1974-10-08

PRESENCE IN SPEAKER'S GALLERY OF DELEGATION FROM SWEDEN

Mr. Speaker:: Before calling motions may I call the attention of the House to the presence in the gallery of the very distinguished delegation which is visiting Canada from Sweden. It consists of the members of the Foreign Relations Committee of that country's parliament and it is headed by its distinguished chairman, Mr. Arne Geijer.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. I seek the consent of the House to move a motion. I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
That the House requests the Minister of Labour who is responsible for Information Canada to investigate whether or not there has been any political abuse of the name or facilities of Information Canada as a result of the printing and distribution of a political information document containing names and phone numbers of Liberal members along with certain Liberal party executives and bearing on the bottom right hand corner the words 'Information Canada; telephone number 996-7001.'


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion. Since it is presented pursuant to Standing Order 43, it cannot be put without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous agreement to proceed with the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There not being unanimous consent, the motion cannot be put.


Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43, order, namely, the imminent closure of the Anaconda Electronics Plant in British Columbia, preceded by the closure of the same corporation's copper mine at Britannia, British Columbia.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle):
That this House directs the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to take immediate and substantial steps to save the 470 jobs involved and to promote the Canadian purchase of this company's assets in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion. Since it is proposed under Standing Order 43, it cannot be presented without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous agreement?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: There not being unanimous agreement, the motion cannot be put.


PUBLISHING
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I wish to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the cessation of publication of Canada's oldest magazine, Saturday Night, resulting in unemployment and the loss of a genuine and independent Canadian viewpoint, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan):
That this House instruct the Secretary of State to undertake special financial measures to permit the republication of Saturday Night and to end forthwith the special tax advantages to Time and Reader's Digest which have caused such hardship for the Canadian magazine industry.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion being proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43. It cannot be presented without unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

October 8, 1974
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: There not being unanimous consent, the motion cannot be pursued.


STATUTE LAW (STATUS OF WOMEN) AMENDMENT ACT, 1974 MEASURE TO ESTABLISH EQUALITY OF STATUS FOR MALE AND FEMALE PERSONS UNDER CERTAIN STATUTES
Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved: for leave to introduce Bill-16, to amend certain statutes to provide equality of status thereunder for male and female persons.


[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, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In light of the worsening unemployment situation in Canada, what is the government's current assessment on the effects of the United States DISC program on unemployment in Canada? The minister will recall his government has been conducting a survey on the effect of this program on Canada. What is the current assessment on this? Is this program now hurting employment in Canada?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. Leader of the Opposition realizes, one of the antidotes was the competitive tax rates for manufacturers and processors and the capital cost allowances. On the basis of information I have received to date, those responses within the Canadian tax system have offset whatever results might have been achieved for United States exporters under that program.


REQUEST FOR REPORT ON EFFECT OF FAST WRITE-OFFS AND TAX CONCESSIONS
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance promised a further report on the effect of this. Will an up-to-date report on the effects of these fast write-offs and tax concessions be presented in the immediate future or in association with the budget?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will recall that an interim report was presented to the last parliament. I found it inappropriate to send out further questionnaires for the final report during the election period. I waited until that period was over. Further questionnaires have now been

sent out to a wide range of companies, both large and small. I hope the results will be in a form I will be able to present to the House in either January or February of the new year.


SUGGESTED SEEKING OF ASSURANCES UNITED STATES WILL NOT EXTEND DISC PROGRAM
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have one final supplementary arising out of the minister stressing the need to avoid a beggar-thy-neighbour policy, particularly between neighbours. Did the minister seek any assurance from Mr. Simon, the Secretary of the Treasury, that the government of the United States would not adopt any new or extended Disc-type program, at least without consultation with Canada?


John Napier Turner: The Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Simon, and I did discuss trade restraints, either by way of hidden export subsidies or otherwise, on a multilateral global basis and it is within this context we shall be interested in hearing the President's speech to Congress at four o'clock this afternoon.


UNEMPLOYMENT-GOVERNMENT FORECAST OF LEVEL- SUGGESTED INCREASE IN FUNDS FOR WINTER PROJECTS
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: A question for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Given the fact that unemployment has risen to a level of 563,000 and that experts have forecast a much larger increase for the months ahead, can the Prime Minister tell us whether the government has made its own forecast of unemployment this winter, and, if so, what levels of unemployment are expected?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: On a
quarterly basis, and then publicly at the time of the budget, the government does look at the state of the economy, studies the current situation and considers the factors which might affect the future. No attempt is made to make any precise forecast.


John Edward Broadbent: Recognizing the need to take some kind of specific action in advance of the budget, for which we may have to wait some four weeks by which time it will be too late to do anything effective about winter unemployment, can the Minister of Finance inform the House whether or not the government will consider increasing the capital allotted to the winter projects fund? At present this is fixed at some $350 million. Would the minister consider substantially increasing this sum and making an early announcement to this effect in order that the provinces and the cities can get projects of a serious nature under way, hopefully by the latter part of the winter at least. This could have a beneficial effect on the unemployment situation.


John Napier Turner: The government is watching these figures from month to month to determine whether they constitute a trend. The winter employment projects are constantly under review, of course. I hope to address myself to the state of the economy at the earliest opportunity. Hopefully, if the House has
October 8, 1974

disposed of the measure now before it, we shall return to the Throne Speech debate tomorrow.


HOUSING
John Edward Broadbent: A final supplementary addressed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Given the fact that there is significant and growing unemployment in the lumber industry in British Columbia, Quebec and New Brunswick, would the minister consider taking immediate steps to lower mortgage rates, even if this involves subsidies, so as to stimulate the housing market and thus provide not only more houses but more jobs?


Hon. Barnett J. Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: We are looking at all possible options in an effort to keep the housing market moving at high levels. The question of subsidies has been considered and we have already taken action by way of AHOP, which has been tremendously successful.


FINANCE
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Prime Minister related to a question which was asked a few moments ago. In view of the inter-relationship of the North American economies, would the Prime Minister, without revealing anything of a confidential nature, tell us whether his government has been consulted, or at least informed, with respect to the contents of President Ford's anti-inflation program to be announced at 4 p.m.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As the
Minister of Finance indicated in his reply earlier, a delegation led by Ambassador Eberle is coming to brief Canadians on the contents of that message.


POSSIBLE SETTING OF INTERNATIONAL TARGETS TO RESTRICT INFLATION AND UNEMPLOYMENT
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A supplementary to the Minister of Finance. Can the minister inform the House whether during his discussions with international monetary leaders any targets were set in an effort to restrict national rates of unemployment and inflation in 1975?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, it would be difficult to give guidelines that would apply to the various economic factors in all the countries of the world, particularly the third world, the
Oral Questions
developing nations. However, there were some matters discussed with which I can deal in some detail within the rules at the earliest opportunity in my speech in the throne speech debate.


INDUSTRY
John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, but since he is not here I will ask it of the Prime Minister as I am sure he is aware of this problem in British Columbia. In view of the fact that the Anaconda Mining Corporation of New York has closed down its mining operation at Britannia, and in view of the fact that we learned today of the imminent closure of its electronics plant in British Columbia, what action is the Prime Minister's government taking to make sure that this electronics plant stays in British Columbia and saves the jobs of 120 people?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take notice of this question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Perhaps the hon. member will also tell this to the electorate of British Columbia.


John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether, due to the urgency of this problem and the fact that there are in the gallery of the House of Commons today people who will be unemployed, if he will assure me that he will answer tomorrow?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: The same old Trudeau.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the absence of the Minister of Agriculture, I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister.
In view of the fact that the grain elevators in Eastern Quebec are now practically empty, which bodes ill for the farmers in that area as concerns feed supplies for the winter of 1974-75, can he tell the House what action his government intends to take to correct the situation and reassure the farmers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I shall be pleased, Mr. Speaker, to take up the matter with the Minister of Agriculture upon his return.

October 8, 1974
Oral Questions PUBLISHING


REQUEST FOR REMOVAL OF TAX EXEMPTIONS FROM &quot;TIME&quot; AND &quot;READERS' DIGEST&quot;
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Secretary of State. In view of the financial difficulties of Saturday Night and several other Canadian publications, when does the government intend to keep its promises and remove tax exemptions from Time and Reader's Digest?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, there has been no commitment of that kind. The government is, in fact, now reviewing the exemptions, and I would be interested in knowing what is the position of the official opposition on this.


BROADCASTING
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Communications following the question to the Secretary of State about exemptions given Reader's Digest and Time and the Income Tax Act provisions. As the minister responsible for the CRTC and broadcasting policy, and to be consistent with the Income Tax Act as it applies to publishing, is the minister considering extending section 19 of the Income Tax Act to broadcasting, so that advertising over broadcasting stations in other jurisdictions cannot be computed as an expense?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: The matter is under consideration, Mr. Speaker.


HARBOURS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: I should like to put a question to the Minister of State for Piscatorial Affairs. I do not know how to call him. Last Friday, Mr. Speaker, I asked him a question about the development of a marina on Saanichton Bay in my constituency. I should like to know whether the minister had the opportunity to look into my question and is now ready to inform me more specifically about the postponement of the marina development and the reasons for this delay.


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot match the polished language of my honourable friend. I should like to tell him, however, that the marina project has actually been suspended for a six-month period at the request of the Indians in the area

or to answer their objections. Apparently, the Indians are afraid that the proposed dredging would affect the flow of the water. That is why we are now looking into this problem.


MANPOWER
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration I should like to address my question to the Prime Minister. I understand that yesterday the Minister of Manpower and Immigration announced a new round of talks with the provinces leading to the development of new community employment strategy three years from now. May I ask what is to be done in the meantime by the 31,000 persons unemployed in Newfoundland, the 22,000 unemployed in Nova Scotia, the 23,000 unemployed in New Brunswick or the 563,000 unemployed across the country?


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am not aware of that now, Mr. Speaker, but I will look into the matter.


Andrew Hogan: Mr. Speaker, to date we have spent over $2 billion on manpower training programs only to find ourselves in the situation where-


Some hon. Members:: Question, question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Andrew Hogan: May I rephrase the question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I tried to allow the hon. member a little bit of leeway on his first question, but perhaps it would be better if he stayed on the path for his second one.


Andrew Hogan: What measures if any does the Minister of Manpower and Immigration intend to adopt concerning a workable manpower policy in this country, or does he plan to allow the Minister of Finance to continue fighting inflation on the backs of the working people of this country?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


TRANSPORT
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport relating to questions asked last Friday by the Leader of the Opposition regarding the coroner's inquest into an accident at Frobisher Bay. At that time the minis-
October 8, 1974

Oral Questions
ter indicated to the Leader of the Opposition that he would take a very close look at the reasons for the delay in publishing the accident investigation report. Can he now tell the House whether he has done that and, if so, what are the technical matters which still have to be included in the report before it is released?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, it is true that last week the report had not been completed. Like any accident report, whether a plane or a railway accident, it must be submitted to a general review committee in the department before it is published. This report should now be before the committee. As be soon as I get it, I shall be pleased to make it available to my honourable friends.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, since there is a tremendous amount of confusion surrounding this matter, and I welcome the minister's enlargement on his previous answer, would the minister indicate whether the report is completed from a technical standpoint or being held up simply for the purpose of translation?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is referring to a statement I made in the House last week in response to a question by the Leader of the Opposition. At that time I said the report was not completed. What I am saying now is that even when it is completed it has to be referred to a general review board of the department concerned with accidents, and it is only after that that it can be released.


FUNDY TIDAL PROJECT-REPORT OF REVIEW BOARD-SUBMISSION TO PROVINCIAL PREMIERS
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources indicate to the House whether the re-examination of the programming board report on the Fundy Bay tidal project is available and at the same time indicate if he has as yet received any reply from the governments of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick regarding a third report which I understand is one of the recommendations in this pre-examination report?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the review board report has now been received and copies have been transmitted to the two premiers involved. It would be my intention to table the report in the House as soon as the agreement of each premier to that is obtained. We have had preliminary discussions with one at least and I hope to be able to canvas the situation fully as to the next step we would take after we have had an opportunity to review it fully.


PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. In light of recent discoveries of natural gas off Labrador, has the Prime Minister initiated meetings with the Newfoundland Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs with a view to discussing off-shore resources?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there is no recent precise development on that. Some months ago I indicated to Premier Moores that since this would not be a negotiated settlement perhaps he would agree to have the matter referred jointly to the Supreme Court. I do not know whether he has answered positively. My memory is not too clear on that. Perhaps I should repeat the background which is that we have been negotiating with the five eastern provinces for five years now, and it is latterly that the Newfoundland government decided to go it alone, which means at a different speed with reference to the settlement of that particular problem.


NATURAL GAS-PLANS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF DISCOVERY NEAR NEWFOUNDLAND
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I would direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Is there any arrangement to exploit these resources in the absence of agreement between the province and the federal government?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No. Mr. Speaker, not at the present time. The Eastcan discovery off Labrador was covered by a federal permit, and it is anticipated it would be some years before the discovery could be proved up and before there would be any exploitation of it.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister. It relates to the financial statement in the recently issued annual report of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women. In view of the fact revenues were $300,000 and expenditures were $244,398, leaving an operational surplus of $55,602, would the Prime Minister take this example of fiscal responsibility as an inducement to appoint more women to the economics portfolios, particularly the Ministry of Finance.

October 8, 1974
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will take that as notice.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is Canada participating in a meeting of the World Bank and other associated organizations including the International Development Agency in Paris on October 17 at which an advance of $50 million to the Saigon regime will be proposed and what is Canada's attitude to the proposed advance?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have no information at all on that subject. I shall take the question as notice and answer the question tomorrow hopefully.


HOUSING
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs.
In view of the fact that, for the past month or so, the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has refused to grant mortgage loans to new housing contractors, thereby causing severe problems to the labour force, could the hon. minister advise us whether he will introduce new legislation shortly in this area, or whether he will allocate new credits to the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to know the specific area where operations are closed down. The AHOP program has been so successful that in some areas the funds which have been allocated have been used up. These are special situations. I am watching all areas of the country to make certain that we maintain the very high standards which are producing a lot of housing for Canadians.


Léonel Beaudoin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Is the hon. minister aware that, in the Sherbrooke area, the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation no longer grants mortgage loans to new housing contractors? Will he change the policy shortly, in order that contractors may continue building new houses?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am aware that the program has been particularly successful in the Sher-

brooke area. I am looking at new options there so that we can keep on with the program at a very high rate.


INFORMATION CANADA
Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for Information Canada and concerns the information document being circulated by the Liberal Party of Canada listing names of Liberal members, certain Liberal Party executives and fund raisers. Did information Canada print, circulate, design or have knowledge of the document and specifically why does the name of Information Canada and its telephone number appear on the bottom right-hand corner of the document?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Humber-St.
George's-St. Barbe.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the point of order. I asked a question of the Minister of Labour who apparently was talking to his colleague and did not hear it. I feel I should have the privilege of repeating the question.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member should know that I am in no position to grant a supplementary to a question which has not been answered.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I think when the question of a member has not been answered he should have every right to ask the question again. I know they are arrogant, but they should answer the question.


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I have a general idea of what the hon. member's question was, but frankly I am not aware of this particular situation. I will look into it and endeavour to reply to the hon. member shortly.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. It arises out of a statement he made in Halifax on September 1 or thereabouts that the Veterans Land Act would not continue and would be phased out. Would the minister indicate if he was stating government policy particularly in view of the fact that there was agreement in this House that the act would be reviewed six months prior to phasing out?
October 8, 1974


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I was not stating government policy. I told the people in Halifax part of what had happened in this House.


Jack Marshall: In view of the fact that the minister was not stating government policy, would he indicate to the House if he has considered taking action to extend the Veterans Land Act beyond March, 1975.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of government policy and when the information is available it will be conveyed to the House.
* # *


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister give any information concerning whether the government is presently conducting an inquiry or investigation into the number of illegal immigrants coming to Canada in view of the fact that last year the program "Make our country your country" was at that time supposed to clear up this problem once and for all.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I imagine the Department of Manpower and Immigration has this matter under constant review.


FINANCE
Mr. John Wise (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct my question to the Minister of Finance. Is he aware of the fact that certain chartered banks are still denying loans to clients under the Small Businesses Loans Act and the Farm Improvement Loans Act.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would give me some specific instances I would deal with them.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to my hon. and learned highland friend the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Considering that Canada, as a member of the peacekeeping force and seeker of world peace has a major
Oral Questions
interest in the Middle East situation, can the minister advise if it is the view of the Canadian government that representatives of the Palestine Liberation Organization should be supported at the Geneva Middle East conference? Has this view been indicated to other interested governments and with what response?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for his comments which I appreciate as coming from a separate but very distinguished clan. With respect to the question, it has been stated by my predecessor that the view of the Canadian government is that the Palestinian people should be represented at negotiations affecting a settlement in the Middle East. The Canadian government, however, has not prejudged the form of the representation by advocating the attendance of the PLO itself.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is related to that asked by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East of the Minister of Transport. Apart altogether from the tragic loss of life and the unsatisfactory accident investigation procedures involved in recent happenings in his ministry, can the minister tell the House whether he has any estimate of the cost involved in the loss of equipment and damage to property resulting from the recent train collision at Montreal?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, as soon as I get the result of the inquiry I will be in a position to answer.


NATIONAL ANTHEM
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Secretary of State which concerns Bill C-ll on the new official national anthem. Would the minister agree to produce the multicultural versions of the national anthem?


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, that is a fascinating suggestion upon which I will reflect.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister of Agriculture is absent, I wish to direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister.

October 8, 1974
Oral Questions
In view of the fact that butcher's meat producers threaten to destroy their herds and to quit production, does the government intend to act immediately in order to help those producers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will be happy to discuss this matter with the Minister of Agriculture when he returns, Mr. Speaker.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the President of the Treasury Board I should like to address my question to the Prime Minister. Can he advise this House whether the government has had an opportunity to study all parts of the Finkelman report, specifically the part dealing with illegal strikes in essential services and if so what definite decisions have been taken by cabinet, if any, to deal with any such future strikes?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to take note of that question.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a
question to the Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture. Was the Minister of Agriculture stating government policy when he said that Canadian eggs would be prohibited from export to the United States?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I missed the first part of the question but I will be pleased to refer that to the minister.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, my question could hardly be referred to the Minister of Agriculture. As leader of the government, can the Prime Minister state whether the Minister of Agriculture was stating a government policy when he said Canadian eggs would be prohibited from export to the United States?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of the statement but I will look into the matter.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: My question is for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Will the Prime Minister make a statement on motions outlining the principles now to be followed in appointments to the senior public service, and in particular show whether the elevation of Mr. Michael Pitfield indicates a replacement of the merit system by the buddy system?


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think it is quite improper for a member of parliament to cast such aspersions on a member of the public service.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. Might I ask the Prime Minister to reply to the first portion of my question and indicate whether he will make a statement on motions which will remove the doubt and concern that exists throughout the country, and certainly in the public service, about the principles that are being followed in appointing people to the senior levels of that service?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member probably knows that appointments at this level and deputy minister level are made by order in council. They are therefore at the decision of the government. The kind of suspicion that the hon. member says exists probably exists in his own mind more than in anyone else's.


NATURAL GAS-VIEW OF UNION GAS ON AVAILABILITY OF SUPPLIES FOR ONTARIO USERS
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and refers to the letter circulated by Union Gas Ltd. in which they indicate that they will not be able to meet the demands of gas users in Ontario in the next couple of years. Has the minister seen the letter from Union Gas Ltd., has he checked into the availability of supply and can he assure the gas users of Ontario that there will not be any shortage?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, while I may not have seen the actual letter, I am aware of the viewpoint expressed by Union Gas Ltd. which of course is a matter involving this national debate as to the availability of natural gas supplies. It was because it was concerned not so much about the short run, but the long run availability of natural gas in Canada that the government arranged the hearings now being held by the National Energy Board with regard to natural gas supply.


Max Saltsman: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister assure the House that gas will be avail-
October 8, 1974

Oral Questions EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
able in Canada for Canadians in the future even if it is necessary to cut off some of our export customers?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, that is one question, but the factual question is the one which is now being canvassed by the board. It seems to me the appropriate course of action is to receive the board's report and in due course make a decision with regard to export contracts, and the development of additional facilities, or otherwise, that may be indicated by it.


HEAVY OIL-EFFECT OF SURTAX ON PRODUCTION BY MURPHY OIL COMPANY
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources since we are dealing with the subject of energy and the question of supply. In view of the fact that companies are unable to produce heavy crude in the Lloydminster area, particularly the Murphy Oil Company, because of the fixed price set on heavy crude which they blame on the high surtax being collected by the federal government, can the minister tell the House if the government has had discussions along these lines, and if it has any remedies to suggest to ensure the continued production of heavy crude in that oil field?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I have sought the judgment of the National Energy Board on this question and am advised that the Murphy Refinery of Superior, Wisconsin, is in a turnaround position at the present time which may explain the shutdown in production. With regard to the question of the future of heavy oil production, the board is seeking further information from the company. I might add that a possible element in this is the forthcoming United States policy with regard to the reallocation of old oil within the United States which, of course, could have an important effect on the Murphy Refinery and others in the northern tier.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker, as the minister, probably unintentionally, left out a part of my question. It was reported in the business sections of several newspapers that the officers and executives of Murphy Oil blame the situation on the high surtax on heavy crude being collected by the federal government. They claim this makes them non-competitive and they have to produce at a loss.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it remains a matter of judgment to be taken by the National Energy Board with regard to the appropriate tax level. The position of the government is that we should seek the maximum just and reasonable return to Canadians from Canadian products.


CONFINEMENT OF VALENTYN MOROZ BY SOVIET AUTHORITIES-ACTION BY CANADA TO ASCERTAIN STATE OF HEALTH
Mr. Peter Elzinger (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs and is further to one raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre on October 1. In view of the information regarding the state of health of Valentyn Moroz as revealed by the Soviet foreign minister in talks with our minister, does the Canadian government feel that it has done all it can to ascertain the state of health of Mr. Moroz or to mitigate the circumstances of his confinement?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the state of health of Mr. Moroz, I believe the Canadian government did the proper thing in seeking assurances from the Soviet foreign minister. These were provided in these terms: that Mr. Moroz was in normal health, took exercise regularly and was under normal medical observation. There is no way by which the Canadian government can verify independently the assurances which have been given by the Soviet foreign minister.


Peter Elzinga: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the Canadian government committed to using all diplomatic efforts to secure the release of Valentyn Moroz on humanitarian grounds, or does the Canadian government not feel that his release is an important issue, both in our relations with the U.S.S.R. and in Canadian society?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend will agree that the person named is a citizen of the Soviet Union. There is a limit to the representations that will be effective, even when made by the government of Canada.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Why don't you visit him in the concentration camp?


HEAVY OIL-REASON FOR REMISSION OF FIFTY CENTS PER BARREL TO COMPANIES
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources arising from his answer to the hon. member for Calgary North, to the effect that the Canadian government feels it should get all the money it can from the export tax on oil. May I ask, in light of that statement, why the National Energy Board announced that it will rebate 50 cents per barrel of the export tax to the oil companies for the month of November, at a time when the importing companies are raising the price of oil and the OPEC nations are indicating that they will be increasing their prices?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the price remission procedure applies to heavy oil only and the decision with regard

October 8, 1974
Oral Questions
to the 50 cent remission represents the judgment of the National Energy Board that the price of heavy oil has been set 50 cents per barrel too high, and this would bring it closer to the competitive market level.


ALLEGED STATEMENT BY MINISTER CONCERNING NATIONALIZATION OF GRAIN HANDLING INDUSTRY
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. It arises from the statement he made concerning the grain handling industry. He implied that the government may be considering the nationalization of the grain handling industry, 80 per cent of which is owned by Canadian farmers. Is the government considering seriously this preposterous proposal?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I did not make any such comment.


OIL-ALLEGED STATEMENT BY PRESIDENT OF IMPERIAL OIL CONCERNING SHORT-FALL IN PRODUCTION-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Peter C. Bawden (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. As the President of Imperial Oil said last week that by 1983 Canadian oil production probably will supply only areas west of the Ottawa valley formerly served by Canadian production which means a short-fall in production, as against consumption, of between 1 million and 1.5 million barrels a day, equal to 30 or 40 per cent of our oil consumption, will the minister say if he accepts those figures. If he does not, what are the government's figures? If he does accept them, will the minister say what the government intends to do about this frightening prospect?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may not know that the National Energy Board held a full public hearing into the future availability of Canadian oil. The report is now being completed by the board and should be available within one month.


Peter Colwell Bawden: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As it is such a serious question which is of critical interest to all Canadians, can the minister say if he agrees with the figures given by the President of Imperial Oil?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as this is such a serious question it seems to me that the considered report of the board should be received before there is comment.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the cultural pressure to resist aging, could consideration be given to changing the name of the Old Age Pension Act and the removal from old age pension cheques of the words "Old Age", in order to show more respect to our senior citizens?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I will give much consideration to the hon. member's suggestion, but I wish to point out that to my knowledge, not a single cheque has been returned to date because of the plan's name.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, October 7, consideration of the motion of Mr. Munro (Hamilton East) that Bill C-12, to provide for the resumption of grain handling operations on the west coast of Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
Mr. Frank Hamilton (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate because the area of Saskatchewan which I represent sends grain to the Pacific coast for export. We are, therefore, very interested in this matter. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) has said that only two parties are involved in the Vancouver grain situation. I submit that there is a third party, the government of Canada-which has both feet in it. The minister also referred to a letter which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) sent to the grain companies. That letter said this situation is unique and will not affect other union negotiations.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder if hon. members would give the hon. member who is speaking the courtesy of a quiet hearing.


Frank Fletcher Hamilton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Labour mentioned the Prime Minister's letter to the grain companies, which said that this situation is unique, will not affect other union negotiations and is not inflationary. That is patent nonsense. I read part of a letter addressed to the Prime Minister from the chairman of the bargaining committee of local 60 in Vancouver; it is dated August 22:

October 8, 1974

You, the Prime Minister of Canada, have ensured that legislative action will be taken to enforce the Dr. Neil Perry report which ensures Vancouver grain workers of a basic rate of pay amounting to $6.44 per hour.
This is $2.11 an hour more than grain inspectors are paid. I continue reading the letter:
Government inspectors who control and supervise all grain received and exported at the port of Vancouver have to receive, at least, parity with all of the Vancouver grain workers.
If we do not receive parity with all these grain workers in Vancouver, our inspectors will take the necessary action to protect our interests.
Signed: C. Lewis, Chairman, Bargaining Committee, Local 60.
It goes without saying that if the grain inspectors do not work, grain will not leave the port. The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale) said yesterday that management and the union had been deadlocked for over half a year and the government was forced to act. Let us examine that contention. The first meeting between management and the union was held on October 19, 1973. The fifth and final meeting was held on December 11, 1973. There were only five direct meetings during a seven-week period. Surely the minister could have exercised the options open to him and ordered that serious negotiations be undertaken. Section 164(1) one of the Canada Labour Code outlines the options available to the minister. He can notify the parties of his intention not to appoint a conciliation officer or conciliation commissioner, or he can establish a conciliation board.
Section 43 of the Canada Grain Act declares elevators to be works for the general advantage of Canada. Our railways fall under that category as well. Surely these are not idle words in the statute. The government is responsible for seeing that such works are used for the advantage of our country. We are dealing with a national problem which has become a national disgrace.
I now wish to refer to a European magazine, Point International. The edition of September 21, 1974, says the following about the Vancouver grain pile-up:
Federal politicians are behaving indecisively. Had private companies been involved, parliament would have been recalled and the proposal enforced. But farm co-operatives cannot be handled in this fashion: grain growers have long memories on polling day. Meanwhile the country, which needs massive grain exports to keep its economy healthy, is severely threatened.
In a situation such as the Vancouver grain tie-up, I feel great unease at the government's reliance upon advisers who operate in the theoretical rather than the practical field and whose advice appears to be adding to the mounting mess rather than alleviating it. I hope the Minister of Labour will consider this when he appoints an industrial inquiry commission, because so far in this situation we have suffered from a classic case of legal overkill.
On October 19, 1972, the former agreement was ratified. Its duration was December 1, 1971 to November 30, 1973. The increase granted was approximately 40 cents an hour, or 9 per cent across the board. In the current disagreement, the first meeting was held on October 19, 1973. The fifth and final meeting between management and union was held on December 11. That was the end of our so-called collective bargaining. On February 15, 1974, the
Grain Handlers' Strike
Minister of Labour appointed Dr. G. N. Perry as a conciliation commissioner, and I quote-
-to assist the parties to the dispute in revising the collective agreement.
His terms of reference were all wrong. However, the government took his report as a settlement without knowing what it was all about.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank Fletcher Hamilton: I quote as follows from the preamble to Dr. Perry's report:
-the recommendations which follow can hardly be expected to do more than indicate a series of intermediate changes with which both parties may be able to associate themselves as they try to conclude a settlement in a difficult year.
The Perry report does not discuss the basic issues at all. They are productivity, efficiency and incentives. The real issue is not to do something that will add to the inflationary pressure in the country, but to do something that will move more grain through export positions at the lowest possible cost per bushel. With trains and ships operating around the clock, seven days a week, steps must be taken to put grain terminals on the same basis. It is obvious, too, that we must move toward a system whereby clean, ready to export grain is moved to export positions.
I am certain of one thing: we will not get increased productivity by parliament legislating this settlement. On May 23, 1974, the government took action under section 181 to make a strike or lock-out illegal until after the election. There is doubt about the legality of the government's action, and the sloppy staff work showed up when they omitted from the order the terminal owned by James Richardson. The title of Bill C-12 is "An act to provide for the resumption of grain handling operations on the west coast of Canada". I would like the House to understand that two terminals one operated by the Alberta Wheat Pool in Victoria and a terminal in Prince Rupert have operated throughout the Vancouver shut-down.
Ministers of the Crown made it clear that unless the parties in the meantime reached agreement, a settlement would be legislated in accordance with the commissioner's recommendations. Any chance of effective and meaningful bargaining ended absolutely when the Minister of Labour said during the election campaign that the government would, if re-elected, legislate implementation of the report. This promise was reiterated later by the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. There remained a great-deal of ground for negotiation.
On August 1, 1974, the government of Canada made two rather dramatic moves in the grain business. They granted the companies an unprecedented increase in the tariff for both country elevator operation and for terminal operation. This increase was granted by order in council P C. 1974-1702, dated July 30, 1974, to be effective August 1, 1974. At the same time, the government reduced the payment for number one bread wheat to the western farmer from $3.75 to $2.25 a bushel, a reduction of some 40 per cent. On August 8, the no strike, no lock-out order expired. On August 23, 1974, strikes plus lock-outs, completely shut down the Vancouver grain terminals. The greatest grain exporting port in a hungry world sat idle. Works for the general advantage indeed!

October 8, 1974
Grain Handlers' Strike
Instead of reminding the grain companies of their responsibilities, I suggest this government should have looked to their own responsibilities in this matter. It must be obvious even to this government that third party intervention is necessary in labour disputes right from the start, and I do not necessarily mean government intervention. In the case before us, I suggest three or four farmers sitting in as observers would have tended to keep both parties on the track.
History tells us that almost every time the government interferes with agriculture, they spoil the market; and if the marketing is wrong, we might as well plow under all the other effort. The expansion of our grain exports and competitive strength depend more on our own efforts than on our reliance on negotiating with other countries. There are a number of actions and policies we can initiate unilaterally which will contribute to our goals of increased trade.
Our greatest need is to have a consistently dependable supply of major grain items, at competitive world prices, at seaboard. Instead, heavy-handed interference by ministers of the Crown has resulted in the present impasse. If the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board wants to nationalize the grain industry, and this is a first step, he should be honest enough to say so. I quote as follows from the Alberta Wheat Pool publication "Budget" of October 4, 1974:
G. L. Harrold, president, Alberta Wheat Pool, said in Calgary recently that a statement by labour minister, John Munro threatening nationalization of the grain handling industry is out of order and ill-timed. Public coercion of any industry by a minister of the Crown constitutes bad government. A threat to nationalize the grain handling industry, 80 per cent of which is owned by farmers, is preposterous.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank Fletcher Hamilton: The manner of government support for the inland terminal concept, and the method by which they have supported this concept with taxpayers' money, is another example of the sort of pressure they have been putting on western grain companies. The minister in charge of the Wheat Board is guilty of treating the grain companies like political parties. He made one very bad mistake when he tried publicly to pressure the companies. If he wanted to give them hell, he should have done it in a private office.
It was common knowledge at the meetings of the minister and company presidents that the minister had no idea what was contained in the Perry report. This explains why the government is now backing away from settlement based on that report and why they have to appoint an all-powerful referee under section 7 of the legislation. How can we, in good conscience, support this bill when we do not know what it will mean to either party?
One question that could be asked is, why did the Minister of Labour take the conciliation officer route rather than appoint a board of arbitration? I would also like to know why the Richardson terminal at Vancouver was exempt from the order in council which barred a lock-out or strike. One of the most disgraceful aspects of this whole situation was the effort of the minister in charge of the Wheat Board to try to drive a wedge between members and management of the western grain companies. Fortunately, he failed. He then, obviously, misadvised the Prime

Minister by suggesting that grain producers would apply pressure to their companies to settle. This did not happen.
The government has done nothing to create goodwill between the parties-and goodwill is needed desperately. The responsibility for supporting inflationary pressures rests upon the shoulders of the Trudeau government. They created the mess in the grain industry at Vancouver and they should pick up the tab for demurrage, now at least $10 million. In the mind of the public, this government has created the myth that bread wheat has been bringing the producer $6 or more a bushel. However, we shall find out in January upon receipt of the final payment, which I judge will bring a total return to our farmers of some $4 a bushel.
The government is all in favour of acting on the basis of the Perry Report, a settlement amounting to an increase of some 60 per cent, because the farmers will pay the full shot and increase the government's take via taxes. At the same time, the federal government, through the Treasury Board, is offering its grain employees in Vancouver, highly-trained inspectors and weighmen, only 6 per cent, although, as I have said, these people are on a lower pay scale than the grain handlers by some $2 an hour.
So, Mr. Speaker, there we have it. Make the grain growers pay the full shot for an expensive labour settlement, while the government increases the tariff for handling the grain and reduces the initial price to farmers by 40 per cent: is this the way to serve the national interest and the interest of Canadian citizens? The Prime Minister speaks of the grain companies doing a disservice to farmers. The disservice to farmers is strictly the responsibility of the government in this situation. The present government, which gave the western farmers the LIFT program and then asked the taxpayers of Canada for $200 million for hopper cars to move the grain, lets these same hopper cars sit idle. Over 200 miles of loaded boxcars are in the western division right now; over 40 million bushels of grain are stored in railroad cars. To use the government's own words, it is a mess. Mr. Speaker, it is a mounting mess. We not only need the grain moving for the next two months, but for the next 20 years.
Surely it is a reflection of an unjust society when a government will permit so much economic power to rest in the hands of so few people. It is the broader question that the government should be addressing, the problem of pockets of economic power. This is only the first labour problem with which this House will have to deal. Some mechanism must be found to take these issues out of parliament.
It may be reasonable to let the grain handlers catch up with other unions, but when does the primary producer get a chance to catch up? In Canadian agriculture we want a situation in which our farmers have confidence in maintaining planned expansion, while consumers can obtain food at fair prices. What we have from the present government is a situation in which high market prices are combined with lack of confidence in the industry. We have the worst of both worlds for the consumer and the producer.
Since January last the government has watched the west coast grain industry going down the drain. Having
October 8, 1974

let the situation slide for three months after the election, they now base legislation on a disputed, one-man report, with no assurance of increased productivity. In the minds of a good many of my constituents, the government's handling of the west coast grain situation has been a worse risk than hail, rust or grasshoppers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party has always been extremely reluctant to impose a settlement in labour disputes by arbitrary legislation. Ever since Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves, it has been held on this continent that no one has the right to set the price at which a person shall be compelled to work in our society. For this reason, it has been a tradition in Canada that the matter of determining the price of an individual's labour should be settled by negotiation and by the process of free collective bargaining.
This process works in 99 per cent of the cases which are negotiated each year, and we hear very little about it. But there are times when the two parties in a dispute are not able to reach a mutually acceptable settlement with respect to wages, hours of work and conditions of labour. When this happens, a stoppage of work ensues and in some cases the stoppage goes on for a considerable length of time. The main victims are usually the employers, who lose business, and the employees who lose wages.
There are times when a work stoppage affects not only employers and employees, but the entire economy. We are now considering a labour dispute of this description. We face a strike which has been going on for some six weeks, a strike which is having an adverse effect on the economy and, in particular, on the well-being of the wheat producers of western Canada. We in the NDP are supporting this bill because we believe it is necessary to intervene in the interest of those who produce wheat in western Canada.
It is now more than ten months since the old agreement between the grain handlers' union and the grain handling companies expired. The work stoppage has gone on for some six weeks. The main losers in this industrial conflict have been the western farmers. In a letter dated August 23 to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board, the chairman of the Wheat Board summed up his conclusions as follows:
In summary it can be fairly stated:
(a)	Each day that the strike goes on will cost Canada $5 million in lost sales. A seven-week strike will cost approximately $200 million.
(b)	Demurrage charges will total approximately $10 million
(c)	Canada's reputation as a dependable source of food supplies has already been damaged. A strike now may well destroy that reputation.
(d)	There will be a loss of ability by Canada to meet world emergency for food needs.
We need not take all of that statement at its face value. Normally, we would lose sales. However, the shortage of grain in the world is such is that we shall probably recoup the losses in sales. I believe that if the strike is satisfactorily settled, the chances are that we shall also recoup our reputation as a dependable supplier. On the other hand, turning to points (b) and (d), there can be no doubt, first
Grain Handlers' Strike
of all, that the farmers of the prairie provinces have already lost $10 million in demurrage payments which will have to be made by the Wheat Board and which will come out of their final payment; and, second, there can be no doubt that we are not at the present time making a responsible contribution toward meeting the food needs of the world.
The latest report of the World Food and Agricultural Organization indicates that right now the world is short of about six million tons of grain. Hungry people go to bed night after night without having had enough to eat. Canada has always prided itself on having made a major contribution to feeding the hungry world. Therefore, it seems to those of us in this party that the time has come to bring this matter to a conclusion. As a matter of fact, it is difficult for me to understand why the government did not move sooner than it has. Those two Dead End Kids, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) and the minister in charge of the Wheat Board, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang), announced that unless this matter could be settled quickly, the government would call parliament into session and pass legislation implementing the Perry report. But when the companies refused to accept the Perry report, nothing happened and the matter has dragged on.
The Minister of Labour then began to say in his press statements that parliament should not really be enforcing decisions of this kind. The government should either have kept out of the matter or called parliament together and ended it, saving the farmers of western Canada the millions of dollars they have already lost in demurrage charges, and also enabling us to meet our commitments to our customers and get grain into the markets of the world.
My good friend, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton), said yesterday that this bill does nothing to deal with the basic grievances. I admit there will still be many grievances left, but the fact is that this bill will do two things which are of vital importance to this country. The first is that it will get the grain moving and save the farmers of western Canada large sums of money since charges to date now amount to three times what it would have cost to settle on the basis of the Perry report. The second thing the bill will do is to offer some measure of justice to the grain handlers on the Pacific coast. Not only do we want to see this strike ended so as to stop the very serious losses being incurred by farmers in the prairie provinces; we want to see the work stoppage ended on a basis that is just, fair and equitable to the grain handlers.
It should be remembered that it was the grain companies that asked for conciliation under the Canada Labour Code. When the Perry report was brought down, the grain companies rejected it. The union indicated its willingness to accept it. The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) said yesterday that the report simply was made up of suggestions. Doctor Perry was not appointed as an arbitrator, he was appointed as a conciliator and all he could make were suggestions. Since the companies were not prepared to negotiate on the basis of those suggestions, I do not think this House has any alternative but to end the strike on the basis of the recommendations of the Perry report.

October 8, 1974
Grain Handlers' Strike
For my friends in the Progressive Conservative Party to say that this settlement is inflationary is, in my opinion, hypocritical humbug. I have not heard them complaining about the rising profits of the food wholesaling and retailing industry, the skyrocketing profits of the oil companies, or the increase in the price of oil to farmers. I have not heard them complaining about the drastic increase in the price of farm machinery. With the increase in the price of a combine this year alone, the average farmer will pay many times what he will be called upon to pay under this settlement-approximately one cent a bushel. Nor have I heard the official opposition talking about the increase in the price of anti-freeze and other items. The fact is, as the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain said yesterday in the debate, that an increase of even 5 per cent would be inflationary. It is true that any increase is inflationary.
Are my friends in the Progressive Conservative Party suggesting that no increases at all should be granted? This year the cost of living has increased 11.5 per cent. We must remember that these workers will be signing a two-year agreement, which means they are guessing what the increase in the cost of living will be next year. Nobody but workers contract to sell their labour at a price, not knowing what will happen to the cost of living. I have not heard these hon. gentlemen protesting the fact that over the past year the income, in real dollar terms, of a worker in Canada has declined by $5.50 per week, or protesting the fact that the share of total national income that has gone to wage and salary earners has declined, while the share that has gone to corporations has increased. Is it now being suggested that 553 men who handle grain for five companies are to carry the burden of stopping inflation, while oil companies, banks, insurance companies and food distributing agencies continue to pile up profits? Surely this is the height of absurdity.
The farmers themselves have had very substantial increases in their prices; and they needed them, because for decades in this country farmers have been producing food at the cost of production and in some years at less than the cost of production. We have said that instead of freezing prices and wages we should try to iron-out inequities. If any group has suffered from inequities, it is the farming population, particularly the grain producers of western Canada. They received an increase and were entitled to an increase, and no one is objecting to their getting that increase. But surely we cannot say that everybody must mark time even though the cost of living is increasing.
The real argument here is not whether this is going to cost, as the grain handling companies say, an additional 61 per cent, though now they are talking about 48 per cent and the minister says the increase in wages is about 15 per cent. You can have endless arguments about statistics, but that is not the point at issue at all. The real point at issue is whether these 553 men should be discriminated against, whether they should be working for $1.25 an hour less than the dock workers beside whom they work. May I say that they work under much more hazardous conditions, much less healthy conditions, than do the dock workers; and they work beside men who have a pension plan while they have none.

The hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain was quite correct when he spoke of frustration and lack of communication between workers and employers in the grain handling industry on the Pacific coast. What are these men asking for? They are not asking for the moon. They are asking to be brought, step by step, up to parity with the longshoremen beside whom they work. This agreement will not give them parity with the longshoremen; they will still be getting 25 cents an hour less in wages and they will still be getting 25 cents an hour less in their contributions to the pension plan. But at least it will bring them close to the longshoremen, and I say they are entitled to that.
In my constituency there are many hundred longshoremen and I know many of them. I can tell this House that they do not live the life of Riley. They are not living in affluence. I suggest to the grain handling companies that if the wages they are paying are so low that will it take a 48 per cent, a 68 per cent or any other increase to bring them up to parity with the longshoremen, that is not something of which to be proud. These men are entitled to a comparable wage and to parity with the men alongside whom they work. They are entitled to a pension plan for the first time. Any employer, in this day and age, who does not have a pension plan for his employees has nothing to boast about.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Any
company that allows the type of working conditions which have obtained in the elevators at Vancouver ought to be taking a very serious look at its public and employee relations.
There is no doubt that what the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain said yesterday is correct: implementing the Perry report will not settle all the problems. Of course, there will be many other problems. But if this legislation gets grain moving, removes the sense of legitimate grievance which these men have, convinces them they are going to be allowed to move toward parity and makes it possible to establish better relations, then I say we will have taken the first worth-while step. It goes without saying that the secret of successful management-labour relations is to remove any sense of injustice and to help the men feel they are being treated fairly and equitably as compared with their fellow workers.
I am glad the government is going to set up a public inquiry to look into grain handling facilities. Let me make one suggestion to the government. It should not only look into grain handling facilities but into grain transportation facilities in this country. Our farmers are probably the most modernized and efficient producers of grain in the world, but they are serviced by one of the most inefficient and obsolete grain transportation and handling systems in the world. If the government considers the coal handling and transportation facilities on the Pacific coast, comparing them with how we handle grain, it will understand why we have faced these difficulties in the last few years.
Let me refer again to the letter dated August 23 which the chairman of the Wheat Board sent to the minister, in
October 8, 1974

which he pointed out that the Wheat Board has firm commitments which will require 700 cars per day. He said they were now getting 140 to 180 cars. I can recall flying over Vancouver harbour time and again and seeing 19 or 20 ships waiting, not because there was a strike but because grain supplies were not coming through on the railroad. If the government is going to look into grain handling facilities-and it should in order that they will become more efficient and more effective in handling grain-it will be of little value unless the government is prepared at the same time to look into the transportation system which in this country is obsolete and is still using outmoded methods for both the transportation and distribution of grain.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I do not suggest for a moment that the passing of this bill will solve all the problems in respect of handling grain, but we in this party support it. We support it because we think that by ending the strike we will be assisting the farmers of the prairie provinces. I would point out that on the basis of what this strike has already cost the farmers, they have paid the total cost of this agreement at least three times over. We are supporting this bill because we think that in justice and equity the very least we can do is take the first timid step toward putting the grain handlers on the Pacific coast on a par with their fellow workers on the docks.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, in following the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), a gentleman whom I hold in great esteem, I am sorry to say that he seemed to fall into the error which other members of his party fell into during this debate, the same error which the lead speaker for his party

the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin)-condemned the government for falling into. He seemed to start off by taking sides in this dispute. That is exactly what this House is not called upon to do, and it is exactly what the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre, in the debate yesterday, accused the government of doing. Of course, he was right. It is essential that all hon. members realize that we in this House are not called upon to determine whether the Perry report is right or wrong. We are called upon to pass a bill which will implement the Perry report whether it be right or wrong. The whole point, Mr. Speaker, is that the collective bargaining process has been interfered with because the government took sides, as the hon. member said yesterday.
I think it is important to commend the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) and his officials for the fact that the minister will appoint an industrial inquiry commission. If there is one thing on which all hon. members agree in this debate, it is that this kind of labour-management dispute affects the national interest. In his speech yesterday, the Minister of Labour admitted unequivocally that the work stoppage which has halted the shipment of Canadian grain adversely affects the Canadian interest.
Along with other members of this party, I had the privilege of meeting representatives of the grain handlers, the managers of terminals in Vancouver and, in Calgary, several of the presidents of the co-operatives. Our discussions were frank and useful and I express my appreciation
Grain Handlers' Strike
and, I believe, the appreciation of my colleagues for the co-operation we received from both management and labour.
There is no question that relations between the two sides to this dispute can be improved. On this I agree with other spokesmen in this debate. It is clear to us that neither side believed that the other was prepared to negotiate in good faith. In that atmosphere, it is difficult to come to any agreement. Perhaps an industrial inquiry commission will make recommendations which will prove helpful. It is at least a positive step, and for that I commend the minister. However, in respect of the government's handling of the situation to date there is no room for commendation, and no reason the government should expect our party to endorse its conduct by voting for this bill.
From the moment the Minister of Labour endorsed the Perry report, any hope ended of the parties reaching a settlement. The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goo-dale), who made his first speech in this House yesterday, said some thoughtful things. He said some other things as well. In defence of the government, he said that the Perry report was the end product of the collective bargaining process. That, clearly, is not correct. It is not correct because Dr. Perry, clearly, did not intend his report to be the end product of collective bargaining. Let us consider what Dr. Perry said in his report. I quote from a letter to the Minister of Labour, dated April 22:
-I am, therefore, submitting for your consideration some suggestions which, hopefully, might form a basis upon which the two parties could, ultimately, enter into a two-year agreement.
Dr. Perry wrote that report, in a spirit of meditation, as the basis upon which the parties could ultimately enter into an agreement. What would the report have been had he been functioning as an arbitrator? As my hon. friend said a few moments ago, we do not know and apparently never will. Apparently neither the Minister of Labour nor the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board read Dr. Perry's letter, or if they did they ignored it. Either way, they took sides in the dispute by endorsing the report and made matters worse by saying the report would be legislated by parliament if the parties could not agree. The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre, speaking on behalf of his party, accused the government of ineptness in publicly taking sides. He is right: it was the taking of sides which ended all hope of settlement.
It should be apparent to all hon. members that it is not the government's responsibility to take sides. Nor, I might add, is it the responsibility of hon. members to take sides. It is regrettable that the position on this matter, put so sensibly by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre, was not heeded by other members of his party and members of the government. The government's action, in addition to making a farce of collective bargaining, amounted to an absolute abdication of responsibility for the national interest-which was, and is, to keep grain moving to Canada's customers abroad.
The Minister of Labour invoked the Canada Labour Code to prevent a strike taking place during the election. Why? Because of the national interest. This was admitted in the speech yesterday. The Minister of Industry, Trade

October 8, 1974
Grain Handlers' Strike
and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) repeatedly has stated his concern that Canada must maintain its image as a responsible supplier. The evidence is overwhelming that this work stoppage involved the national interest. The conflicting statements made by government spokesmen, however, are quite extraordinary. The minister in charge of the Wheat Board, in mid-summer said:
We have successfully sold a tremendous amount of grain at top prices and need an all-out effort to deliver it. Not only is it in the interests of the western farmers to whom it is particularly crucial that we deliver, but in the national interest as well.
In March, 1974, Mr. G. N. Vogel, chief commissioner of the Canadian Wheat Board, said:
Canada's grain transportation system has fallen down so badly that the country's reputation as a dependable supplier of grain to the world market is threatened.
On August 23, Mr. Vogel wrote to the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board as follows:
Our board urges every effort be made to effect a quick settlement of the impasse, including, if necessary, the immediate recalling of parliament.
Incredibly, in September the Minister of Labour was saying that parliament should not be recalled because the dispute was not truly national; and this after he had threatened to recall parliament and had accepted the Perry report as being the end of the matter. He said that parliament should not be recalled because the dispute was not truly national. I ask, is it any wonder that a columnist in the Financial Post called such a contention absurd? At the commencement of the complete tie-up of all grain movement in August, the Minister of Labour said:
-the farmers aren't hurting.
He went on to say:
Everybody is concerned about delays in delivery, but it's a seller's market. Besides, those who have negotiated grain contracts with Canada are aware of the Canadian way of handling labour disputes and that we have no control over port movement-those countries know that.
The stance of the government became even more incredible when the Minister of Labour flew to Vancouver in the first week of September. He did not speak to management or to labour. He held a press conference, and as suddenly as he appeared he disappeared. He said:
I am, quite frankly, trying through you and the public to make a plea to inject some rationality into this dispute-
The public was confused about whether there was any national interest in the strike. It was confused about the government's position, and was so sure there was no rationality in the government's position that the government truly looked ridiculous. As one columnist said-
As a result, labour minister John Munro stands undressed. His colleague, Wheat Board minister Otto Lang, is almost as naked.
It is quite clear that the strange antics of the Minister of Labour and the minister in charge of the Wheat Board had created an impasse, having-at least by insinuation- threatened the recall of parliament to legislate the Perry report. Neither side could budge. Why should they? All this time the Minister of Labour was asking the parties to somehow continue negotiations. Negotiations toward what end? Why should the union negotiate? Why should the co-ops negotiate? The government's clumsy and ill-consid-

ered statements guaranteed no settlement short of parliamentary action.
Yesterday the hon. member for Assiniboia said that the official opposition was not very concerned about restorting the movement of grain. Apart from the fact that such a statement is nonsense, the hon. member seems to have a very selective memory of what has happened. The government, despite all the conflicting statements, did believe the grain stoppage affected the national interest. The government, quite properly, invoked the Canada Labour Code and prevented a strike before the election.
I say that the government was wrong in endorsing one side's position. Having done so, and at the same time having threatened to recall parliament to end the dispute, the government had a clear duty to maintain consistency and do exactly what it threatened to do. Having bungled the collective bargaining process, parliament should have been recalled by the government.
Once the government stopped a strike in May because of the national interest, it is ludicrous to attempt later to say that it was not a matter of national interest. From the time the election was over, the responsibility for slow-downs and then complete cessation of all grain shipment rests solely with the government. This government had a duty to act in the national interest, and it has failed utterly to do so.
I have no doubt the Minister of Labour was sincere when he threatened to recall parliament. I have no doubt he was overruled by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). But it is fair to ask what other government members were doing to persuade the Prime Minister to meet the government's obligation to the national interest. And, especially, what were the Liberal members from the Vancouver area doing? They knew that the grain stoppage was affecting the national interest. They knew the grain stoppage should have been ended, no matter with which side they sympathized, and they knew-or should have known- that only parliament could get the grain moving again. As I said earlier, the hon. member for Assiniboia said some thoughtful things. He concluded his speech by saying: "We must heighten our resolve to find a better way".
It is true that this dispute is the result of a breakdown in communication and understanding between the parties. The union has stated its desire to meet with management to discuss a better way to move grain, and I believe management is prepared to do that. The union expressed, I believe, a sincere desire to solve the problems of productivity, incentive, efficiency and communication. Some of these matters may be resolved by the industrial inquiry commission. But underlying all this is a serious defect in our approach to negotiations in cases involving the national interest or, for that matter, essential services.
Collective bargaining proceeds on the assumption that each side has two traditional weapons, lock-out and strike. But in cases of national interest, overriding public interest or essential services-all such terms are used-both parties are asked to negotiate knowing that these economic weapons are not really available, or at least are available for only a very short time. I have said before that the right to strike or the right to lock-out in such cases is largely illusory. As a consequence, one side or the other can use the inevitable fact of parliamentary intervention to what
October 8, 1974

they perceive to be their own advantage. The Woods report tried to deal with this problem by recommending an industrial disputes commission. Recently, the Minister of Labour has been talking about a series of discussions with labour, industry and other groups to find a solution.
The traditional view that these disputes are settled in free bargaining and are determined by the relative strengths of the parties was put by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) last August 31 in the debate concerning the railworkers. He said:
How is the level of wages established? Is it according to a certain rule of justice, as I heard yesterday? No. It is according to the strength of each party. I have been in that trade all my life. I was involved in certain strikes where the justice of cause was very clear, and we lost. I was involved in others where it was less evident, and we won. Why? Because we were weak in the first case and strong in the second. This is the way disputes are settled. They are not settled according to certain criteria or principles known or accepted by everybody. It is free bargaining.
That has been the traditional view, Mr. Speaker, but in my submission it is old fashioned and outdated. Mr. R. C. Smith, chairman of the non-operators negotiating committee, on June 19, 1973, said the following to the conciliation board:
It may be said that the last two collective agreements have resulted from collective bargaining without the intrusion of parliament. Nothing is further from the truth. We are never removed from the shadow of parliament which hovers over us and which, by its very presence, successfully protects the interests of management.
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me there is a lesson to be learned from this impasse. It is clear that the system of collective bargaining involving management and labour in those parts of the economy which affect the public interest or essential services, is not working.
The fact is that where the national interest is vital, the traditional weapons are not effective but we continue to negotiate as if they were. We are operating under a myth and, until we face this fact, we will be unlikely to reach a solution satisfactory to the parties or the public interest.
Yesterday, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) said in reference to this dispute that if he had to do it all over again he could not see how he could do it differently. I am sorry to hear that, Mr. Speaker, because there was a different way to do it and there still is a better way to do it.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the Minister of Labour that he consult with the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale) and, to use his words, "heighten his resolve to find a better way".


Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, allow me to congratulate you on your appointment to your high office. Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I also congratulate you.
My colleagues, and particularly the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton), have put forward very constructive and positive suggestions about the eventual solution of this labour-management dispute that is so central to the problems that exist in Canada today. I am not going to take up your time by repeating the things that have been said. I will take time, however, to express another viewpoint that I think is paramount,
Grain Handlers' Strike
and that is to ask how we in Canada are going to solve the labour-management problems facing us.
It is a fact that higher prices cause higher wages and higher wages push up prices. From my sphere of business, one cent of direct cost on a consumer item at the manufacturing level that is not absorbed through productivity, becomes five cents at the consumer level. Higher prices cause higher wages. Higher wages do push up prices and the ferris wheel goes round and round. Where it stop, history knows only too well.
Bargaining normally comes to a halt in a major recession and breaks either the corporation or the union or both. An exception is the case of the strike lock-out with the grain workers in Vancouver. Bargaining came to a halt when two ministers of the government autocratically ordered the settlement on the basis of a report that in my opinion was never intended to be legislation. That report also contains clauses and costs to management that were not asked for by the union at the bargaining table. The autocratic action of these two ministers in ordering settlement on the terms of the Perry report finished meaningful negotiations in the dispute and made further collective bargaining under federal jurisdiction a farce and meaningless.
Was there room for ongoing negotiations in the Perry report? I say there was. Management took an exaggerated calculation and said it was going to cost them $3.03 additional on their base net figure of $4.96. The union's calculations showed $2.14. Half a cent a bushel difference in cost, and there was no further talk. This is utter madness and a disregard of the best interests of Canada.
To legislate this report sets an official government benchmark that leaves more and more people in the Canadian work force, and those on fixed incomes, further and further behind in purchasing power. This government serves well the organized monopolies which have high leverage. The fruits of this land are truly for the pockets of power under the Liberal government. Sooner or later- and I hope my effort makes it sooner-we will have to update the purchasing power of the unorganized workers in this country who make up two-thirds of the work force and who are not enjoying the fruits of collective bargaining. I am not so sure that those who are organized want them, however, because they would have to share too much of their gain.
I am from the nice, clean, straightforward world of business, Mr. Speaker. During this dispute I have spent time with management, their negotiating committee, union negotiators, the picket line and the company presidents. In all honesty, I must say that I was not impressed with the sincerity of management or the quality of the negotiations. The management negotiating unit did not indicate to me that they had a comprehension or a unit of measure for the human quotient of the present-day need of a modern work force. Management and the companies, understandably, still carry the fears and values that are rooted in the thirties. They did not show me an awareness that in Canada new values, new social concerns and new life styles now make up a significant part of this country's work force.
Since 1967 we have seen the conflict that has existed in many Canadian homes and the testing of parental author-

October 8, 1974
Grain Handlers' Strike
ity. We have watched youth testing the values of our established systems on our campuses and our school grounds. We have watched the establishment in our society being tested in recent years. These people are now part of the work force of Canada. They resist the old autocracy and parentalism of the establishment. Surely we know this by now. They feel they have a right to ask, why? They are intolerant of wasteful methods and tired egos. They respond to being asked to take part in the planning of new production methods, and there is proof of this in England and in West Germany. They respond to meaningful communication and to a sense of belonging in their daily work. They also want some meaning from that daily work. They are entitled to clean toilets and pleasant eating conditions and, surely, to a proper lunch period, as are others in the province of British Columbia.
Nowhere did I see, or sense, on the part of management, an appreciation of these job enrichment factors that are so important to the productivity and peace of a modern economic enterprise. You might think I am far left, speaking from a free enterprise platform, Mr. Speaker, but I want to protect this free enterprise system. I believe sincerely, from the bottom of my heart, that management today has to understand that in this era of social change, their economic unit or franchise must serve man and serve him well.
Management must serve its customers, its employees and its suppliers. If my peers in management fail in their job enrichment, comprehension, fail in their leadership and encouragement in areas of productivity, if they continually blame, not serve, their labour force, this country is surely going to be delivered to a system of state capitalism. I do not believe that state capitalism can serve man's needs and freedoms as well as enlightened leadership in a free enterprise society.
Why are not human considerations and productivity considerations part of this legislation? The government has had enough time to instil them into the bill. Let us use this senseless circumstance as the starting point for a new era in labour-management relations. Let us return to the dream that built this country. May labour and management heal their wounds and come together in meaningful dialogue after the passage of this bill. Let them be wise enough to remove the stigma of forced legislation from their dialogue. May they remember that increased wages without corresponding productivity shove up prices. Higher prices pull up wages. High interest rates further push up prices. Increased government spending increases demand. Demand increases prices. Higher prices pull up wages. Higher wages push up prices. The end of this mad, insane spiral is collapse.
The roots of inflation are political. Is the leadership we are seeing in this area deliberate? I ask members of the government to remember that their mandate in 1974 came from Upper and Lower Canada. I ask them to stop imposing their traditional, and what I call imperialistic attitudes and mistakes on Canadians of the west. We in the west are trying to build trading corridors to the Pacific. We need the government's help, and not its ill conceived interference.


Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, this is the second time within two years that parliament has been asked to pass legislation forcing men back to work. It is a disagreeable task which members of parliament do not relish. If this legislation had simply provided for resumption of work and for the parties to resume collective bargaining in the best interests of the nation, it would be acceptable. Yet we, as legislators, are being asked to decide on increases in wages and other benefits without being given the full facts or the opportunity to examine witnesses from both sides. We are asked to legislate benefits arbitrarily decided by the government, without being given the facts. I respectfully submit that no member of this House is qualified to make such decisions.
I represent a constituency in Saskatchewan which depends primarily upon grain production. This year, 1974, has been a tragic one for prairie grain producers who have been plagued with spring flooding, late seeding, drought, severe grasshopper infestation, early frost and, now, snow. On top of all this we have the grain handlers' strike. The present strike will cost prairie farmers at least $10 million in demurrage charges, an unknown amount in penalties under our contracts with importing countries, and we will suffer loss of prestige and will lose our reputation for reliability as an exporter of grain. These factors will affect our grain sales for many years to come.
The Globe and Mail "Report on Business" of Friday, October 4, 1974, says the following about the grain handling situation:
Japan has been forced to buy spot cargoes of wheat at a premium from the United States because of the six-week old grain handlers' strike in Vancouver, according to the Canadian Wheat Board.
The board said yesterday that the amounts of wheat Japan was forced to buy amounted to 'hundreds of thousands of tons.'
The grain handlers' strike would have caused even more damage to Canada's reputation as a reliable exporter but for the fact there is so little available grain in the world that importers have had to stick with this country.
It will take, even under the best of circumstances, more than the balance of the year for the board to catch up with its shipping program once the strike is settled.
We cannot blame the government for the vagaries of the weather or of mother nature, but we can blame it for having brought on the strike and for failure to bring it to a quick end. I was interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale) and compliment him on his capability and confidence. He has been well trained, possibly because he once worked for the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. He suggested that the official opposition is not concerned about settlement of the strike and said that we are using delaying tactics. He reminded me of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), who in the last session, during third reading debate on the crop insurance bill, said the opposition had deliberately delayed passage of the bill. Actually, we had asked the government often to bring it forward and said we would pass it and put up only one speaker.
Here the government is dragging red herrings across our path. When it is backed into a corner and is embarrassed, such are the tactics it uses. Sometimes they work, but not all the time. I am sure that on this occasion the farmers of western Canada will not be fooled.
October 8, 1974

I will not waste time examining the facts and the sequence of events leading up to the strike, because other spokesmen have covered them. It is sufficient to say that when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) supported the minister in charge of the Wheat Board and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro), who had told the grain companies to settle or the government would legislate on the basis of the Perry report, the collective bargaining process ceased and the strike became inevitable. I was interested in listening to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Bas-ford) who is as skilful as other members of his party in wriggling out of embarrassing situations by making accusations.


Mr. Baldwin:: He is slippery.


Douglas Charles Neil: Right. He quoted from the Vancouver Sun the remarks of an opposition member in Vancouver which he felt would embarrass the opposition. When called upon by members on this side to quote the balance of the news report, he ignored them. He was quick to give the impression that the opposition was in no rush to see the strike settled. I wonder whether he consulted his cohorts, the Minister of Labour and the minister in charge of the Wheat Board, and saw the correspondence they had received from opposition members and members of the public.
On August 29 I wrote to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. I insisted upon the immediate calling of parliament in order that the matter could be fully debated and resolved. I did not state that I would support the legislation. With the government having stated its policy and being in a majority position, I was fully aware that any legislation presented would be passed. However, I do want the matter fully debated and resolved.
Had parliament been recalled at that time, the matter would have been resolved quickly. Millions of dollars would have been saved. It was some five weeks ago that I and other members asked that parliament be recalled. Apparently, the matter was not urgent at that time. Parliament has now been convened. After ten days of sitting, the bill has been presented. The opposition should have the opportunity of debating it for a day and a half. However, the matter has now become urgent. We are being accused of irresponsibility because we want more than one speaker to take part in this debate. Surely the opposition has some responsibility to the public to bring forth the facts and debate the matter so that the public can know what is taking place in this country.
I understand that the steering committee met yesterday. Because of the majority of government members, it was agreed that no one other than the minister and members of the Department of Labour would be called as witnesses before this standing committee. Surely members of the committee are entitled to an opportunity to have witnesses called from labour and from the government. Only in that way can the facts in dispute be brought before the public.
I have examined the Perry report. It is interesting to note the following statement in the preamble:
Grain Handlers' Strike
Given the circumstances, the recommendations which follow can hardly be expected to do more than indicate a series of intermediate changes with which both parties may be able to associate themselves as they try to conclude a settlement in a difficult year.
I read that paragraph to mean that the report was simply a basis upon which the parties should further negotiate. This is what was intended. I understand the report recommends a higher settlement than that asked for by the union. It includes many side benefits that were not even asked for. Yet the government seized on the report and made it the basis upon which they are legislating an end to this strike. It appears the government is not too clear on what is meant by the Perry report. There is a provision in clause 7 of the bill for the appointment of a referee to interpret the provisions of the Perry report if there is any dispute. Let us hope the referee appointed will be more skilful and fair than the referee who officiated in the U.S.S.R.-Canada hockey game last Sunday.
With regard to the wage increases recommended in the Perry report, there are many conflicting arguments as to the percentage increase. In his remarks last evening, the minister in charge of the Wheat Board denied that the increase was 61 per cent. He was asked several times by members on this side to give the correct figure, and he refused to answer. I should say, he parried the question with the skill of a good politician who does not know the answer or is not prepared to give it because it might embarrass him. Surely the Canadian people are entitled to know that figure.
In my view, the minister's attitude can only mean that the figure of 61 per cent is close to being correct. If this is so, in my opinion a settlement of 61 per cent will become the basis for settling future labour disputes. Certainly, other unions will be justified in asking for a settlement of this magnitude. The Prime Minister suggested this settlement really will not provide a base line. He said the present situation is unique. I disagree. If settlements of this magnitude become common, it will mean acceleration of the present rate of inflation and will lead to economic disaster in Canada.
It is interesting to note that employees of government elevators in Moose Jaw, Prince George and other areas have been for some time negotiating a settlement with the federal government. These people carry out duties similar to those of the grain handlers in Vancouver. Their base wage is lower than the Vancouver grain handlers at the present time, yet the government has seen fit to offer the employees of these government elevators an increase of only 6 per cent. Is that treating these employees fairly?
With the majority the government has in this House, and with the support of the New Democratic Party and the Social Credit Party, there is no question that this legislation will pass. However, for the reasons I have outlined, I cannot support it. The minister said an industrial commissioner will be appointed with dispatch. In addition to that, I hope he will arrange to bring together representatives of management, labour and government to discuss ways and means of solving labour disputes without resorting to strikes. Until we have a spirit of co-operation between these two groups, labour unrest will continue at tremendous cost not only to productivity but wages to employees. If this situation continues without solution, parliament

October 8, 1974
Grain Handlers' Strike
will be called upon time and again to carry out a function for which it was not intended.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I should like to participate ever so briefly in this debate, not necessarily to criticize, but to make a few suggestions that this unfortunate conflict might be settled as soon as possible, and that, in the future, the government might take steps to prevent similar conflicts as much as possible.
Mr. Speaker, the government introduced the bill under study as a result of the prolonged interruption in grain handling operations.
This problem resulted in considerable losses for the Canadian economy. I shall not enumerate them; quite a few have already been discussed.
It is thus in the interest of the Canadian people and our country that operations resume at the earliest possible date.
No one, Mr. Speaker, denies the fact that the work stoppage of the grain handlers caused distress in our society. Some of its short term effects are truly disastrous. It will also have harmful effects in the long run, the brunt of which the country will have to bear.
Far be it from me to blame the workers concerned in this conflict. On the contrary, I sincerely believe that they are the victims of a seriously affected economic system. When someone is ill, we try to give him the necessary care in order that he may get well again as soon as possible.
Mr. Speaker, to be convinced we only have to look around and see what is happening in the country; strikes are increasing at a frightful rate and this will not help lessen the causes of inflation from which the entire population is suffering.
The bill now under consideration is aimed at the resumption of grain handling operation on the west coast of Canada; first, through the extension of the collective agreement up to November 30, 1975 if necessary and, second, through the increase of the hourly rate up to 87 cents. In my opinion, it would perhaps be possible to study the matter more closely and to improve the hourly rate.
Thirdly, there is mention of prohibiting strikes and lockouts. It is unfortunate that we had to resort to such radical means, but I believe that the moment has come to establish some authority in this country so as to maintain law and order, for the whole country is in turmoil at the present time. We had to start somewhere.
Fourthly, I agree with the bill compelling the companies and the union to negotiate. If they wish to sit down together and consider their common problems, then this bill is of no consequence. They will have to abide by it, or else, an arbitrator will have to be designated. This is another radical situation and future legislation will have to provide for cases like this one, so that it be unnecessary to recall Parliament to settle these conflicts.
Mr. Speaker, this bill will put an end to one conflict, but it will not help prevent others.
I know that this problem is exceedingly difficult. It has to conciliate money-capital with labour-capital. I know

that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) may be blamed for having failed to act sooner or still to intervene too soon. On the contrary, I personally believe that he is the victim of an obsolete system.
We are living under a capitalist regime. It is a good formula by itself, but it has become corrupted; it is sick, as I said previously. Improvements must therefore be brought in. Either such a system will be reformed by well organized men or it will be destroyed by the others. There is no middle course! This is why I find it very important for Parliament to settle not only the present dispute in the west but also to pass legislation designed to avoid others.
Conflicts between proponents of capital and labour have been going on for many years, but it clearly strikes me that they are multiplying and that they are becoming more and more serious.
We are confronted with a vicious circle, in which the increase in the cost of living forces workers to ask for higher wages; if they do not get them, workers resort to strike action. However, wage increases partly explain the increase in production costs. They might not be the only reason for this increase, but as I have already stated, they partly explain it. The increase of production costs brings about an increase in prices. These same prices decrease the workers' purchasing power, and the whole process starts over again. Mr. Speaker, this brings to mind the picture of a dog running after its tail without ever being able to catch it. It might keep on running for a long while, but its efforts will be to no avail.
Faced with the impossibility of money-capital and labour-capital to agree through negotiation, it is the government's duty to intervene, since it must act as an arbiter in encouraging, through fair legislation, the acknowledgement of the rights both of money-capital and of labour-capital. Legislative power's right to regulate working conditions has seemed in the past to be useless, ill-timed and dangerous. One need only refer to history in order to understand in what frame of mind certain of our contemporaries have shown a measure of timorousness by legislating on these matters. However, it is on behalf of the common welfare that the state has both the right and the duty to adopt protective work legislation. This care for common welfare must be both the inspiration and the measure of intervention by the state. If this concern is ignored, we will surely go wrong.
Faced with the profound transformations which have been the lot of several of our economic sectors, and with the improved state of communications, the man in the street is better informed and is becoming ever more aware of his rights. We must rejoice in that fact. Workers in particular demand that labour-capital get a larger share of the national income. Statistics show beyond a doubt that workers have not yet obtained their part of the national income, to allow them to meet their obligations as well as the steady increase in the cost of living.
The escalator formula everybody is talking about these days may be right for certain categories of people on fixed incomes. I think this formula cannot be considered as a solution, nor will it make it possible to reach the goals sought in all cases.
October 8, 1974

When salaries increase, producers boost their prices because of higher production costs. Then, workers ask again that their salaries be geared to the increase in the cost of living. Where does it stop? This is like a pyramid but nobody knows what is at the top.
I remember that a few years ago economists who wanted to disprove the economic theories of Major Douglas, the founder of Social Credit as we know it, were saying that if that economic doctrine were implemented, it would be inflation, that the pyramid of prices and salaries would be horrible, that it would be economic chaos and that the dollar would lose a great deal of its value.
Mr. Speaker, Social Credit policies have not yet been implemented, yet we have that economic chaos foreseen by those learned economists.
I think the time has come to look for other solutions so there will be a closer cooperation between money-capital and labour-capital.
My colleague the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise) in taking part in this debate on this bill, made certain suggestions to prevent further conflicts which generally speaking never benefit the workers. I have never seen workers come out of a conflict better off than before.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a suggestion to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) and this government that could promote better understanding between employers and employees. I am talking about the participation of workers in businesses. Whether we like it or not, that will be the ultimate solution if we want to get the maximum out of our human and material resources for the greatest benefit of all Canadians.
Participation of workers in the company, this is how we could call this new policy. However, the formula of worker participation in company profits must not overshadow the fact that there must also be participation of the workers in the development of Canadian companies. Not only do we have rights in our society, but we also have duties that we must accept if there is to be some order. And I insist on the fact that there must be development, not only through the investment of labour-capital, which in my opinion, is the most important aspect, but also through the investment of money-capital when profits allow it, or by any other means.
Mr. Speaker, the international congress of participation in profits which was held in France in 1889 defined participation in profits as follows: a voluntary agreement under which the employee receives a predetermined part of the profits.
Another method has also been suggested according to which an employer makes available to his regular employees, in addition to their ordinary wages, immediate or deferred payments based on company profits.
Another method could also be advanced to increase production and reduce costs. This involves the human cooperation brought about by the direct participation of employees who, in addition to their regular wages, benefit from company results measured in profits, which means that the more effective the company is, the more significant its results. But the worker could share in this effectiveness in some financial capacity.
Grain Handlers' Strike
This system of worker participation in the company was suggested in France around 1850, and the company that had the good idea of allowing its employees to participate in its profits never had any conflicts in its plants. This company still operates and has more than 1,000 employees. This has not stopped its development. On the contrary, it has developed even more.
Participation is now a human right. Every man must be co-author, co-responsible and co-beneficiary as far as the work of the company is concerned. Everybody has a right and a duty to participate. In this sense, the problem of participation must be set in terms of the rights of those concerned rather than in terms of the duties of management. Participation must go as far as the transformation of the business structures. These new structures must allow a continuing dialogue, not one that takes place every 18 or 24 months.
But these new structures must not encompass a sharing of authority. On the contrary, the managers must always retain the responsibilities of direction. We might discuss endlessly whether such a participation is a right of the workers but in any case, most business managers have always been more concerned with their interests than their responsibilities. It is high time they should be reminded of their duties.
Nowadays, there is no more room for mistakes in assessing workers mentality. The systematic denial of participation in a certain management of the business is the main reason which I think makes unions and workers tend to socialism and its extreme form, communism. Their social responsibilities are extremely important, but if they are not carried, we are heading for a period of violence and restlessness.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, I think it was relevant to ponder over this problem and make the suggestions I have presented and which I will repeat to conclude my remarks.
In order to reach that goal, the government will necessarily have to bring amendments to the fiscal legislation so as to ensure tax benefits to workers who will participate financially in the company besides participating through their work. It does not behove me to find the formula that would be suitable. I am making that suggestion and I am convinced that whenever there are benefits there are inevitably people who are interested. Such changes would entail certain tax benefits for companies and that goes for employers as well as workers.
We must also be convinced that the government should make it its duty to ensure all members of our society a reasonable participation in the production of wealth so they may all secure a sufficient living income.
That is why I am saying again today that work is an instrument given by the Creator to process in a detailed form what he put in bulk on this earth and that work will always remain an extremely valuable instrument. We must strive all together to bring the notion of work into currency again in the mind of our people who are going through difficult times.
Finally, the formula of the annual minimum guaranteed income advocated by the Social Credit party of Canada would greatly contribute to the solution of those problems, as it would enable workers to get a larger income without
222

October 8, 1974
Grain Handlers' Strike
that part of the income affecting prices. That way, we would avoid runaway inflation.
I am more convinced than ever, Mr. Speaker, that the time has come for this government to listen attentively to Major Douglas' suggestions and ideas instead of rejecting them outright as unpractical.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that really valuable suggestions were made during this debate and that the government, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) and his advisers should read over again the speeches made during this debate in order to lay down such policies that we may hope in the future that the Canadian people will not have to put up with disputes of that kind but on the contrary, that there would be an agreement between labour-capital and money-capital and that it would be beneficial to everyone.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please. Before recognizing the next hon. member I wish to inform the House of the proceedings for the adjournment debate this evening. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard)-Health-Request for federal government sharing cost of nursing homes and home care-Government position; the hon. member for Central North (Mr. MacKay)- Transport-Alleged action of Lau-rentian Pilotage Authority changing basis for pilot's certificate-Government position; the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald)-Research- Need for additional funds in medical field-Number of scientists leaving Canada because of lack of funds.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Munro (Hamilton East) that Bill C-12, to provide for the resumption of grain handling operations on the west coast of Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate being allowed to make a few comments

during this debate since I too represent a constituency in which farming plays a very vital role, namely, the northwestern portion of the Peace River country. Before getting to my general remarks I should like to respond to a few comments by some of my colleagues earlier, particularly those of the minister responsible for the Wheat Board (Mr. Lang). From what he said last night he seems to think the Conservatives have found a new ally in their attempt to place the burden of inflation on the backs of the workers, and that it would be our attempt to blame the government for this.
The minister comes from a farming community, and I dare say that he has at one time worked on a farm. I wonder if he does not consider the farmers of this country to be working people. The farmers are the people who will ultimately have to pay the cost and suffer the consequences of the imposition of this bill on the grain handling companies in Vancouver.
Last night the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Bas-ford) concentrated on embarrassing a few of my newer colleagues. He was challenged by members in Vancouver to comment on this strike when it became apparent. Certainly we said that parliament should be recalled after the government intervened and told grain companies that parliament would settle the strike.
It was quite obvious to any thinking person in Canada that there would be no settlement of this strike until parliament intervened. Why should the grain companies in Vancouver take the responsibility for this settlement and its consequences? The minister said that the bargaining process had broken down so the government had to intervene. I suggest the bargaining process broke down because of the suggested intervention by parliament.
The minister also said, and I hope I misunderstood or am misinterpreting him, that this bill is similar to bills dealing with other disputes in the past. This bill is not the same, because last year when we settled the railway workers' strike we left a position for bargaining in the provisions of the bill. We established a floor position from which to bargain. This bill does not provide any such thing but rather imposes a settlement, and appoints a referee to see that it is implemented.
The minister said that in 1973, because of a minority position, we had to establish a position from which to bargain, but that this is not necessary today. That statement worries me no end. I wonder if we are now all alone like a voice in the wilderness, with the government assuming its power of the July 8 mandate. I hope that is not the case.
A former leader of the NDP, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), said he felt it his responsibility to intervene on behalf of the prairie farmers. Everyone knows that the prairie farmers are against this settlement since it is they who will have to pay the bill. I suggest he is not intervening on behalf of the farmers but is intervening on behalf of a principle we will all have to live with, not just in respect of the grain industry but in respect of any other labour settlement in which we become involved in the future.
My comments will be of a general nature as I have no intention to attempt to take sides in this dispute between
October 8, 1974

the grain companies and the union. I would be reluctant to intervene at all were it not for the fact that there are three parties to this unfortunate situation, the third party being the government.
It is the government that cites this bill as something to settle all the problems relating to grain handling on the west coast, totally ignoring the fact that there are grain handling facilities in Victoria and in Prince Rupert. The difference between the grain handling facilities in Vancouver and those in Prince Rupert is that those in Prince Rupert are owned and operated by the federal government.
This government wants to impose this settlement on the grain handling companies in Vancouver, and this is the government that neglected shipping potential of 30 millions bushels this summer out of the port of Prince Rupert. We have a new member in the House from Prince Rupert representing the fine constituency of Skeena. I note that she is in the House. Knowing that she is very concerned about this serious problem I hope she will listen to what I have to say.
In June 1974, the elevators in Prince Rupert were plugged. There were 300 rail cars destined for Prince Rupert that could not be unloaded because there were no ships. All the ships were in Vancouver Harbour incurring $5,000 to $7,000 per day in demurrage.
Some 2,000 cars were processed in April and May of 1973 through the port of Prince Rupert. In September of the same year there was no movement in that port. This resulted in the layoff of all the trained people who normally handled grain. In December we decided that Prince Rupert port should play an important part in the movement of grain in western Canada, and two ships were put on to handle grain out of Prince Rupert. A large training program was launched, involving a number of people who, incidentally, are federal employees and for that reason are likely classified as second-class citizens. At least no one talks about them. The whole program was scrapped and these people were laid off in January, presumably because we did not want to get into competition with private enterprise in Vancouver. I do not know what the reason was, but that was the situation.
The responsible minister is not in the House and I am sure the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) is not aware of the potential role people might play in other areas on the west coast. I hope the new hon. member for Skeena (Mrs. Campagnola) will study the situation, and use her influence and charm to persuade some of her colleagues in the front benches that the port of Prince Rupert can play a much greater role in the future, with the result that some of these problems might be avoided.
I wish to make some comments about Canada's labour situation in general and the involvement of government in labour problems. Normally I divide Canada's labour force into three categories. The first is what I call an elite group. The number in this group is quite small. I would estimate it represents about 15 per cent of Canada's labour force. It does not necessarily involve the highest wages and fringe benefits in Canada, nor do members of this group pride
Grain Handlers' Strike
themselves on having the best working conditions. On the contrary.
Even though these people compose the elite group, they are often at the bottom of the scale in respect of all categories. I call this the elite group because the services of these people are indispensable not only to the employers but also to our country. These are the people who perform essential public services in Canada. They are key people. By virtue of their trades they enjoy prestige. Their disputes, relations, pensions and conditions of work can be and often are settled by Parliament.
Now, one would assume that that category should be far ahead of all others having this access to the highest tribunal in the country. The reason this is not so, however, must be attributed to the fact that our government really has not been able adequately to solve any problem in which it interfered in recent times. I do not have the time to comment at length on some of the settlements in which we have been involved in recent times.
The second group consists of about 25 per cent of Canada's labour force. These people, like their colleagues from the elite group, are organized by a variety of unions through which they compete for and have achieved the country's highest wages, fringe benefits, and most advantageous working conditions. They are mainly employed by the private sector of industry. The reason for the prosperity of this group is twofold. First, these people enjoy a status called "citizens plus", which means that while they have all the protection of Parliament through the Canada Labour Act, they are responsible to no one, and Parliament will not rule them back to work.
Second, they are bargaining with a sector of our corporate system which, by virtue of conglomerate, and monopolistic business practices can of course afford better than any other sector of our business community to respond positively to the demands placed upon them by their work force.
The third group is comprised of 60 per cent of our work force. It does not enjoy the benefit nor the protection of Parliament or union and its members' standard of living reflects the horrible situation in which these people find themselves. Sure, Mr. Speaker, we have introduced a minimum wage act. But, even with that protection, in most cases they earn less than the poor who are already on the welfare rolls. Most provinces have also passed legislation designed to protect all of our work force, such as workmen's compensation, statutory holidays and so on.
However, Mr. Speaker, when it really comes down to bare facts, we know that there are only a privileged few who divide among themselves the country's prosperity. The situation in which we end up is such that one third of our work force enjoys two thirds of the benefits and income. Why this is so is not hard to understand. Unions, often controlled from outside our country, have become more conscious of building large and monstrous pension funds and competing with the large corporations for efficiency in operation. No attempt is made to enlarge their membership to include all of Canada's work force in their mandate.
Unions have, in fact, admitted that they are reluctant to extend their activities into so-called unproductive areas,
28305-151/!

October 8, 1974
Grain Handlers' Strike
or areas where the economy is unable to absorb or fill demands placed on it by the unions. Meanwhile there is really no question that Parliament and legislators have submitted to pressures from these unions, and have established them with powers over their membership which are in serious conflict with the Canadian Bill of Rights, and which restrict the freedom of the individual.
The most obvious example of that is, of course, the fact that we are making it a condition of employment in unionized industries to show proof of membership in a union. Thus, if a man falls out with his union, he does not work. This is particularly unrealistic since governments have ruled out competition among various unions through certification. A perfect example of that, of course, is the Public Service Alliance, and the problem we had with the firefighters last year who were not in difficulty with their employer since the employer wanted to resolve the difficulty, but whose real legal strike was with the union with which they were in conflict and not the employer.
Once a union has achieved certification in any one business or industry, it rules supremely over its membership. For that reason, it is more often the rule than the exception that decisions taken by the unions do not reflect the wishes of the membership at large. Even if we disregard this obvious discrepancy in our democratic process, it still remains a fact that our economy does not have sufficient resources to equalize the opportunity, or even to narrow the gap between the organized and the unorganized worker.
The double standard which therefore exists for Canadians has established two categories of poor as well, namely, the working poor and the unemployed poor. To compound the situation, we only measure the workmans' life standard by his disposable income. I suppose we accept that if a person's disposable income is already below the poverty line he also cannot be expected to place any demands on fringe benefits such as working conditions, holidays and overtime pay. The fact is that unless any one of the unorganized two-thirds majority can rely on the charity of his employer, he is a second class citizen.
The employer of this segment of our labour force is the small businessman or secondary industry, whose contribution to our prosperity is never recognized. The irony is that the corporate sector of our system, backed by conglomerate and monopolistic positions, is setting a pace and a standard which are impossible to achieve by the business community which still subscribes and subjects itself to the rules of free enterprise and individual freedom and initiative. The irony also is that the corporate sector has joined forces with unions, thus protecting its own interests as well.
I am beginning to question whether it is not high time for us to follow the lead of other industrialized countries, with a lot less problems in this area, in insisting that our country's opportunities and achievements are adequately distributed. Is it not time, Mr. Speaker, to insist that at least the fringe benefits for a day's work in our country are the same, regardless of the field of endeavour in which a working person might be, and of whether he or she is protected by the political muscle of an union? There is, of course, and there always will be the need for labour unions, but let them collectively bargain with the govern-

ment for a greater share of the country's wealth not just for their own members but for all Canadians.
It has never been fair to say that excessive labour demands are solely responsible for the high rate of inflation in Canada but if we establish a precedent, as we seem about to be doing in the grain handlers' dispute in Vancouver, whereby legislation might impose a settlement on this very vital sector of our community which is even in excess of union demands, we are setting a very dangerous precedent, particularly at a time when the prime producers of grain and other agricultural commodities should concentrate their efforts and resources on expansion and improved efficiency of their operations.
Mr. Speaker, the companies involved in the dispute have never refused to bargain, but they have refused to negotiate under conditions imposed by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang). They have taken a position against the dictatorial attitude of the government, for which I cannot blame them. The minister, after all, has openly blackmailed the companies. He said, "You settle, or parliament will legislate your settlement". The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) confirmed later in a telegram to the companies that the two ministers indeed spoke for the government. I have a copy of the telegram, Mr. Speaker, and this is what the Prime Minister said:
When Mr. Munro and Mr. Lang advised that the Perry recommendations would be legislated if no settlement was reached prior to reassembly of parliament, I can assure you they were speaking for the government.
These are indeed strange circumstances for the process of collective bargaining, Mr. Speaker. In my opinion, this does not create a climate for responsible and intelligent industrial relations proceedings. The companies will make the government carry out its threat and the government will of course have no alternative to living up to its commitment to the union, using their comfortable majority position in the House of Commons to impose a settlement. There will not be, of course, any defiance of the law as a result of this settlement once it is passed. This is normally the case when parliament or a legislature imposes settlement on a union. But, Mr. Speaker, I for one place responsibility for the consequences, not only of this settlement but the impact it will have on future negotiations, squarely on the shoulders of this government.
Let us leave to the unions only the bargaining for wages and salaries which must obviously differ in various professions and trades. But, as in the case of countries where the industrial relations process has advanced with the times, it should be the union's prime concern to assure for its members a greater degree of job security and to demand from its membership a much higher level of professional conduct and work ethics, as well as a more responsible attitude toward the economic welfare of the country as a whole.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him in this debate has now expired.
I interrupt these proceedings to inform the House that whereas the balloting in respect of private members' busi-
October 8, 1974

ness will be held today, no business under that heading can be taken up at this hour. Accordingly, the House will resume consideration of the bill dealing with grain handling operations. I recognize the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers).


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I would not go so far as to say it is a pleasure to take part in the debate on this legislation, but it seems that we must debate it because of the bumbling of three senior cabinet ministers. Last night the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Lang) pleaded with us in an effort to get himself and other ministers off the hook. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the official opposition has no intention of letting them off the hook. They were bleeding yesterday, and they need to bleed a bit more because of the unforgivable sin they have committed by their actions in this regard. They should not have participated at all. In order to protect their own interests and to get past the election, they used the Canada Labour Code, and yesterday had the audacity to tell us that we must put this legislation through quickly, although the election is three months past. Madam Speaker, this case will be known as the big bungle of 1974 created by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) and the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, backed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).
We are not just dealing with 550 people, but with the economy of the whole country. I am sure every Canadian recognizes that the economic pie is only so large and can only be cut into so many pieces. If any one segment of the economy takes too much of the pie, it is taking something that belongs to others. This is exactly what we are dealing with in this legislation. One segment of the economy is seizing an opportunity that was handed to them on a platter prior to an election. This is very significant and I think it should be pointed out. The Canadian public is entitled to ask if there was a sell-out.
Last night the minister in charge of the Wheat Board, replying to comments of the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin), said:
Let me say that I am happy to note that a few members who said nasty things about me in the previous parliament and who came from Saskatchewan are not here to join their colleague. I was interested to listen to the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre, because he was speaking in his last term as member of parliament. We have a short list and he is at the top.
Did the government have a list prior to the election, Madam Speaker? Do they expect Canadian grain producers to pay their bill for the support they got in defeating 15 members of the New Democratic Party? Why would the minister make a statement like that if it has no basis in fact? Does this mean that in the next election 15 more NDP members will disappear?


An hon. Member:: There are not that many left.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: I am still here.


Thomas Gordon Towers: We recognize that they are waffling. In fact, they are waffling so much that they will not know what to do with all their waffles. If they lose 15 members at the next election, there will be only one left to waffle, or a waffle of one.
Grain Handlers' Strike


Stanley Howard Knowles: Tell us how you fared on July 8.


Steve Eugene Paproski: We won all the seats in Alberta.


Thomas Gordon Towers: In answer to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), may I say that I increased my majority by 2,000 votes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You did not
win any more seats in Alberta.


An hon. Member:: What happened to your leader, Stanley?


Thomas Gordon Towers: The question we have to ask is, what will this decision do to the economy of Canada? I suppose if any one of us was a member of the union involved, and had the opportunity of taking advantage of the presumptuous comment made by the minister, we would all jump on the bandwagon. Yet, what about the rest of the economy? What about the 1,500 grain handlers on the Great Lakes? Are they to get 61 per cent also?
Perhaps we should clarify the figures. There is some discrepancy as to the percentages used. Some say the grain handlers will get 48 per cent, some say 61 per cent. Why has this discrepancy arisen? The reason is that no one really knows what the consumer price index will be in future, and the 61 per cent is based on a 1 per cent rise in inflation per month. Let me point out that the grain companies are owned 80 per cent by the grain producers of western Canada. I hope the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale) remembers this: he was elected by grain producers and sent here to look after their well-being, not to preserve the big, red Liberal machine.
We have to consider what can happen to the economy. What about the grain inspectors? If they do not work, they could stop grain shipments just as effectively as the grain handlers-and they are getting less. What about elevator operators? The 3,500 elevator operators across the country are getting 40 cents an hour less than the grain handlers, at the present rates. What will the government do with its own employees? I am not merely talking about grain inspectors. For instance, in my constituency it is interesting to consider wages paid by the provincial and federal governments for similar work. Plumbers employed provincially receive $1,262 per month; those employed federally receive $916. The yearly spread is over $4,000.
Provincial electricians are paid $1,263 a month; federal electricians, $964, which comes to a difference of about $4,000 per annum. Provincially employed carpenters receive $1,123; if federally employed, $778. Again, the difference is $4,000. Painters, if employed provincially, are paid $1,018; if employed federally, $722. Trade help is paid $792 provincially, and $573 federally. Labourers are paid $724 by the province, and $509 by the federal government. Some of these people are paid about $6,000 a year, on which the federal government says they must subsist. Grain handlers are not paid $6,000. Today they are paid salaries ranging from $16,000 to $18,000 a year. These are wages that grain producers must pay.

October 8, 1974
Grain Handlers' Strike
When commenting during the throne speech debate on his intention to reform parliamentary rules and procedures, the Prime Minister said this was necessary to expedite House of Commons business. He also said it is time for Canada to move beyond the kindergarten stage. Surely those comments apply to the situation now facing parliament. Today we are spending time in settling an issue resulting from irresponsible action by two cabinet ministers. They will suffer more when this bill goes to committee because we shall ask them embarrassing questions and they will have to answer for their actions.
In my opinion, before we in this House are urged to amend the rules and enable the government to rush its legislation through following four months of inactivity, top priority should be given to having the ministers concerned act with maturity instead of like kindergarten pupils. I might add that if all cabinet members faced up to their responsibilities and obeyed parliamentary rules, our time would not be wasted.
If this government had not interfered in the negotiations between the grain handlers and the grain companies, if it had not done so through the bumbling, inept actions of the two ministers previously mentioned, negotiations could have continued and I feel sure a settlement would have been reached weeks ago. Immediately those ministers came out in support of the recommendations of the Perry report, further collective bargaining became futile and the dispute ground to a standstill. We are all aware now, if we were not before, what a few words uttered without forethought by irresponsible persons in authority can cost this country, our economy and our relations with our foreign customers for grain. This episode, as it unfolded, resembled a Grimm's fairy tale which is suitable for performance on a stage. Unfortunately, it really happened, with the result that every Canadian has suffered.
Last November, when the collective agreement between the grain handlers and the terminal operators at Vancouver expired, management offered an increase of 80 cents per hour for a one-year agreement. Conciliation efforts failed, and in February the Minister of Labour appointed Dr. Perry as commissioner. On May 24, during the election campaign, the Minister of Labour announced that the government had taken action by order in council, under section 181 of the Canada Labour Code, to make a strike or lock-out illegal until August 8, one month following election day. On May 24 he also said at a Vancouver news conference:
The government will introduce legislation to approve contract recommendations by conciliator Dr. Perry as a binding collective agreement on the two parties.
On what advice or consideration was such a cowardly step based? I hope hon. members opposite recognize the importance of the situation with which we are dealing. On July 18 the Minister of Labour reaffirmed the government's decision to force settlement terms upon the grain companies. The minister responsible for the Wheat Board urged producers to exert pressure on their own organizations in order that the inflationary conciliation recommendation would be accepted. What right did he have to do that? A telegram sent by the two ministers to the grain companies on August 23 reads in part:
We have made it quite clear, as has the Prime Minister, that the

government will legislate the recommendations of Dr. Perry if necessary.
Of course, that position met resistance. Why? Because the grain companies are owned by the producers and they backed the companies up to the hilt. Ninety per cent of them supported the companies. What else could they do? What else could the companies do, if they were to discharge their responsibility to those they served? Clearly, the three members of the government previously referred to have put the government into an intolerable position. Let me put on record letters which the companies have received from farmers. I quote a letter from Cupar, Saskatchewan:
Do I, as a grain farmer, also get a 61 per cent increase in the price of my products? In two years time can I negotiate as a body for another 60 per cent increase? ... I agree that when the cost of living increases 10 per cent, so should everything else-not 60 per cent. I, as a farmer, am finally able to get my head a little above water. If price and wages increase at the same rate, that water is going to get... deep again. Keep up the good work.
From Pipestone, Manitoba, came this letter:
Let the government force the issue, so as to let the people of Canada see more clearly what is happening to inflation and the cause of it. Thanks.
Next is a letter from Brandon, Manitoba:
The Perry report recommendations are excessive to the extreme. Congratulations on your stand re this issue. The membership of UGG are solidly behind you.
Next comes a letter from Myrtle, Manitoba:
Request government to take immediate action. If the government is as concerned about western agriculture as they say they are, they will move ... fast.
Next is a letter from Boissevain, Manitoba:
If governments continue to allow ... high increases to unions, private enterprise will have to follow. If they feel food is at a high price now, it will have to increase with the wages. Somebody must take a stand some time.
Next I quote part of a letter sent from Yorkton, Saskatchewan:
Aside from the reaction of other labour sectors, there could be a repercussion in our own company, particularly among elevator managers.
These employees, as I said previously, are receiving 40 cents an hour less than grain handlers. I want to impress on this House that grain producers, on average, are getting 50 per cent less than this agreement will provide for grain handlers. We are dealing with a very touchy situation. We must recognize that the price of machinery for grain producers increased between 25 and 30 per cent the last year. The cost of repairs increased 30 per cent. Fertilizer went from $106 to $168 a ton, an increase of 59 per cent. Increases of this magnitude are apparent throughout the system. There is no way in which producers can stay in business if they continually have to face this type of inflation from every direction. They will lose their incentive, and if that happens we will be in a very sorry state indeed. We will have done a great disservice to the economy of this country.


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Madam Speaker, this bill has been debated exhaustively and there are very few things that can still be said. We are debating a settlement
October 8, 1974

forced upon the grain co-operatives by the government. It is the end of a long period in which the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) and the minister in charge of the Wheat Board (Mr. Lang) have bungled the situation. That is what necessitated this action.
There are many matters to be considered. First, when does a conciliation report by a labour relations officer, as opposed to an arbitration report, become absolutely necessary? It should be pointed out that a conciliation report is a basis upon which to negotiate further. The conciliator does not expect all his suggestions to be accepted. There is still room for negotiation. However, the ministers have made it plain that they regard the conciliation report as an arbitration report to be forced on the grain co-operatives.
This piece of legislation will deal with the problem of approximately 550 grain handlers, against the four major grain companies, the Alberta Wheat Pool, the Pacific Elevator Company, the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, United Grain Growers Limited, and a very small private company, Burrard Terminals. These companies represent 175,000 permit holders. Almost all permit holders in western Canada have a share in one of these co-operatives. They represent one million people who live on the farm. These people have a direct interest in this problem and how much a settlement will cost. It is the farmers who will have to pay the cost of the settlement. It is their grain co-operatives, not private grain companies, who are negotiating on their behalf.
We have heard a great deal about demurrage charges. Some thought these would be paid by the federal treasury. They will come out of the final amount the farmer will receive. The cost of the settlement will lessen the amount of money that will eventually be returned to the producer. Therefore, the million people on the farms have a right to have their companies put forward their case so that the cost of settling will be as low as possible. The settlement should not be exorbitant. It is sometimes forgotten that these grain companies are owned by upward of one million people on the prairies.
Prairie grain growers live in a land-locked area. To the west, he must traverse the Rocky Mountains to the seaport; to the east, the Laurentians and the Great Lakes to reach the port of Montreal and ocean vessels. In all this transportation, the railways and shipping companies have a monopoly. Dozens of groups are involved in the transportation of grain. It is highly vulnerable. There is a widespread effect of stoppage by any one relatively small group of employees. This makes the efficient movement of grain a very hazardous operation. The prairie farmer sells on the world market. What he receives is that price, minus the difference between what the various groups charge for handling and transportation of the grain. With the upcoming problems, this will not be the last grain stoppage. As soon as this settlement is reached, another will take its place.
It is particularly bad that the government decided on a settlement of 60 per cent, considerably in excess of that asked by the union. That makes the whole exercise very disturbing. The action of the Minister of Labour and the minister in charge of the wheat board ruled out any settlement that was not enforced by parliament. The Minister of Labour did not seek the approval of the grain
Grain Handlers' Strike
companies and co-operatives in the appointment of Dr. Perry to write a conciliation report. In this way he was inviting trouble. It is not evident that Dr. Perry had any special knowledge of the grain handling business. He looked upon this as a labour problem to be settled. The eventual buyer of the grain would pay for it. Not only did he give more than that asked by the union, but he threw in two or three doubtful settlements that have been written into the legislation.
Dr. Perry recommended a wage increase of $1.52 over two years. I think that was reasonable. I know the grain co-operatives, the Alberta pool, the Saskatchewan pool, the United Grain Growers and the farmers they represent expected and were prepared to pay an increase. The government could well have requested the grain workers to go back to work, and management to again open the terminals at the wage increase of $1.52 an hour. Other aspects of this settlement could have been dealt with at a later date. In fact, the Minister of Labour said he had proposed to the grain co-operatives changes in the cost of living clause and of the pension plan. This, he says, would have considerably reduced the cost. However, he has never made public these changes, and they are disputed by the companies.
I think Dr. Perry's recommendation, that a cost of living clause be built into this plan, is highly dangerous. Surely the recommended $1.52 an hour takes into account the projected cost of living for the next two years. All wage increases, demands and agreements take into account the cost of living increase. In pensions, this is done by indexing. Family allowances, welfare payments and old age pensions are protected by a cost of living index. I think that is good for those who are unable to bargain. However, must there be a cost of living clause in every wage agreement? This implies that there should be a cost of living adjustment for the farmer in the production of his milk or cream, as well as for the automobile manufacturer and others. If we write this cost of living clause into all wage agreements, we will be inviting trouble. It may be all right for those who cannot fend for themselves, but for other parts of the economy it is a very bad practice.
It has been well said that much of the prosperity of the last 25 years has been based on the erosion of savings, but with the value of money being eroded, those responsible for making savings eventually found that they did not receive the value of what they had saved. Also, the importance of private pension plans seems to be declining and their future is extremely doubtful.
I notice that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) is in his place. He introduced amendments to the Canada Pension Plan which did not pass. I should like to ask him when is he bringing another bill forward, and whether he expects it to contain a clause dealing with the question of religious sects?
I think we are reaching the stage at which the old age pension and the Canada pension are so basic that private pension plans will become redundant. I do not believe they should be encouraged. This, of course, is a debatable proposition and I do not intend to expand on it now. Nevertheless, I think we ought to look charily at new private pension programs. Incidentally, I am informed

October 8, 1974
Grain Handlers' Strike
that the grain handlers did have a private pension plan some years ago but that they threw it out, for reasons with which I am not familiar. Eventually all private pension plans will need to be dovetailed into the Canada Pension Plan.
This settlement is highly inflationary and it is bound to be followed by further costly settlements throughout the industry. We can expect prolonged stoppages in the movement of grain. It should be realized that the more money it costs to move and transport our grain, the less the farmer eventually receives, and this, in turn, discourages production. Nor is it generally realized how much farm costs have been increasing. A pail of Avidex which only this spring cost $59 is now $83.
During this dispute it has been suggested by many that the Vancouver terminals are poorly managed and inefficiently operated. The union leader, to his credit, has spoken convincingly about his intense desire to improve productivity and management at the Vancouver terminal. He wishes to see this done, in his own words, "far beyond previous levels in the interest of the western grain farmer". What are the facts?
In May, June and July of last year unloadings at Vancouver averaged 609 cars a day. The corresponding figure for this year is 393 cars a day with a plentiful supply of cars on hand. What happened to the desire to unload cars rapidly? No matter how much renovation is carried out, if the workers are unwilling to work, or if management is unwilling to manage, one cannot expect much efficiency. How does reduction of productivity by more than one-third of demonstrated ability tie in with Mr. Kanes' dedication to attaining high standards of efficiency?
Dr. Perry, the Minister of Labour, and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) among others, have stressed the need for parity of income with that of longshoremen performing similar tasks to members of local 333 on the same waterfront. This is put forward as justification for the costly settlement recommended. However, as has been pointed out in this debate, the argument loses impact in the light of the offer made by the negotiating committee of the Treasury Board to Vancouver grain inspectors working for the Canadian Grain Commission.
The inspectors found the offer of a 6 per cent wage increase over 18 months, with a further 5Vi per cent over the following 12 months, entirely unacceptable, and in a letter to the Prime Minister they drew attention to his statement that parity ought to exist between the pay of grain handlers and longshoremen.
Under the Perry report, Vancouver grain handlers would get a basic rate of $6.44. The basic rate for grain inspectors is only $4.33. I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that inspector status is achieved only after years of study and the passing of rigorous examinations. After all, the inspectors are the men upon whose judgment the reputation of the Canadian grain grading system depends. It is in on their authority that the export certificate is issued. In these circumstances we must accept it as a fact that the grain inspectors are almost certain to go off the job once this strike is settled.
Moreover, I believe we must get the relationship between grain handlers and longshore workers into a more

reasonable perspective. A grain handler, at least if he belongs to what I understand is called the first shift, is assured of steady work. A longshoreman may go to his union hiring hall in the morning, but he is not sure of finding work that day. So the longshoreman is paid on the basis that on many days of the year there will be no work available for him. To compare longshoremen with grain handlers is like comparing longshoremen with miners or Members of Parliament.
It has been suggested that this dispute should be settled at any cost without much discussion. This view is put forward partly on the ground that Canada's reputation as a reliably consistent supplier is being damaged. I understand that at one time Japan used to buy all her wheat from Canada, but after supplies had been interrupted due to a strike by longshoremen at Vancouver, orders from then on had to be shared with the United States and Australia. Thus, to say the present stoppage is particularly damaging does not sound to me like a really good argument.
Last year we had a six weeks railway strike. Last winter the prairies experienced the most severe snowfall that most of us can remember. Many of the rail lines were closed. Yet if hon. members look at the statistics they will find that despite these adversities we got out all the grain we had to sell-there was very little left over. The world, of course, is very short of grain, perhaps for the first time in 25 years. News that the United States has cancelled a contract to sell wheat to Russia underlines this state of affairs. So it is likely there will be a good market for Canadian grain this year even though surpluses may arise in the years to come.
The storage of substantial quantities of Canadian grain abroad should be examined. This would help to supply our customers when our own transportation system is not functioning. Another possibility would be the movement of grain into the U.S. mid-west in modest amounts, and no doubt the American railways would be happy to transport grain, our grain, to the markets of the world. If western Canadian farmers are left at the mercy of stoppages of many different kinds, it is wise to have as many options open to us as possible.
We live in a free country and most of us want to keep it that way. The strike weapon is a legitimate means for a worker to use to ensure he gets a reasonable wage. I must say that, in my opinion, the government's handling of this whole case has not improved the possibility of good relations between unions, the farmers on the prairies, the people who own the co-operatives and the grain handling companies.
I hope that in the committee the minister will be able to tell us what offer he made to the grain companies which would lessen the cost of this settlement, and what specific cost to the companies he has worked out. There are many unanswered questions in this whole sorry affair, and perhaps our committee system will prove of value in ferreting them out.


Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to take the opportunity to
October 8, 1974

rise in the House, though I regret I am rising in a debate of this nature rather than on the throne speech debate, as was my first intention.
It had been thought by some people that if the government felt there was urgency to this matter it would have had a certain presence about it and brought in a settlement, or the means of arriving at a settlement, at the time it dictated the solution. However, the government has procrastinated and delayed and we now find it interrupting the throne speech debate. Once again we find parliament has been pulled into the unfortunate situation of settling a strike of great importance to this country through legislation.
The present strike is of grave importance, and it is detrimental to Canada for three reasons. One reason is that the strike affects our international relations. We cannot keep faith with countries that made commitments with us. We cannot perform in accordance with our international contracts. We cannot deliver what we have promised. Quite frankly, this is bad for Canada. It gives Canada a bad reputation in the international community, and I suggest could even jeopardize future contracts.
Secondly, this strike has disrupted, and threatens to do future damage to the grain economy upon which so much of the economy of western Canada is dependent. It has affected not only our shipments but has caused a backlog of grain deliveries, with last year's grain being held in elevators instead of being shipped to ports, leaving no room to store this year's grain in the elevators. This in turn will put the farmers and the people of western Canada to extra expense in arranging for storage upon their own lands until some room can be found at the elevators.
Thirdly, it is an unfortunate and detrimental strike because demurrage charges for ships waiting in western ports are costing farmers and others a large amount of money. Farmers are being forced to spend money on storing wheat instead of injecting it into the economy. This means that a much wider group of Canadians than simply those who are the employees of the elevator operators or grain handling companies are hurt. They are playing with dollars that they do not rightfully own. It is not their money.
For these three reasons, and for others that have been amply discussed in the debate today, this strike has hurt us and hurt our economy. Our grain industry and grain exports are both essential to Canada's economy, especially in the western provinces.
The people of my constituency, Madam Speaker, and I believe the people of Canada as a whole, are sick and tired of strikes in important essential services.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Wyatt Dick: The general public are tired of being used as a pawn. Strikes in essential services should be outlawed. Perhaps we should be moving in the direction of Australia and other countries and have compulsory arbitration.


Marc Lalonde: Is that your position?


Paul Wyatt Dick: I am speaking for myself and as the representative for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton. The Minister of
Grain Handlers' Strike
National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) happens to be in the House at the present time, and it is nice to see him here although the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was crying the other day that ministers did not even have time to attend the question period. However, I see him chuckling and I guess he now has nothing else to do.
It seems to me that every year or so workers in one of our public utilities or essential services go on strike. In most cases these public utilities or essential services are monopolies, and there is a very limited choice of alternative service from a like source. These public utilities or essential services include such operations as Bell Canada, Ontario Hydro in this part of Canada, Air Canada, our post offices, ocean port facilities, grain handling facilities, our railways and suchlike.
Each time a strike or lockout takes place and one of these essential services closes, or its function is impaired, we, the public, suffer. To be sure, the companies and workers who are out of work suffer, but they have brought it upon themselves and that is their business. It becomes our business when we, the general public, are affected by the shutdown and become the pawns in a labour-management dispute. Each time one of our essential services closes down or its operation is impaired, thousands of innocent people, not involved in the dispute but working in related and dependent industries, are also put out of work. In many cases businesses suffer to the extent that they may be permanently closed down.
When the post office workers were on strike illegally last year, Dunn and Bradstreet reported numerous businesses were forced to close permanently because of a lack of cash flow. When our port facilities are shut down, our railwaymen go on strike, or our grain handlers go on strike, the whole economy suffers and the innocent public have to shoulder the burden of the comparatively few who have closed down the essential service in question. This should not be so. The political parties of this country ought to move to protect the public from the direct effects of strikes in essential services.
The party to which I belong, the Progressive Conservative party, has for some time now advocated a two-fold policy in this field. Firstly, in essential services under federal jurisdiction we would encourage collective bargaining throughout the term of a contract, not just at the end. But we would clearly indicate that we would withdraw the right to strike, and that binding arbitration would be the final step in resolving differences.
Secondly, the Progressive Conservative Party has endorsed the recommendations presented to the government in December, 1968, contained in the Woods Commission Report for the establishment of a public interest disputes commission. Such a public interest disputes commission would define which services are essential and would set up a procedure for binding arbitration.
Our country and our economy cannot afford national disruptions of our essential services which stop functioning because of a selfish view, all of which penalizes the public at large.
Unfortunately parliament today is again being used as a court of final resort. We are put in the position of the final
230

October 8, 1974
Grain Handlers' Strike
arbiter, and this should not be the case. In this way we are derogating the responsibilities of parliament which should be to pass impartially laws for all Canadians to follow.
When parliament is drawn into a dispute involving strikes it ends up taking sides. By becoming involved, parliament encourages other parties not to negotiate in good faith. We may be encouraging other parties who are at this time at the bargaining table to break off negotiations, to protract negotiations, or to cause such a disruption that their case will finally be forced before parliament. If this were to become the norm, parliament could ultimately end up carrying on labour negotiations for the whole session.
Another unfortunate aspect of these matters coming before parliament is that politicians usually give in to politically expedient decisions. Frequently, if not always, when parliament becomes involved a settlement is inflationary. The best example of this, and the one which has been frequently cited as the cornerstone from which our economic difficulties have stemmed, especially in management-union relations, is the dispute and strike of the Montreal port workers in 1966, when a settlement was reached by the government of Mr. Pearson. The government was then under the gun because unless there was a settlement Expo '67 could not take place. Since that time we have not had evidence of negotiations taking place honestly in good faith. We have not had evidence that the demand for intervention has lessened, but we have seen a general trend toward inflationary settlements.
Today we are talking about a settlement referred to as being in the nature of 48 per cent to 61 per cent. The government brought on this unfortunate situation by its intervention. It did not let the bargaining process complete its normal course, and it did not use the legislation it had on hand under the labour code. Perhaps through coercion it would have persuaded the parties to get together, but instead it blandly came out and endorsed the Perry report.
As a result there was no need to negotiate further. The unions already felt they had what they wanted. What sense was there for the pools to negotiate? The case had already been settled. In effect the government had settled this strike, but it forgot one main ingredient. It forgot in August to bring forward a means of implementing the settlement it had dictated.
Why did the government waste time once it had confirmed the Perry report? Why did it wait an additional six weeks before bringing this matter before the House of Commons? The government had already indicated its intention to place the matter before parliament for legislative action. I suggest it should have called the House together immediately rather than creating additional problems in our economy by this delay.
Experience has shown that the government procrastinated last year during the railway strike, causing untold hardship to the economy in the very same way.
We should stop using parliament as a tool in labour-management disputes. We must put the interest of the public at large ahead of the narrow interests of two parties to a dispute. We must act to protect the public at large rather than one side or the other to a labour dispute. We 
must stop legislating the settlement of inflationary and politically expedient demands.
This parliament and its politicians should follow the advice given to the government in 1968 by implementing the recommendations of the Woods Commission. Unfortunately the government has failed to give leadership in any long-term sense, and has followed again the politically expedient course. It has added to inflationary expectations, and for that reason it would be impossible for me to support the inept handling of the situation suggested in the bill introduced by the government.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: It being six o'clock. I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, while I hope to make a contribution at another time in another debate, since we have interrupted the debate on the Speech from the Throne I shall not take the time of the House, which is rather limited, to extend congratulatory messages to you and other hon. gentlemen who have already participated in that debate, because I want to keep basically to the issue, Bill C-12, designed to put the grain handlers in Vancouver back to work.
Without any ado, I wish to tell you, Mr. Speaker, and my colleagues in this House that this is a sad night in Canada when we begin to legislate Bill C-12 which, for the first time in Canadian parliamentary history, asks the parliament of Canada to decide to dot the i's and cross the t's in a labour contract.
This is a precedent which will come back to haunt this chamber, be it in the thirtieth parliament or in ensuing parliaments, because it is a wrong precedent. In the past we had proper precedents and necessary actions in a legislative way to get essential industries back to work. We convened parliament and parliament went to work without going into the issues under dispute between labour and management. What was done, and done reluctantly initially, was in a broad general way to appoint an arbitrator. Then the legislation in effect said that the people concerned should go back to work and that the arbitrator would rule on the issues in a just way, and adjudicate on merit, with fair play to both sides.
But here we have a government that was given a mandate on July 8. With all the momentum its majority mandate gives it, what does this government do? It makes Rip Van Winkle look like a piker with its dozing and snoozing.
Here we have the benevolent House leader, the hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp), straight from the world of diplomacy. He comes to the floor of the House to help iron out some of the difficulties here. Mr. Speaker, if this is any indication of how this parliament will look as we continue our deliberations in the ensuing months, then all the minister's diplomatic prowess will be challenged because although we in this party intend to co-operate in
October 8, 1974

respect of legislation, we will not be used as a rubber stamp to make respectable something which is not respectable simply because this government slumbered for three months following the election.
I left my little home in the valley in Nova Scotia at 6.30 this morning and boarded a plane. I do not see the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) here so I cannot congratulate him for Air Canada running on time. Finally I got here to this beautiful city. While the sun was lighting up the St. Lawrence and the beautiful country in that area I thought of several things. I thought with almost sadness: good gracious, why am I coming back to the city of Ottawa to become involved in an issue involving the west coast which has been considered by Dr. Perry and other people for months, people who understand the situation very well?
Is it not a sad commentary that the first item of legislation with which the government deals should be this blasphemous piece of legislation which parliament for the first time decides in its omnipotent wisdom to write into a contract?
I see my friend, a former minister, who used to practice a little labour law in the province of Manitoba, present in the House. I also see an authority on parliamentary procedure in this House who, even though he is along in chronological years, is young in heart and never abused the rules. He and his colleagues stand up in this House today and try to pick at Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition for opposing this bill. An hon. member I respect, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), said that because Dr. Perry thought the union should get most things, they will agree with the bill.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Not "oh, oh". If you want to say something, get up off your derriere. If the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) wishes to use some of his forensic talents, let him stand in his place.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I was just congratulating the hon. gentleman on his bilingualism.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: We should stay with the issue and not follow the red herrings because, if we do so, some of the bones will prick and hurt. Think of the hypocrisy of the NDP in saying that because Dr. Perry gave this and this and this to the union, then this will be legislation in the public interest. I can hear those gentlemen deny the echoes of their former leader who upheld his own philosophical conviction on the rights of all groups if Dr. Perry had said that the elevator companies, and the pool companies, should get this and this and this. In that case the conduct of these gentlemen would be very unparliamentary.
I say this bill is not a blessing, Mr. Speaker, because of the precedent it sets. If this parliament is to write the detail of a contract it will be the first time for that to occur.
The things that give me more cause for concern are the contracts that have yet to go to collective bargaining and
Grain Handlers' Strike
those that are already in the collective bargaining process. Because of the precedent we are setting it is very likely they will end up on the floor of this chamber. I think that the new members of this House, who come here thinking they will be going to the core of issues before the country, helping to look after the economy, and who find themselves concerned with this bill as their piece of legislative business, will be disappointed.
Among the labour contracts coming up for renegotiation are those with the Cape Breton Development Corporation, Norando Mines Ltd., United Aircraft of Canada Ltd., Air Canada, the Maritime Employers' Association and the railways. Some, if not all of these are to be renegotiated by December 31.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, and to my hon. friends opposite that it is ridiculous for us to be setting this precedent tonight and having this bill as the first item of business in the thirtieth parliament. This government was given a majority by the Canadian people, and we have to accept that. That is the way the ball game is played and my leader will play fair. I will match him against any leader in this House. However, having set this precedent I predict that we will be known as "the parliament in labour" and no abortion bill is going to help this parliament. We are going to become befuddled, confused and over involved in the details of labour disputes that affect the national interest.
I am glad to see the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) here tonight, Mr. Speaker. I think it was the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) who dubbed him and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) the Bobsey Twins, the Stardust Twins or something like that. There is no doubt that the intervention of the Minister of Labour is a serious matter, and we saw the power play of the minister when he told unions and management that they had better negotiate on the basis of the Perry report or parliament would be called back to pass legislation.


An hon. Member:: They said that before the election.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Because of the election nothing happened, and here we are tonight debating this legislation. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that because of the unsatisfactory labour situation in this country, because of the galloping inflation in this country and because of the inactivity of this government, we are going to find ourselves involved in more labour disputes in this thirtieth parliament than in all of the parliamentary history of Canada. I say again we are going to be called "the parliament in labour," and the people of Canada are going to be disgusted with us.
Before the last election this party proposed a mechanism for resolving disputes affecting the public interest on an ongoing basis instead of this stop-start confrontation.


An hon. Member:: Let us hear it.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I do not know who that was, Mr. Speaker, but I think he was a new member because he did not have the timbre of voice of the practised heckler.
We were to have the Public Interest Disputes Commission, which is supposed to follow serious issues affecting labour-management relations in areas of public interest, on an ongoing basis. It would lance the boil that so often
28305-161/!

October 8, 1974
Grain Handlers' Strike
rises in labour management disputes and sincere men, honestly differing, could have drawn the fester. I am not casting blame on the Vancouver grain handlers or on the elevator operators, Mr. Speaker.
The Perry report is not clear and it needs to be interpreted. Ad hoc, stop-start resolutions of disputes in the public service are just an insult to the parties involved, and indeed to all Canadians. I gather that the Minister of Labour is now expressing interest in a public disputes commission. Apparently he is going to call labour and management and other interested parties together to discuss the merits of collective bargaining procedures in an impasse.
The Liberal Party has been in power since 1963, Mr. Speaker,-and we still have the Minister of Labour, the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) and the other ministers who have been reshuffled. I point out to them that there are two basic tenets that must be part of any public interest disputes commission or any resolution of a contract. One is productivity and the other is participation.
I have full sympathy for all working men. We lag far behind other jurisdictions where the working man participates in the boardrooms and in management decisions. If students can picket universities and get a spokesman on the senate of universities, why cannot men, who have to earn their bread and butter through their work, have a voice in the boardrooms from time to time?
I think my friends opposite have said that we are the party of the establishment, but just look at the front benches over there, Mr. Speaker. They have either transplanted deputy ministers or some rogues from the St. James Street or Bay Street interests. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) can smile that smile that charmed the Arabs and the Jews. It did not produce any oil, however. He was deputy minister of finance and also of trade and commerce, and he dealt poker hands with the hoi polloi and nabods. That is why there is no concern for the working man.
The Postmaster General can scribble notes and give one of his speeches but it does not matter.
I say seriously, Mr. Speaker, that in labour-management discussions you have to have some type of measurement of productivity, and you also have to allow the working man some participation in management decisions. I go even further and say allow him some participation in the profits.
We have talked about the west coast but there is also a serious problem on the east coast. What has escaped the attention of this House and the country is that Thunder Bay and the Lakehead were closed by a strike on August 8. All movement of grain eastward from Thunder Bay was stopped until a few days ago when a new contract granting 65 per cent to 75 per cent over two years was signed with the Merchant Service Guild.
Where is the direction and leadership from this government to show whether labour contracts become inflationary or not? I suggest that if we set a precedent and agree to a settlement of between 65 and 75 per cent in an essential industry we will make the St. Lawrence Seaway settlement of 1966 look both like a pygmy and a piker compared with the wage scale being approved under this

contract. If we approve of inflationary settlements like this, what does it mean? The Speech from the Throne is meaningless if this type of contract is passed without comment. We hear talk about an excess profits tax. We should also talk about an excess wage settlement tax, which should be imposed on wage increases not linked to productivity increases.
On the east coast, because of the strike at the Lakehead, we have only about 20,000 or 30,000 bushels of grain. If during this winter the railways are beset by labour or weather problems, what will happen to our supplies in Atlantic Canada? The Grain Council in Atlantic Canada says we need 250,000 tons of grain, so that we will not have to kill our hens, our cattle and hogs because we cannot feed them. Unless we get grain our situation will be desperate.
That brings me to another point. We have fantastic elevator space in Atlantic Canada, yet speaker after speaker has said that we, in Atlantic Canada, need additional elevator capacity. Actually talks are going on right now about closing down our existing elevators, which have been used only to about 30 per cent of their capacity. What is wrong with the grain distribution system in Canada? We in the east need grain for domestic consumption and export, yet grain elevators we built have operated only at about 30 per cent of capacity during the last few years.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: My friends opposite can smile and smirk and beat their desks, but they remind me of seals which you can see in Stanley Park zoo. You know, all this reminds me of a book written by Dr. George Grant entitled, "Lament for a Nation". It is sad, Mr. Speaker. Here we are, in the thirtieth parliament of Canada, and the first piece of legislation we are asked to pass is an ad hoc measure to plug a hole because something has broken down on the west coast. All sorts of things will break down on the east and west coasts before the end of this year, and parliament will be debating labour problems until they come out of our ears. Unless and until we see some leadership from the treasury benches opposite, the pathetic prophecy of George Grant, made years ago, will be realized. That is why some people are getting pretty disgusted with this institution.


An hon. Member:: How relevant is this?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: My friends to the left are wondering about the relevance of parliament. Let me say that parliament will not be considered with respect if we say the things that need to be said using parliamentary niceties which lose their punch, when the government does not deal with problems which it must see looming on the horizon and reacts in this ad hoc way.


Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, although I was reluctant to participate in the debate, the remarks of my old friend from Vancouver, now the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan), convinced me to participate. If there is one thing all of us in my party
October 8, 1974

wish to do, it is to expedite passage of this bill, passage which is being delayed by the parliamentary manoeuver-ing of the party to my right.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member, for whom I have the greatest respect and admiration, ought to amend his last statement. He should recall that his party refused the offer which I made on behalf of my party, to sit all through Monday night and pass this bill.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, if I may deal with the point of order, I tell my learned and respected colleague that we are willing to continue with this bill and pass it through all stages in 24 hours. There is no way that we are going to delay passage of this bill.
If I may return to the point I made concerning my old friend, Pat Nowlan, from Annapolis Valley-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: As he is from Vancouver, I would have thought he would have retained some west coast sanity. Obviously having moved to the Maritimes, he has failed to perceive the problems of the west coast. He is hemmed into his valley and does not see things in their national perspective.
Speaking of hypocrisy, let me say this: if you examine the record over the last 10 years of conciliation reports you find that the Conservative party has never supported a conciliation report except when it favoured the employer. The Liberal party has done exactly the same thing. Let me remind you of the rail strike, and of how long it took to recall parliament once the conciliation report was handed down. That report favoured the rail companies, and the Conservative and Liberal parties joined hands in supporting that particular conciliation report.


An hon. Member:: That is not true.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, will the hon. member permit a question? I know the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt). He and I used to exchange remarks years ago when we served on school boards in British Columbia. Since my honourable friend brought the subject up, can he say when in the last 10 years parliament has enshrined in legislation provisions contained in a conciliation report?


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, the bill which was passed in the case of the rail strike contained provisions almost indentical to those contained in the report. That report had been rejected by the unions. If you look at the history of labour relations in this country, you find that parliament has been called into session immediately a rail strike occurs, and the legislation passed is legislation embodying suggestions which have previously been rejected by the trade unions. In the case I am talking about, a little over half of the unions' demands were dealt with by the report. Parliament was recalled within six weeks of the strike, as I recall.
Why are we dealing with this legislation now? Every day we spend debating this bill is costing the workers on the coast and farmers on the prairies thousands of dollars.
Grain Handlers' Strike
I submit that this is a futile exercise. We should end this debate as soon as possible.
I took exception to some remarks made yesterday by the minister in charge of the Wheat Board (Mr. Lang) regarding this party and the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) who comes from Saskatchewan. The minister said that that hon. member is on top of his list for elimination. Yes, the old arrogance is back. The minister's attitude can best be described this way, "Today Saskatchewan; tomorrow the world". The power has gone to the minister's head. But the political world is very unsafe and I would not count chickens in Saskatchewan until all the eggs hatch.
There is an old axiom of trade unionism-no contract, no work. These grain handlers on the coast have been without a contract since November 30, 1973. They have really bent over backwards to accomodate this country in terms of service. To agree to what obviously is a settlement that is not acceptable to either party does no service to farmers on the prairies or workers on the coast. I must say that the directors of those elevator companies and co-ops have done no service to their farmers on the prairies by misrepresenting the facts in this case.
I refer particularly to United Grain Growers Limited which sent out wonderful material showing that the farmers overwhelmingly supported the position of United Grain Growers. If you examine that particular piece of guff, and that is the best description I can give it, it does not say anything about demurrage charges. It does not compare the cost of demurrage with the cost of settlement. The farmers were not given the full story. Those who work with their hands on the farm should have been invited to participate directly in those negotiations.
The negotiations have been poisoned for a very long time. A good example of that poison in the whole atmosphere was the decision of the grain firms to stop benefit payments following that strike. That is an almost unheard of act. It is an act of cruelty and vindictiveness. There is just no way you can expect a settlement in that atmosphere.
I do not agree with those who suggest that the decision by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) to say that the Perry report was supported by the government exacerbated this situation. There is no doubt that the grain workers were going to drop their tools and leave their employment at that time. That did not contribute to the problem.
The problem is that the Minister of Labour did not ask that parliament be called into session. I can understand why. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) had a very trying election campaign. There is no doubt that he was tired and had to take it easy for about six weeks. We know what a great job he did in that campaign.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: However, the Prime Minister should have thought about the interests of the country. There is no doubt about the excuse given by the Minister of Labour for not calling parliament. He said that to have recalled parliament for a special emergency session to deal with

October 8, 1974
Grain Handlers' Strike
the dispute would have turned the House of Commons into a scapegoat. Surely the minister is still not saying tonight that we are a scapegoat. That is the argument he used for not calling parliament back. The argument that parliament did not need to be called back really will not wash.
I can understand the minister's problem. I understand the pressures of cabinet and the summer vacation. I hope we will all be a little more diligent in terms of the next labour dispute which we are bound to have. I will not delay this any longer, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before recognizing the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro), it must be understood that if he speaks at this time, he will close the debate. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the debate yesterday and today-


An hon. Member:: You learned something.


John Carr Munro: Yes, I did learn something. I learned that some do not have much to contribute. Some so-called experts have been disseminating nonsense. I can't learn from them.
There have been two outstanding areas of criticism. The first is that this is an inflationary settlement for which the government will have to take responsibility. The other is that the government, by identifying itself with the Perry recommendations, undermined the possibility of a settlement. I think these arguments are fallacious.
In closing I want to reiterate some of the principal points. First, dealing with the inflationary argument, there has been a propaganda effort put forward by some. This is certainly being done on the part of the companies involved. To a degree it is being mimicked and endorsed, I think ill-advisedly, by some members of the opposition. I am referring to this matter of an alleged 61 per cent settlement.
If there is a desire to try and establish a benchmark, it is to reiterate something like this. On any type of impartial examination, that is entirely false. It is not a 61 per cent settlement. Anyone who has had experience comparing various wage rates in various classifications, from data put out by the Department of Labour, Statistics Canada and others will know the comparisons. They compare all that unions with 500 or more employees have recently received in a collective bargaining session. They talk about wages. They do not include pensions, fringe benefits or other things won at the bargaining table, such as COLA.
This 61 percent figure includes all these. It is not accurate. It is excessive. If you want to compare it in terms of wage settlements won elsewhere, you must look at statistics. All you have to do is examine the record. It will show that this is marginally above an average of 15 per cent per year over a period of two years. That compares favourably with wage settlements on the west coast.
When you compare this wage settlement with all those other settlements, it stands up. Some of those other settle-

ments of 17 per cent a year, or 10 per cent a year, do not show all the fringe benefits that were won. In most cases some fringe benefits were won. They do not show pension concessions or COLA. Opposition members talk about wages. If you want to compare this wage settlement with others, you must be objective and fair. You must compare it on the basis as the comparisons are established. That does not include fringe benefits such as COLA or pensions. There we are talking in terms of a 15 per cent average per year.
I wish to emphasize one other point. If you wish to add all these other benefits, you should look at the companies' own figures. Presumably there will be an opportunity tomorrow in committee.
The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) talked about information sent out by United Grain Growers. It is quite true that they did not tell the farmers a lot of things. What they did tell them was inaccurate. They tried to get a response on what they did tell them. They talked about 61 per cent. It can be easily seen that they double counted the COLA clause. Would someone please tell me why it would be in the interests of the company to exaggerate a figure that even the union is not claiming? The union is prepared to sit down and say it is not 61 per cent. The union says there is double counting and it will accept a much lower figure. It is ridiculous to say it is still claiming a 61 per cent settlement.
I think this indicates to hon. members that the companies are not interested in settling this dispute. They want to make political marks if they can. They wish to embarrass the government. If they can get several allies in the official opposition to reiterate the falsification and the errors, they are going to do it. However, this is one of the matters to be examined by the committee tomorrow. We can point out the gross errors where the companies have intentionally, ill-advisedly, or unintentionally misinformed the farmers. This will be done on the basis of what they did tell them, let alone what they did not tell them.
The other reason given is that it seems inflationary. I ask hon. members opposite how it can be inflationary for Dr. Perry to have recommended for 550 grain handlers something less than 3,600 longshoremen have been receiving for the past year and a half, working side by side, and in many cases, doing the same work?
I have heard some members argue that grain handlers have a worse job than the longshoremen-it is dirty, it is dusty, it is harmful to the respiratory system, and so on. Yet these men have been paid comparatively less than longshoremen for a year and a half. And people call this settlement inflationary!
Do members opposite want to talk about percentages? I think it is idiotic to do so, because one ought to consider the equity involved in determining each particular case, and I have already given reasons for thinking there is a great deal of equity in this report of Dr. Perry. But when members opposite talk about the inflationary effect of a solution along those lines, I hear very little from them about the excess profits which are being made, the exorbitant return.', being gathered by some people, and about what some people outside the unions are making.
October 8, 1974

We don't hear anything about the professions, for example. We do not hear about what some of the executives are making. Why not? If members opposite are concerned about equity, why do they limit their concern about inflation to the effects of a settlement with 550 grain handlers? If they want to talk about combatting inflation, let them include everybody else. Let them include the professions and excess profits being made by certain corporate bodies.
If they want to talk that way, I am prepared to listen. But if they are only prepared to ensure grain handlers get less than those working beside them, all I can say is that I consider it to be a very anti-labour posture, and certainly an unjust posture.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carr Munro: Many members have viewed inflation in terms of how much it will increase prices. Well, the price of a bushel of wheat now is about five dollars-the minister in charge of the Wheat Board (Mr. Lang) could tell the House more about that than I can.


An hon. Member:: Two dollars fifty.


Mr. Lang:: Five dollars and seventy cents.


Gerald William Baldwin: Where?


Daniel Aiken Lang: At Thunder Bay.


Gerald William Baldwin: Farmers are not getting that.


John Carr Munro: Does the hon. member know what this settlement will do to the cost per bushel? The effect will be marginal. About one cent per bushel. Do hon. members wish to call that inflationary?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Yes.


Gerald William Baldwin: It is the well-known domino effect.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: What about the domino multiplier effect?


John Carr Munro: As I see it, we should do what is just in each particular case. Maybe we should apply the reasoning of the Official Opposition to ourselves. We gave ourselves a 50 per cent increase as Members of Parliament. Perhaps when we talk about raises for ourselves next time we shall all start talking about equity.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Give us Dr. Perry.


John Carr Munro: Can I assume that when it comes to raises for members, the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan) will accept the recommendations of Dr. Perry?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: You give me Dr. Perry.


John Carr Munro: I turn, now, to another aspect in terms of inflationary pressure. Many members of the opposition have sought to debunk the catch-up theory, and most unjustly, I think. The hon. member for Annapolis Valley, the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alex-
Grain Handlers' Strike
ander) and others talked about the Lake Carriers' Association-the pilots and engineers. They spoke of a settlement involving 60 per cent or 65 per cent. Let them talk to many of the enlightened employers who voluntarily agreed to that settlement. I will tell them precisely what these employers will say, because my officials and I were involved for many days in the events surrounding that settlement. The employers agreed to that settlement on a voluntary basis.


Gerald William Baldwin: You foisted it on them.


John Carr Munro: The outstanding reason was this: they were encountering manpower problems. They could not get second, third and fourth class engineers who had been trained for five or six years before getting their tickets, to be jacks of all trades and work for the same rates of pay as carpenters, electricians and so on. It is within this framework that, even in the absence of the unions, the employers would have found it necessary to concede significant increases to enable these men to catch up. Some of the members on the other side-I have in mind particularly, the hon. member for Hamilton West-were obviously not aware of this. To keep the industry viable, to keep the grain and the ore moving, they had to reach a settlement of that kind.
Today, when we are talking about grain handlers, the situation is the same. Unless the rates paid to these grain handlers, working under conditions deplorable as they are, are brought more into line with those paid to the longshoremen, I believe the companies will experience a great deal of difficulty in getting the manpower needed to man the operation.


An hon. Member:: Give it a try.


John Carr Munro: I am talking about paying realistic wage rates so as to get sufficient manpower to run the operation.
Now I should like to turn to another matter, and that is the whole question of whether we have, somehow, undermined the collective bargaining process by identifying with the Perry report. But first I wish to clear up one or two misconceptions.
The hon. member for Hamilton West asked why the union did not accept the Perry report after the government had identified itself with it. If he will check the facts he will find that the union did accept the Perry recommendations, and that the companies rejected them before the government became identified with the report.
Let me deal with yet another misconception advanced by the hon. member for Hamilton West. He sought to give the impression that the Perry report contained, not recommendations but suggestions-and that an attempt was being made to "put something over", or that some hanky-panky was involved here. If the hon. member would study the Labour Code he would realize that Dr. Perry had no other task but to bring in recommendations.
When a single commissioner brings in what he feels is a reasonable basis for a settlement, he is bringing in recommendations. That is what the statute calls for. And, once they are published, everyone knows exactly what they are. It is extremely naive for the hon. member or anyone else

October 8, 1974
Grain Handlers' Strike
to believe they could be interpreted as anything other than recommendations. Does one really expect a union leader to go to his membership and tell them not to pay any attention to them? How ludicrous, Mr. Speaker! These are recommendations. Dr. Perry was asked to bring in recommendations and, in fact, did bring in recommendations.
Let me come back to the charge that the government has undermined the collective bargaining process. When the companies came to Ottawa in May, before the government ever identified with the Perry recommendations, and we indicated that Dr. Perry had made certain recommendations, what did the companies and the union think about those recommendations?
We wondered whether they could arrive at some kind of settlement. It seemed that having made those recommendations they had to be taken seriously. But the companies said: "We are not going to accept the Perry recommendations as any type of basis for settlement. In fact, if we have no other alternative, there is going to be a work stoppage right away on that basis. There will have to be a work stoppage; we will have to have a strike or a lock-out".
Is that not indicative to hon. members that negotiation, bargaining, had completely broken down, and that an impasse had been reached? Of course that was the situation. What did the government do? When it had no alternative it had to implement section 188 of the Canada Labour Code and deny these workers the right to strike for up to three months. And not only that, it required them to work at the wage rate under the old collective bargaining agreement which expired in the previous November. It was already five months out of date and this added another three months to that.
Can any member of this House tell me that it would be fair and reasonable to expect those union leaders to require their workers to work under conditions like that without indicating to them what might be at the end of the road for them, especially when an independent report made by a third party was already made known? Would it be fair and reasonable, in anybody's estimation, to think that those workers could work under those conditions and would be prepared to do so? I ask each member to ask himself that question, and he will have to admit that the workers must be given some assurance. But this step avoided a breakdown of operations for three months.
This brings me to the point where the exercise of power under section 188 came to an end, which was roughly eight days after the return of the writs. I and my officials made every effort to try to reach a collective agreement. We tried, between the time when the power under section 188 expired and the time when the strike occurred on August 26, to reach agreement. Then after the lock-out or strike occurred we again tried right up until a week before the House came into session.
I ask hon. members; is that not what a Minister of Labour and his officials are supposed to do in a free collective bargaining system? Are they not supposed to make every effort possible to try to arrive at a settlement before using parliament to deny the rights of these workers? Some hon. members, the hon. member for Hamilton

West for one, and others, said that we should have called parliament into session very shortly after the strike occurred. Would we not then have been accused of acting arbitrarily and unnecessarily without making every effort to reach a settlement? Would we not have been accused of depriving these workers of their rights?
Did hon. members hear the union leaders and membership screaming for parliament to be called right after the strike occurred? They did not want parliamentary intervention; what they wanted was the collective bargaining system to be given a chance to work. They wanted to meet with the employers all through September and arrive at an agreement, and that is what should have happened. Those of us who believed in free collective bargaining made every possible effort to try to make it work before calling parliament.
All I am saying is that hon. members, such as the hon. member for Hamilton West and others, cannot complain on the one hand that we did not call parliament, which would have deprived these workers of their fundamental rights, and on the other hand say that we should not take away their bargaining rights but let the free collective bargaining system work. You cannot suck and whistle at the same time, but this is exactly what some members of the official opposition are trying to do on this particular issue.
During the course of this debate I have heard more reactionary, anti-labour speeches than I have heard in quite a long time. I was very surprised at how reactionary and anti-labour some hon. members can be in this situation when they hear the reasons why this particular report is justified. I suspect some members were quoting from company proposals and were urging them upon the House. I should like to read one viewpoint, if I may, expressed by one of the companies, the Palliser Wheat Growers. I am quoting their newsletter No. 33 for September, 1974:
As has happened too often in the past, the evertrusting grain grower, watching from the sidelines, will be the big loser. Those providing a service in the grains industry are playing loosely with the producers' livelihood as they endeavour to promote their own vested interest. We are painfully aware that the major costs of any settlement will be borne by the primary producer.
Then listen to this, Mr. Speaker:
We often cite wage settlements and rising prices as the main culprits in inflation; I suggest, however, that a contributing factor is the criminal waste that results from the non-productive use of capital equipment and manpower during the shutdown of an industry. It is unthinkable that responsible leaders in a so-called enlightened society will permit huge investments in ships, railway equipment, buildings, ports, and manpower as well, to stand idle while differences are settled.
I also refer to a report in the Regina Leader-Post headed "Saskatchewan groups want action in grain dispute". It quotes Mr. Nelson in the following terms:
Terming the present labour dispute-
That is a reference to the dispute with the grain companies.
-which has shut down grain exports from Vancouver the "farmer's own little Watergate," Mr. Nelson said grain company officials are guilty of "gross mismanagement and an irresponsible attitude."
There you have what one group thinks about this situation, Mr. Speaker. Also during this debate I have not heard very many members quote what the union has had to say.
October 8, 1974

Since I have heard what others have had to say, namely, the companies, perhaps it would not be out of order to put on the record what Mr. Kanes and the union have had to say, if for no other purpose than simply fundamental fairness. I am quoting from the brief that I believe was sent by local 333 to all members of parliament. Talking about the employers' campaign to discredit the Perry report, they say:
They have completely ignored the issue of parity of wages with the longshoring industry.
The brief goes on:
The grain workers are mindful of inflation as everybody is. But if the employers' argument had any validity the grain workers should not be awarded any increase whatsoever. Even a one-cent an hour increase would be inflationary.
We submit that the employers are raising a red herring, and grasping for public sympathy, when they talk about inflation. A settlement based on the Perry report will be inflationary only if the industry fails to take the necessary steps to increase productivity in grain handling.
The rest of the union's submission sets out in detailed fashion how it is prepared to co-operate in increasing productivity. After all we have heard about this inefficient industry, if the union is prepared to go on record as supporting increased productivity, and it gets co-operation from management in doing so, then this settlement may not be inflationary at all. I suggest we would then see a great increase in productivity.
One has only to trace the history of the negotiations that have taken place between the grain companies and the grain handlers over the past decade to realize why we are faced with this present situation. A history of the 1960's will show that three majority conciliation reports, signed by the chairmen, were rejected by the companies. In 1952 the late Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent in frustration wanted to take over the companies, and I quoted him in that reference. Again at that time it was the chairman's report which was rejected by the companies. We have witnessed an almost uninterrupted series of rejections. There have been settlements in intervening years, but when there has been a rejection of a report made by a third independent party, be it the report of a commissioner or the board chairman, it has been a rejection by the companies.
Is it any wonder that when members ask why we do not have a settlement in this particular situation, the more enlightened ones suggest that we go to the root of the causes of the disasters in management-labour relations in this industry? It is for this reason I have suggested the appointment of an industrial commission.
I have already given some indication of the history of what has happened, and of the efforts that have been expended to get to a settlement. When one goes a step further one must ask himself what other reason there can be for the situation other than the fact that ill will has been festering for years and years in terms of management-labour relations in this industry?
I strongly suspect that if any member of this House put himself into the role of a mediator trying to get a settlement he would like to think there was economic pressure
Grain Handlers' Strike
on both sides to settle. When there is such pressure the likelihood of reaching a settlement is much greater.
Do we have that kind of economic pressure on both sides to this dispute? Certainly the workers were on strike and were not drawing unemployment insurance benefits for five and a half or six weeks, so they were under pressure. What was the situation so far as the companies are concerned? Are they now under pressure? Perhaps if we look at that aspect of the matter we will find the key to why there has been no settlement here.
My friend and colleague, the minister responsible for the Wheat Board, indicated that the losses involved, even the demurrage charges, are not losses to the companies. These costs are passed on ultimately to the farmers. The companies are not paying any of the costs of this particular industrial relations fiasco. What is the pressure on the companies then to settle? I suggest this is a consideration we must take into account.
The companies do not have to pay the costs of this dispute. We now have a sellers' market. It has already been indicated that the companies are not terribly concerned about the employees. Keeping this in mind it is apparent that there is little motivation for the companies to settle. The companies are convinced that sooner or later they will sell the grain they now have on hand. In addition they know they will not have to pay the demurrage, so where is the pressure to settle? Why should they not turn down the report and use the whole thing politically to embarrass the government?
Every time a settlement is suggested the companies are tempted to embarrass the government and ridicule it across the country, even in the face of inflationary circumstances. The companies do not have to accept their responsibilities in arriving at a settlement. They do not even have to justify their actions to a membership, let alone the government. They use the government as an excuse for not accepting their own responsibilities. In addition to that the companies are able to get what I consider to be fairly enlightened members of the official opposition to buy their argument, hook line and sinker, and reiterate it, as they have done for the past two days.
If there is one question that should be asked during this debate it is whether some of these companies know what would be the entire cost of this settlement. I am referring to the cost of the settlement that could have been accepted at any time by the companies knowing full well, as every member of this House knows, that if parliament were recalled to settle the issue it must settle on the basis of other known precedents, and could not require the men to go back to work for anything less than the wage package recommended by the Perry report. I suggest everyone knows that. Everyone knows that there would not have been a settlement based on anything less than what was recommended in that report.
No one with any familiarity with the labour situation on the west coast would expect a settlement based on anything less than what was recommended by the independent third party, with any hope of ratification. Surely members of this House are not so naive as to think otherwise. In full awareness of some of these hypocrisies how can hon. members reiterate the nonsensical and idiotic things that have been said here for the last two days?

October 8, 1974

Grain Handlers' Strike
I suggested earlier that these companies should be asked whether they know what the cost of this settlement would have been. The entire cost of the settlement over the next two-year period would have been $2.5 million. If that is the case, how can these companies justify allowing these demurrage charges, which they will not have to pay, but which the farmers will have to pay, to reach $10 million? Is that an indication of responsibility on the part of the companies? Is it a sign of responsibility on the part of the companies to allow these deplorable employee-employer relationships to develop in this industry? I suggest to hon. members of the official opposition-


Gerald William Baldwin: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


John Carr Munro: I am just about to conclude my remarks, Mr. Speaker.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that we have been very patient. The minister is subject to the same time limitation imposed on other speakers, that is 20 minutes. While we do not mind listening to the hon. minister, when we have to listen to more than 20 minutes of inaccuracies it becomes a bit tedious.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question of time had occurred to me during the course of the minister's remarks, but I was faced with two problems. When the minister gets to his feet members expect that he is closing the debate and there is some question as to whether he is in fact subject to the order. In any event, the order specifically excepts the first speaker for each party, and that includes the minister, so I had some doubt as to whether I should interrupt the minister on the basis of the time limitation, or on the basis of 40 minutes under Standing Order 31. In any event I understand the minister was about to conclude his remarks.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to conclude with these comments. We have heard the arguments of members on both sides. We have listened to innumerable speeches. This is a controversial issue and we certainly have had ample opportunity to express our views. We know the strike is damaging, particularly as it has gone on as long as it has. All I can do is urge all hon. members to send this matter to the committee, where undoubtedly it will be thoroughly considered, it is to be hoped with dispatch, as there is a duty on the part of all of us to end this strike as expeditiously as possible.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. Accordingly the bill is referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
Bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I was paired; had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Let us Albertans know who was paired with the minister. We would pair with him every time just to get rid of him.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I thought I should make it clear to hon. members that the business for tomorrow will be the resumption of the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, the other day I asked the minister whether the federal government was considering cost sharing in respect of beds in chronic nursing homes as it does in the case of active treatment hospitals. It is my belief that the federal government is substantially adding to health costs by not accepting this proposal.
It must be remembered that the federal government brought in the so-called Hospital Insurance and Diagnos-
AcLjournment Debate
tic Services Act in 1957 whereby the federal government shared the cost of the program with the provinces. Each paid roughly about 50 per cent of the cost. At that time one could enter and leave hospital when the doctor felt that treatment so required. There were few if any chronic cases. The only exceptions were mental cases.
Extended health care did not come in until much later, when galloping health costs were swallowing up money faster than it could be budgeted. Hospital costs under the national health plan have risen from $20 per bed per day to $100 per bed per day in a period of about 15 years. In other words, the cost has risen five times in less than 15 years.
Health care costs are increasing at twice the rate of the gross national product. Surely no loopholes should be left unguarded. The cost now in Ontario has reached the astronomical figure of $2 billion. It is estimated, at the present rate, that in ten years it will be over $11 billion.
This could be a serious factor because health care may be cut in a very sensitive area which, in the long run, would cost much more. A patient who goes into an active treatment hospital today may be ready for discharge in two or three weeks. He may be able to return to his home if there is anyone there to care for him, or arrangements may be made for a homemaker to go to his home. The unfortunate thing is that the homemaker remains in the home for eight hours or less a day, which means that the patient is alone for a period of 16 hours unless he has relatives or friends to look after him. This type of home care service is completely inadequate.
What is required is that someone live in the patient's home until the patient has improved sufficiently to look after himself. This is not adequately funded. If a patient at the end of that treatment must go to an after-care facility, or extended care facility, there is a roadblock. In many cases a period of days or weeks expires before such a patient can get accommodation in an extended care bed.
There are not sufficient beds. We must have more facilities of this type. Such facilities could look after chronic cases exceptionally well. The nurses and associated workers become adept at looking after such patients.
Now we hear talk about cutting costs. Here is an ideal place to do it. An active treatment bed costs perhaps as high as $100 per day, while an extended care bed costs $17 per day. A patient could stay for a period of five days in an extended care facility for what it would cost to stay one day in an active treatment bed. In Canada there are nearly 1300 hospitals with 146,000 beds. If a patient could be sent to a health care nursing home, there would be a saving of two days in hospital per patient. This would lower costs and not interfere with the efficiency of care. The proportion of the cost in respect of building homes of this type will become greater and these homes will become more and more crowded as more and more people enter the older age group.
The age group from 65 up is the fastest growing in the country. It is the group that incurs shortened and less acute illness, and more and more chronic vascular disease and degenerative disease. It is to care for those people with adequate facilities that we must prevent cut-backs. To cut back would be a retrograde step in the health field.

October 8, 1974
Adjournment Debate
The minister has accepted responsibilities in respect of some extended care facilities, and I now ask him to accept his responsibilities in providing health care not only for the acutely ill but for the chronically ill, that is, all those requiring extended care. Then he will have accepted the principle that surely is fundamental: that the most serious thing of all to any person is a long drawn out illness, often without hope of rehabilitation. It is for those people that I make this plea tonight.


Miss Coline Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) that the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) is well known in this House when it comes to matters of health. It is a pleasure for me to reply to such a notable health critic.
The government is well aware of the matter of rising health costs. It is aware of the way in which the present cost sharing programs encourage the continued use of high cost services, such as active treatment beds, when services like nursing homes or home care programs might well suffice. It is for this reason that the federal government proposed at the federal-provincial conference of ministers of health in May, 1973, a health cost financing formula.
The formula recognized the need to afford to provinces a greater flexibility in the determination of their priorities, as well as recognizing the importance of creating the incentive and the means to rationalize the health care system as a whole. At that time the provinces did not commit themselves to this formula, pending further study. It now appears that the provinces do not accept the proposed formula. The federal government is awaiting new proposals on the alternative solutions they would suggest.
The hon. member is aware that sharing in the cost of nursing home care is available under the Canada Assistance Plan where care is provided to persons in need. The department announced in February, 1974, that the government would be prepared to continue sharing where provinces choose to introduce programs based on the universal availability of the benefit. A measure to this effect is expected to be introduced this session to authorize such sharing in respect to the provinces of Ontario, Manitoba and Alberta, which have, to date, introduced universal nursing home care programs.


TRANSPORT-ALLEGED ACTION OF LAURENTIAN PILOTAGE AUTHORITY CHANGING BASIS FOR PILOT'S CERTIFICATE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Madam Speaker, on October 2, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marc-hand)-who has been good enough to remain here this evening and I want to thank him for that-in answer to my question on when the Desjardins report commissioned by him pursuant to section 14(5) of the Pilotage Act would be made public, replied "-as soon as we complete its study".
That is fair enough, Madam Speaker, but while this study is proceeding there are a few more questions that I hope will be taken under advisement and answered by the minister.

First and foremost, why has the government in its wisdom given the pilotage authorities the complete and total power to regulate the issuance of pilotage certificates? If you stop to examine the logic here, it makes as much sense as designing a parachute which will open on impact.
Without in any way blaming the Laurentian Pilotage Authority, which after all will naturally do its best to extend its influence, it must be remembered that the pilotage authorities in this country set examination standards, conduct examinations, and have complete and total control over whether a certificate is issued. It is obvious and elementary that it is not in the interests of a pilotage authority to issue great numbers of pilotage certificates. The issuance of each certificate reduces the income of the pilots in the area in question. I would ask the minister to change this rather extraordinary situation by making the necessary statutory amendments.
The next question I ask is: why did the Laurentian Pilotage Authority take the step it did in changing the basis for issuing pilotage certificates? Was this a quid pro quo, or an inducement, or one of the reasons for their settling the labour dispute last spring? I hope not, because such a suggestion would have cynical overtones.
Further to this line of reasoning, which I hope is not correct, can it be that the unusual conditions implicit in the Desjardin inquiry are designed to expedite the acceptance of the amendment? I say this because two of the conditions are somewhat unusual. For instance, condition No. 2 says:
The investigation shall not be subject to the customary rules of evidence nor need evidence be taken under oath.
As a lawyer I find that strange. Condition No. 3 specifies that:
The investigation shall not be conducted by means of public hearings but, on the contrary, through the investigation and examinations of those persons whom the said investigator deems possessed of evidence relevant to the subject matter and whose evidence should be examined in the public interest.
Another important issue concerns the opinion written by Professor W. R. Lederman, Professor of Law at Queen's University. Professor Lederman is a nationally recognized constitutional expert. In his opinion what is being proposed is unconstitutional.
Let me also ask this question. Does the proposed amendment help in any meaningful way to improve the safety, efficiency or economy of marine transportation. I believe the sooner these and other questions are answered, the better it will be for all concerned.
I want to see the Laurentian Pilotage Authority do well. I was one of those who supported their bid for parity with their west coast brethren in the Pacific coast pilotage authority when they encountered difficulty last spring in labour negotiations. There is an important issue at stake. The rights of others are involved, as well as the efficiency of our transportation system. The determination of those rights may depend on the contents of the Desjardin report.
I urge the minister, because of the importance of this matter, to begin this new session of parliament on a
October 8, 1974

constructive note. Let him bring this report forward quickly and deal with it.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, that is rather unfortunate, but not as much as I wish to indicate, since we will undoubtedly have the opportunity of discussing further this important matter regarding language use in navigation of the Laurentian section of the St. Lawrence. To my mind, the question asked is important.

This is an important question and I do not intend to minimize it. I think it is a pity that I must discuss it in the few minutes available to me. I hope to have another opportunity to undertake a deep discussion of the matter.
I think the main problem here concerns security. We are not discussing the problem of language. Security is the main thing. That is what Mr. Desjardins deals with extensively in his report, which we should read as well as study.
Of course many languages are spoken on earth, Chinese, Russian, English, French, Spanish-


Steve Eugene Paproski: And Ukranian.


Jean Marchand: Yes, and Ukranian. We are discussing navigation. We are not opening up discussion on the Official Languages Act in Canada. I would not like to distort this discussion by suggesting that my hon. friend is trying to put this subject on the table again.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I never mentioned it.


Jean Marchand: No, I am sure the hon. member did not. I just want to be sure that that is not the case. Really, security is important. That is what Mr. Desjardins said.
I do not personally know Mr. Desjardins. I do know that he wrote his report in English. I am told he is much more fluent in English than in French. I do not blame him for that because many people in North America are more fluent in English than in French. This is nothing new. The reason I underlined that is because I am sure Mr. Desjardins is not a fanatic of some kind who wants to impose French on everybody. That is not so.
We will have to find an opportunity to discuss his point of view very objectively after the witnesses have been heard. He does not think that security is completely at stake. That is what we must look into.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: I regret to interrupt the hon. minister, but his time has expired.


Jean Marchand: I think I have stated the problem.

I would hope that we will be able to discuss the matter. I think it was worth raising the problem tonight. It was not done meanly, but rather because it matters greatly to the pilots on the St. Lawrence as well as to the other pilots. I
Adjournment Debate
wish we will have the opportunity of considering whether it is really the best solution for the Canadian people.


RESEARCH-NEED FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDS IN MEDICAL FIELD-NUMBER OF SCIENTISTS LEAVING CANADA BECAUSE OF LACK OF FUNDS
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, the matter I bring to the adjournment debate this evening is one of mounting urgency and importance. I thank the minister for the tone of his reply when I asked him yesterday if he had been able to find the additional $2.5 million for the Medical Research Council since his undertaking to try to do so earlier this year. However, I also want to say how profoundly disappointed I was with the content of his response, that he had not been successful in his efforts.
The amount we are talking about, $2.5 million, is not large when one considers that the departments' overall budget is almost $5 billion. However, it is an extremely critical amount, not only to our scientific community but in determining the future standard of health care for all Canadians.
Earlier this year there was considerable discussion in committee and testimony provided by expert witnesses to substantiate the crying need for additional funding in medical research. At that time it was stated, and I quote:
Since a nation's health is basic to its economy, biomedical science policies should be the concern of every Canadian. The presence of a crisis in a small area of government concern which may have a very large effect on our nation should be recognized now before matters go beyond a state of repair.
The plea was made to abandon the on-again, off-again style of nourishing research in Canada. Economists are agreed that any viable industry spends about 4.5 per cent on basic and marketing research. The biomedical sciences are not even asking for 2 per cent of its industry's budget. They are pleading against further erosion.
The government's decision to grant only a small increase in last year's budget to MRC and subsequently to hold the line on this year's figure has not only deprived medical research of a realistic increase in funds, but as well subjected existing funds to serious erosion by twodigit inflation. The situation was deemed critical by many concerned Canadians last spring, and the intervening months have seen a continuing deterioration.
In June a joint statement was issued by the Canadian Society for Clinical Investigation, the Canadian Federation of Biological Societies and the Association of Canadian Medical Colleges which pointed out, and I quote:
In some medical schools, research programs in clinical departments are shrinking or closing down entirely because, in the absence of council support, they have no source of funds. Potential researchers are discouraged from entering upon a research career and the continuance of research activities by existing medical scientists is threatened.
Since then numerous representations have been made to me pointing out that certain projects are grinding to a halt because mounting inflation makes it impossible to absorb increased costs from funds made available even earlier this year.

October 8, 1974
Adjournment Debate
Recently the Medical Research Council announced that it does not have adequate funds to support the project of a computerized pancreas, a project which has potential benefit for thousands of Canadian diabetics.
The greatest potential for disaster in the government's niggardly commitment to medical research is its impact on young graduates contemplating research careers. Last year only one per cent of the graduating class in one of our leading medical schools planned to enter a career in biomedical research and teaching, as compared with 10 per cent as recently as 1969. The appalling attrition in recruitment for medical research is understandable, given the vulnerability of the future of medical research, but it can have disastrous consequences for future generations of Canadians.
I plead with the minister and his colleagues to remove the constraints which were placed on medical research earlier this year, and to ensure that future budgets will include a constant dollar application and a realistic and guaranteed percentage of total health costs for research.


Coline M. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, on October 7, in reply to a question asked by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) undertook to determine whether such a study had been carried out.
Inquiries were made and, as far as can be determined, no study has been undertaken or is under way to attempt to tabulate the number of medical scientists who have left Canada to pursue their research in another country.
Even if this number were to be known, the reasons which led these individuals to decide to leave would, of course, be difficult to determine. Further, in order to balance the books one would have to determine the numbers who have come to Canada and their reasons for doing so. Personally I do not think that the number of medical scientists who have left Canada because they felt their research would receive better support in another country, and for whom this was a major reason for their decision to emigrate, has been significant. However, as I have said, no serious attempts appear to have been made to determine this number, nor do I think there is any practical way of determining the motives of those who may have left.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I should like to repeat the minister's undertaking to seek out any funds which may be surplus to existing programs in his department so that he may transfer them to the Medical Research Council before the end of the fiscal year.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. The motion to adjourn this House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.36 p.m.

Wednesday, October 9, 1974