With the present system, how can he show a profit other than by selling at prices higher than his costs. As in the course of production he distributes a purchasing power equal to his costs, his selling prices are always higher than his costs or this purchasing power.
The Social Credit Party proposes a mechanism to correct this anomaly: to increase the global purchasing power to the price level, that is, to create new purchasing means which are not included in the prices and an amount equal to the difference between the sum total of the prices and the sum total of true costs or purchasing power distributed in the course of production.
This could be achieved in two ways: first, an increase in the guaranteed income for everyone and, secondly, a decrease in prices equal to the difference between the sum of the prices and the effective distributed purchasing power, through a consumer discount, such discount being refunded to the retailers (producers) by a drawing on the national credit account.


An hon. Member:: What is the bill's number?


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, there lies the solution. Bill C-217, which relates directly to this.
Mr. Speaker, we hear complaints, such as union demands, at this time. The first and main demand of the non-operating employees is security of employment; they want that employees with four years service may not be fired as a consequence of technological change.
That is the problem of automation and useless jobs that must be dealt with. If in industry ten men are replaced by a new technology, push buttons, electronic gadgets using only one man the ten men who were replaced should nevertheless be kept, thus further increasing the cost of production and prices.
Mr. Speaker, railway employees are not interested in job security as such, but the salary attached to the job. That is what interests them, and the salary attached to the job should be guaranteed through a national dividend based

on the great production of Canada. There is no other solution than that. So job security is a smoke screen, a hoax. I am a businessman myself. If I have too many employees, of course I will dismiss some: The same thing goes for railways.
Mr. Speaker, some of my colleagues will deal with those issues in detail but I wanted to give the general opinion of our group, and I think that the right hon. Prime Minister and this government should seek the light of Creditist theories and solutions.
[ English]


Gerald William Baldwin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to intervene in the debate now, but it is no secret that there were discussions through the usual channels on this subject earlier today, and there is some interest, certainly in our party, in the course which this debate is likely to take. I should like to know whether the motion, as originally put by the minister, calling for the bill to be referred to a standing committee for discussion and report, does in fact represent the manner in which we are to proceed, or whether the House will be asked to follow the course which was followed last year and go into Committee of the Whole.
In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, in an issue of this kind time is of the essence, but consistent with the right to speak of hon. members who feel they have a contribution to make and have things they must say I suggest we must consider the times and dates of sitting. I do not suggest- as I am sure the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), the House leader of the Creditiste party and the government House leader would not-that the floor of this House should be the place for discussion, but I think that before ten o'clock we might have some idea as to the way we are to proceed. We should know whether there is any disposition to accept the suggestion that this bill be considered in the committee of the whole, or whether we are going to refer it to the standing committee. That and other things are of interest to us now and, I hope there will be some discussion on these matters before ten o'clock.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, perhaps we could clear up at least the question concerning the bill being sent to a standing committee or being considered by the committee of the whole. It was my intention to ask the House to deal with the bill in the committee of the whole, and, if hon. members will agree, we might decide on that now.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It was my hope also that it might be possible for the House to agree to continue this evening at least until we give second reading to the bill. That would be my suggestion.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: For the record, Mr. Speaker, may I say that we agree to the bill being sent to the committee of the whole rather than to the standing committee, but on the question of sitting beyond ten o'clock tonight we have an alternative suggestion to make. If the debate is concluded before ten o'clock and the vote
August 30, 1973

is called on second reading, of course that will be the end of it, but we do not think the House should be asked to sit beyond ten o'clock tonight. We are prepared to have the House sit at ten o'clock tomorrow morning to make up for any extra time that might have been gained tonight.


An hon. Member:: Why not tonight?
[ Translation]


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, as far as we are concerned, we agree with the suggestion that we should continue this evening until we give second reading to the bill. I am sorry to see that the New Democratic Party disagrees on that and that the concurrence of the motion for second reading is being delayed. We came here to work, and we have amendments to move to improve this bill.
Mr. Speaker, as presented this bill is not fully satisfactory to our party. We want to improve it, and we believe that during consideration in the committee of the whole we will have a better opportunity to do so, instead of simply moving a motion which would amount to a non confidence motion.
[ English]


Stanley Howard Knowles: To make my point clear, Mr. Speaker, I was not objecting to the vote on second reading being taken tonight. As a matter of fact, we are prepared to have it right now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: My point is that if there are to be further speeches on second reading we should not be asked to go beyond ten o'clock tonight, and, as I suggested, we might make up the time tomorrow.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Iianiel):: Perhaps we should solve one problem at a time. There is a proposal by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) that, by unanimous consent, we should amend the motion of the minister so that it will read that the bill be referred to the committee of the whole rather than the standing committee. Do we have unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: As to the second proposal, it is difficult for the Chair to see any agreement.


Some hon. Members:: Question, question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Daniel):: There does seem to be an agreement to put the question at this time. The question is on the motion of Mr. Munro (Hamilton East) that Bill C-217 be now read the second time and referred to the committee of the whole. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Railway Operations Act


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member now standing please resume his seat?

If the hon member would wait a moment, I shall complete the reading of the Standing Order.
[ English]
Pursuant to Standing Order 54, I do now leave the chair for the House to go into committee of the whole on the said bill. I am not sure what is the pleasure of the House. I am not sure what is the wish of the House, whether it is the wish that we adjourn at this time-
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel).]


Mr. Lundrigan:: Perhaps I could have Your Honour's indulgence, and that of the House, to suggest that because of the unusual nature of the circumstances facing the whole nation, parts of Canada in particular, the discussions of the House leaders which have taken place could be repeated to the House. Possibly this could result in the House sitting beyond ten o'clock, hopefully to the point where we could dispose of the bill before us, knowing that arrangements have been made which are satisfactory to the majority of the members of this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Howard Lundrigan: I make this suggestion with great sincerity in view of the fact that the circumstances facing certain regions of the country have reached the stage where hours are more important than anything else. We certainly cannot afford to wait for days.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members know it is after ten o'clock. I can remain in my chair only with unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
[ Translation]


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
I wish to call your attention to a rather important fact. Is it to show Parliament that the government is topsyturvy that the flag on your right is upside down?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not believe there is unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I recognize that it is sometimes difficult for all hon. members to understand fully the impact of circumstances on each part of the country. There have been a lot of discussions. I beg Your Honour's indulgence to allow hon. members to hear the report of the House leaders in anticipation of reaching some kind of agreement. This country is faced with a national emergency, certain parts in particular.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The situation is clear. I appreciate that the hon. member wishes to plead for the House to continue its sitting. I could hear many speeches on the point, both for and against, but as it is after ten o'clock the Chair has no authority to remain unless there is unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
August 30, 1973


Mr. Speaker:: I have again inquired. Obviously there is not unanimity.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, we, and I do not know whether there are others, do not see any value in sitting-


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


David Lewis: We do not see any value-


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


David Lewis: I ask hon. members to pay me the courtesy of listening as courteously as I listened to the hon. member who preceded me. We do not see any value proceeding in committee of the whole tonight. Some of us want to prepare amendments. On behalf of my colleagues I am prepared to agree to an earlier start tomorrow, if that should be the wish, possibly starting at ten o'clock instead of eleven. I say, Mr. Speaker, that we are likely to accomplish less rather than more if we continue this evening. May I remind the House that we facilitated the vote on second reading?


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


David Lewis: I merely remind hon. members that it was the NDP House leader who made the suggestion-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May we have order? It is obvious there is not unanimous consent.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, as if there were nothing else of importance for this parliament to be considering, for the moment we are now engaged in the usual adjournment debate. I protest this "business as usual" procedure. Our party was ready, willing and anxious to proceed with discussion of the rail bill in Committee of the Whole. We have to thank the NDP for the delay which has taken place. The NDP has shown its true colours.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Roche: The NDP champions the rights of the working class, but when we are here, in the midst of a national crisis, to defend their interests, they want to delay action when we want to proceed. I protest-
Adjournment Debate


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. The hon. member is not referring to the subject of his question. He knows that the rules governing the adjournment debates are very strict. He should direct his remarks to the subject matter.


Douglas Roche: I agree with Your Honour that I have been called upon to discuss the subject of decentralization. I only wish to say that I do so under protest.


An hon. Member:: Then sit down!


Douglas Roche: On April 5 I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to explain the government's policy on decentralization of government services. I asked him what the policy of the government was, and he said decentralization had already been brought about. That was certainly not the fullest of answers. It was also somewhat premature. In the interim, of course, we have witnessed the Western Economic Opportunities Conference in Calgary which emphasized that the west should share more intimately in the decision-making process.
The government has sought to give the impression that it is taking decentralization seriously. Thus, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson) has announced a decentralization program in accordance with which the proportion of departmental staff in the capital has been reduced from 70 per cent to 30 per cent and staff at regional offices expanded from 30 per cent to 70 per cent of the total.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Roche: The Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) has outlined plans to make more purchases from regions which are distant from the national capital. The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is increasing the resources and responsibilities of regional offices, especially in counselling programs for small business. The Royal Canadian Mint extension is being located in Winnipeg. The concept of decentralization of federal government activity, as the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) tells us, is nothing more and nothing less than a concept of equality. "It is essential that every Canadian know that the nation's business is nationwide", the minister says. And I agree.
One might think that with all this activity the need for decentralization is being met. But it is not. Decentralization means more than a slight shifting of the federal payroll out from Ottawa. It means stopping the shocking proliferation of government buildings here in Ottawa as indicated by the plan to take over huge amounts of commercial space south of Wellington Street. It also means bringing the decision-making process closer to the people, and this implies essentially that regional interests will become a priority of the federal government.
For too long we have silently watched government grow and grow to the point at which we are now one of the most overgoverned people on earth. The joint parliamentary committee on the constitution of Canada has warned us about the danger which arises as a result of the over-centralization of power in Canada.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, when I speak of decentralization as the vehicle to a better society in Canada I do not

August 30, 1973
Adjournment Debate
mean just spreading out some convenient services as if they were some sort of pork barrel. I mean a bold, new concept of government which would recognize that our national unity is dependent on the degree that all Canadians can be close to and participate in their national government. There is no reason the decision makers within certain departments cannot be located in areas other than Ottawa.
Why cannot the agricultural policies be formulated in western Canada; why not the formulation of policies of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion in the Atlantic area, with energy policies formulated in Alberta? Why must the head offices of Crown corporations be in Ottawa?
Such positive steps would not only help various regions get their fair share of the economic benefits of federal spending, but the federal process would be enriched by the infusion of creative thinking at the policy-making level. Then the eastern and western provinces would not be just appendages to central Canada's domination of the federal government; they would be active participants.
That is the message of the Western Canada Opportunities Conference, Mr. Speaker, but it is a message the government gave no sign of receiving. I am afraid that the government's half-hearted attempt at decentralization will actually amount to nothing more than sprawling government, in which the departments will add staff on geographic fringes while retaining their decision making apparatus in Ottawa. Without the bold, new concept I have outlined, decentralization will just make a big government bigger and frustrations will multiply.
Let us take advantage of modern communications and transportation to bring government to the people, and true decentralization is the way.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is aware, the government favours decentralization of its services, and the matter is under continuous review to ensure that opportunities to this end are taken advantage of fully.
Since last spring, when the hon. member asked what steps the government was taking to decentralize services specifically to western Canada, a number of initiatives have been started. The Department of Regional Economic Expansion announced a major decentralization with the proportion of staff in the capital to be reduced from 70 per cent to 30 per cent.
The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce began a program to expand the resources and responsibilities of its regional offices, including such initiatives as extending to three new areas the Counselling Assistance to Small Enterprises Program; appointing regional tourist officers in each province, and delegating on an experimental basis to regional offices the granting authority under programs such as the Advancement of Industrial Technology, the General Adjustment Assistance Program, the Program to Enhance Productivity and the Industrial Design Assistance Program.
The Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is setting up a number of consumer help offices at the community level, and Information Canada is expanding its

system of regional enquiry centres. The Department of the Environment is developing extensive marine geoscience facilities as part of the new oceanographic institute at Patricia Bay. The National Film Board is opening a Prairie regional production centre.
In addition, consideration is being given to relocating the Science Council out of the National Capital Region, and establishing on the Prairies a new defence research laboratory and a new communications systems engineering facility. The extension of the mint in Winnipeg is well known.
Finally, for perspective, it is worth remembering that as of September last year 207,000 of the 277,000 public servants, or 75 per cent, were employed outside the National Capital Region.
Among this group are included such agencies as the research centres of the Department of the Environment at Burlington, Bedford and Winnipeg, the regional production centres of the National Film Board in Vancouver and Halifax, the Transportation Development Agency in Montreal, the Atmospheric Management Headquarters of DOE in Toronto, and the headquarters of such major Crown corporations as CNR and Air Canada. In other words I would reply to the hon. member that the process of decentralization of the public service is a continuing one and concrete progress is being made. I hope the hon. member will continue pressing the government to decentralize not only, as he said, the offices but also the decision-making power.


AGRICULTURE-FEED GRAINS-REQUEST FOR ANNOUNCEMENT OF POLICY
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I refer to a question I asked on July 23. At that time, addressing a question to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang), in charge of the Wheat Board I asked if he would tell the House what his policy was in respect of the marketing of feed grain since he repeatedly had said there would be changes. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) replied that this minister is responsible and that any stand he takes would be a responsible one. Tonight in these few minutes I wish to call to the attention of the House the deterioration which has taken place in the orderly marketing of feed grain, barley, wheat and oats, from western Canada and call to the attention of the House the concern that has been expressed in western Canada.
I want to point out to the House that the Minister of Agriculture for Manitoba has stated that although the Minister of Justice in charge of the Wheat Board set September 15 as the date for the new policy to come into effect, right now the Canadian Wheat Board is selling No. 1 feed barley at $2.20 per bushel to eastern Canada while the export price is $3.20 per bushel. This statement was made by Mr. Uskiw, the Minister of Agriculture for Manitoba, on August 24. He states that for every bushel that is sold to eastern Canada the prairie grain farmers lose $1. This is the situation at which we are looking. At this point in time we have no indication of what the
August 30,1973

regulations or Orders-in-Council will be as of September 15, although this is the date upon which the Minister in charge of the Wheat Board said the new policy would come into effect.
Now we find the market disorganized. In a wire to the provincial ministers the Minister of Justice said he was working toward stabilization of marketing policy. We had a stable marketing policy until the minister in charge of the Wheat Board and the Minister of Agriculture mucked it up. We had a stable policy, and now we have an unstable and disorganized market.
One might look at the record and see that officials of the federal Department of Agriculture met the representatives of Manitoba and Saskatchewan. When the meeting was over the Minister of Justice from Ottawa, who had not even attended the meeting, said they could like it or lump it. Out of that meeting emerged the representatives of the two governments of Manitoba and Saskatchewan saying that the farmers of western Canada would no longer be well served.
If we move from marketing through the Canadian Wheat Board to commodity exchanges in Winnipeg, according to a story put out on August 30 there is a statement to the effect that the commodity market in Winnipeg, the futures market, is no longer in operation. The situation has deteriorated to the extent that there is no regular market pricing system for feed grains being sold in western Canada.
At one time the price of western barley was competitive with the price of United States corn. This is no longer the situation. The ministers responsible said they would set up a pricing policy in eastern Canada comparable to or based on the feed mill price in western Canada, but the feedmill price in western Canada is unknown.
The government has thrown the marketing of feed grains from western Canada into complete disarray. Stability is a thing of the past according to the wheat pool budget of July 20, and I suggest that the government read it. The western farmers are subsidizing the livestock industry in eastern Canada. This is the situation in which they find themselves.
I disagree with those to my right who said this evening that this matter is not of importance. This matter is of importance because it involves not only the well being of the farmer in western and eastern Canada but the unity of this country, and the basis upon which we can do business and have a good understanding of how to carry on business. I can only deplore the lack of information and clear policy of the government which should have been provided by the two ministers who are responsible for agriculture.
I plead with the ministers that if they have anything in mind other than total disorganization, if they have anything in mind which would be to the benefit of Canadian farmers, let them make a statement, either here or elsewhere, on what their policy is so that some kind of an orderly marketing system can be adopted because at present there is a disorganization. They have destroyed the stability of the Canadian Wheat Board. At a time when grains are in short supply and when, above all
Adjournment Debate
things, we need an orderly market they have chosen to disrupt and disorganize what was a stable marketing system.


Mr. Leopold Corriveau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to reply tonight on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) to the question asked by the hon. member.
This question was asked prior to the statement concerning the new policy (proposition) on domestic feed grains. As the hon. member knows, this statement has already been made public. The hon. member's question is also related to the fact that this statement should have been made in the House. Such was the minister's intention, Mr. Speaker, but this was impossible since the House was adjourned.
I think all hon. members are aware that the temporary measures which have been announced are welcomed by a great number of Canadian producers. Every one can rest assured that strong efforts are being made to put the proposition into effect as soon as possible.
[ English]


POST OFFICE-RE-EXAMINATION OF REQUIREMENT FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF RURAL ROUTES IN WESTERN CANADA
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, on April 12 last I asked a question of the minister in charge of the Post Office in respect of the extension of rural services. In the past few years we have witnessed a phenomenon that has been commonly referred to as rural depopulation. Rural depopulation, I suppose, has been due to various reasons and causes, but one contributing factor which no one denies has been the lack of government services in rural areas, whether they be municipal, provincial or federal. Services which are taken for granted in small towns are often not available in the rural area or if they are, are only available on a limited basis and are often of a second quality.
In recent years decreasing rural population has resulted in the closing of many rural post offices. Some were very, very small indeed and it was not economically feasible to keep them open. However, the government clearly came up with a policy which stated that despite the closure of these small post offices the areas would have postal service better than that being provided through the rural route system. What has happened since that time? The delay in mail deliveries has become almost a national catastrophe. A letter sent on a Wednesday in a so-called remote area will not be delivered perhaps until the next Tuesday. That is not an efficient postal service, Mr. Speaker.
There is also a formula devised by the post office according to which a certain number of people must live along a rural route in order for the service to be extended. In my riding there are areas where the rural route ends, but had it been extended for another mile, three or four more people could have been serviced. The formula does not allow this to be done, and so the truck turns around and retraces the distance already covered. This has created hardship and has forced many people to travel to post

August 30, 1973
Adjournment Debate
offices, sometimes nine or ten miles each way, where apparently they get service.
On April 12 I asked that the government live up to its commitment to review rural routes, and asked that the routes be extended despite the fact that a contract had been signed with a carrier. An additional payment could be made to carriers if the routes were extended to give the service that was promised when the post offices were closed.
Sometimes the post office officials will claim that they cannot extend the rural route for another mile because there are not enough people, but they offer to put a box in the middle of the country where there are large farms and allow the mail to be delivered there. That is not an adequate service, having the mail delivered two or three miles away from a farm, and left there unsupervised. If the mail is delivered mid day, sometimes the people do not only have a chance to pick it up until the end of the day.
We are asking the post office to establish a system to extend the rural routes even during the time of the contracts with the carriers in order to provide service. In many cases the post office is the only regular federal government service that rural people see. They are taxpayers and are entitled to the service.
I submit to the government and to the post office that it is time for more flexibility, without all the bureaucratic redtape and formulae, to be applied to the extension of rural routes.
[ Translation]


Léopold Corriveau: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer the question of the hon. member.
According to the last figures available, there were 5,014 rural routes in operation in Canada serving a total of
808,000	households. The criteria for the frequency of the service on those routes are now based on the number of households per mile travelled. When there are more than three households per mile travelled, the mail will then be delivered six times a week. When there are between two and three households per mile, the mail service will be provided four times a week.
Under the current regulations of the department, 4,420 out of the 5,014 rural routes are served six times a week. This means that 88 per cent of the rural routes have a more frequent service than that available to urban users. It is true that most of the routes which are not so well served are in the Prairies because of the continuous increase in the size of the average farm and of the generalized tendency among farmers to move to town or to travel frequently to their farms.
In spite of a less frequent postal service in most of those routes in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, its cost per household is 36 p. 100 above the national average.
If the department decided to give a six day a week service in all of these routes instead of the present four day at least it would cost $1,450,000 more per year. Therefore, the Post Office Department is trying to find other means to determine the frequency of the service.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.42 p.m.

Friday, August 31, 1973