1974-10-07

REGULATIONS AND OTHER STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS


Mr. Speaker:: Order. In view of the special order passed last Friday, the Chair feels that the orders of the day, as published on page 7 of the order paper, should be modified and read as follows:
1.	Questions on Order Paper.
2.	Oral Questions.
3.	Government Orders.
4.	Address Debate.
5.	Private members' business (From 5 to 6 p.m.)
In addition, at ten o'clock this evening, debate could be held on the motion for adjournment.
Balfour
B^chard
Brewin
Fox
Messrs.
Marceau McCleave Poulin Robinson
Hnatyshyn La prise Lawrence MacGuigan
Your Committee also recommends that the Members to serve on the Joint Committee on the direction of the Parliamentary Restaurant be as follows:
Messrs.
Allard B6gin (Miss) Crouse Gauthier (Ottawa Vanier) Gilbert Guay
(St. Boniface)
Isabelle
Langlois
Lumley
McKinley
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Neil
Paproski
Roberts
Roy
(Laval)
Schumacher
Skoreyko
Stewart
(Cochrane)
Stollery



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council)
presented the second report of the special committee appointed to prepare and report lists of members to compose the standing committees of the House, in both official languages, as follows:

[Stage Direction]
And your Committee also recommends that a Message be sent to the Senate requesting that House to unite with this House in the formation of the Joint Committees on Printing, the Library of Parliament, Regulations and other Statutory Instruments and the direction of the Parliamentary Restaurant and that the Members to serve on each of the said Committees on the part of this House will be as contained in this report.
Mr. Sharp moved: that the report be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
	Messrs.	
Bussteres	Lapointe	O'SullivanCondon	MacDonald	PinardDaudlin	(Egmont)	ReidDe Ban£	MacKay	RocheFortin	Maine	SymesJelinek	Mitges	TessierLachance Lambert	Nicholson (Miss)	Wenman
(Edmonton West)

[Stage Direction]
*
*

[Stage Direction]
Messrs.
Allard
Andres
(Lincoln)
Appolloni (Mrs.) Clarke
(Vancouver Quadra). Daudlin Ellis Epp
Forrestall Francis Grafftey Holt (Mrs.) Loiselle (Chambly) Maine Marshall Parent
Patterson
Pelletier
(Sherbrooke)
Pinard
Raines
Reid
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Symes
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask permission of the House to move a motion under Standing Order 43 seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie) that:
In view of English being the language of international marine communication, the House instructs the government, and in particular the Department of Transport, to take all necessary action toward preventing the Crown corporation known as the Laurentian Pilotage Authority, from making any attempts to institute a bilingual requirement for pilots on ships in the St. Lawrence seaway.

October 7, 1974
Business of the House


Mr. Speaker:: The House heard the motion presented pursuant to Standing Order 43 which requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent to receive the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


SUGGESTED NEED FOR IMPROVED TRACK MAINTENANCE BY RAILWAYS-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to propose a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. This matter is the disclosure in the third report of the Railway Transport Committee of the Canadian Transport Commission that derailments on the CNR and CPR in 1972 were triple the 1959 derailments and double the 1969 derailments; and that deaths and injuries from these derailments can only accelerate. The Transport Board proposes to reduce load weights and load heights, thus so further decreasing the performance record of these railways, "unless improved programs and standards of track maintenance are immediately undertaken to eliminate the causes of such derailments." I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall):
That this House, under its powers in the Railway Act, urges the government to order the CNR and the CPR forthwith to institute improved programs and standards of track maintenance so that these railways will fulfil their subsidized function of serving the Canadian public in a safe and efficient manner.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the motion proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43 which requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin):
That, during the debate on the motion for second reading of the bill intituled 'An Act to provide for the resumption of grain handling operations on the west coast of Canada', no member except for the first representative of each party shall speak for more than 20 minutes.

And that the House shall not adjourn this day until the second reading stage of the said bill shall have been disposed of.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion. Is this agreed?


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge there have been discussions about the first part of the motion, namely, that speeches after the first round shall be limited to 20 minutes each. We have indicated our readiness to agree to that proposal, but I know of no conclusive discussions on the proposal that we sit without time limit beyond ten o'clock.


Mr. Woolliams:: Don't you want to end the strike?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, of course, and we are prepared to take a vote at ten o'clock or even as late as eleven o'clock I suggest that the motion be revised, and that the part limiting speeches to 20 minutes after the first round be agreed to now, but that the question of whether we shall sit beyond ten o'clock be left for further consultation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We must be perfectly clear. The motion cannot be put without unanimous consent. This does not involve any question of coming to an agreement. The motion cannot be put in its present form without the unanimous agreement of the House. Is it agreed that the motion be put now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, Mr. Speaker. We think this should be the subject of further consultation.


Mr. Speaker:: Then, if there is not unanimous consent, the motion in its present form cannot be put. Perhaps at the end of the question period I may inquire whether the latter part of the motion could be deleted. It might then be put.


Mr. Baldwin:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, perhaps while members of the NDP are making up their minds about how long they want to talk in this debate, we could agree now on limiting speeches to 20 minutes. Could there not be an order of the House limiting speeches, after the first speakers on behalf of the government and the main opposition party have spoken, to 20 minutes. That would give the other parties a chance to consider this issue.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Social Credit party are in total agreement with the first part of the motion. But, in view of the fact that similar situations were not settled to the advantage of the parliamentarians, I feel the last part of the motion should be set aside and discussed more fully before being passed.


Mr. Speaker:: To be quite clear, does the House agree to the following motion:
That, during the debate on the motion for second reading of the bill intituled 'An Act to provide for the resumption of grain handling operations on the west coast of Canada', no Member except for the first representative of each party shall speak for more than 20 minutes.
October 7, 1974


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-12, to provide for the resumption of grain handling operations on the west coast of Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


NORTHERN CANADA POWER COMMISSION ACT
Hon. Jean Chretien (for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-13, to amend the Northern Canada Power Commission Act.


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

Mitchell William Sharp: to introduce Bill C-14, intituled "An Act to incorporate the Federal Business Development Bank".


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

Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: to introduce Bill C-15, intituled "An Act respecting oil and gas in Indian lands".


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Alexander:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I notice that the bill to be introduced by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) has been approved for second read-
Oral Questions
ing. After having made some inquiries as to whether it is possible that the bill be distributed at this time, I wonder whether in fact this could be expedited for the benefit of all hon. members.


Mr. Speaker:: We were concerned about that. I understand steps have been taken to distribute copies of the bill forthwith.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of Finance whether he is participating in the series of consultations with the principal groups in our society with regard to defeating inflation, as mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. Is the minister participating in those consultations?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


FORM AND PURPOSE OF CONSULTATIONS WITH INTERESTED GROUPS ON PROPOSALS TO FIGHT INFLATION
Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance what is the structure of the consultations in which he is participating and whether he is putting forward specific proposals, for example to strike a fair balance between wages, prices and profits in the economy. What is the structure, what is the form of the consultations, and what does the minister intend to propose?


John Napier Turner: The hon. gentleman was good enough to quote from the speech I made in Vancouver. I can tell him that at the moment the structure of the consultations is informal. When they reach a more concrete form, either I or the Prime Minister will define it on a future occasion.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In the light of the speech the minister made in Vancouver to which he has referred-


John Napier Turner: To which you referred!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Well, we both referred to it. I should like to ask the minister whether the purpose of his consultations is to achieve an agreement which would constitute some kind of guidelines. Is that the purpose of the consultations? Or is it all a deep secret-merely a move to cover up confusion and ignorance on the part of the government and to buy time?


John Napier Turner: The government's policy has been clear enough to ensure it a new mandate

October 7, 1974
Oral Questions
before this parliament. As to the nature of the consultations, that policy has been laid forth taking into account the new aspects of inflation which, as the hon. gentleman will recognize, have become more severe. I refer to adverse crop conditions in this country and elsewhere and the prolonged resistance of commodity prices in reflecting the downturn in the economy of some of the major countries in the world, added to the quadrupling of oil prices. All this means that inflation is more embedded and its solution will mean a more protracted effort on the part of this country, as well as other countries, than any country had anticipated six months ago.
In this context I am putting the facts forward-as are the Prime Minister and others of my colleagues-to the various components of the economy to see whether we can, on the basis of the policy we are advancing, reach a consensus as to the best way of dealing with the situation.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the right hon. gentleman's agreement last week to consider the proposal put forward on behalf of the New Democratic Party by the hon. member for Winnipeg North, namely, to nationalize the United Aircraft Company whose workers have been on strike for about nine months now, is the Prime Minister in a position today to inform the House what the government intends to do about this important question?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Not today, but I should like to point out that as a matter of principle I shall consider all suggestions put to me seriously by members of the other parties; it is in that spirit I said I would consider the proposition put forward by a member of the hon. gentleman's own party. It would obviously be a mistake to assume that every time I consider a suggestion it will be carried out in practice.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the Prime Minister that I am under no illusions about the latter point. Given the government's own activities in the aircraft field, specifically referring to de Havilland in Toronto, given the fact that the conditions provided the workers in that industry in Toronto will remain even better than those at United Aircraft if the workers on strike there have their demands met, and also given the government's development of, and plans for, the STOL industry, which has obvious implications for integrating these two companies, would the Prime Minister give the House the assurance that, whether or not he takes what I regard as the right course of action, by the end of this week he will tell us what the government plans to do one way or the other?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if I followed the intent of the question correctly, the answer is that I will not accept that particular suggestion. It is not the policy or the

practice of the government to attempt to solve labour disputes within provincial jurisdictions by taking over companies.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby may ask a final supplementary.


John Edward Broadbent: Just a final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. To clarify the situation for the Prime Minister, I was not suggesting that he solve labour disputes by taking over the industry. I was raising the economic question of integrating two firms, one by the government of Canada and the other by a firm in the United States, in order to fulfil certain economic objectives that the government itself has stated it wants to fulfil.
The question that I am asking the Prime Minister is an economic one. To facilitate that objective of the government, would the government consider taking this course of action so as to carry out its own program?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is repeating very much the substance of the question that I answered the other day. I want to make clear that it should not be inferred from that answer that we will settle labour problems by any form of nationalization.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare.
A bill will shortly be introduced to grant old age pensions to wives who are 60 years old. I receive many letters from female senior citizens who want to know if those who are widows will be included in the bill granting a pension to all women aged 60 and over.


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, as the minister responsible for the status of women, I should like to point out to the hon. member that this bill does not apply only to the wives, but to any spouse aged between 60 and 65 who needs assistance. The purpose of the bill is clearly stated. This legislation will apply only to the spouse and will obviously not apply in cases where one of the spouses is not yet 65 years old.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary.
If one of the spouses is dead, would this mean that the surviving spouse who is 60 years old will not be entitled to the benefit of this new social legislation? If the spouse will not be entitled to this pension, how will she be treated and how can she be respected as a human being?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, if the spouse over 65 years old is dead, the survivor is called a widower or a widow and not a spouse and will not be covered by this legislation. In this case, the answer would lie in the guaranteed

income plan about which we are agreed and a supplementary income plan for those who can earn a living.


David Réal Caouette: A last supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
When the minister talks about a guaranteed annual income does he mean that he will copy the Social Credit-ers' program?


Marc Lalonde: Heaven forbid, Mr. Speaker.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In light of the Prime Minister's statement after the election that the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs had been instructed to monitor retail stores to ensure that the reduction in the federal sales tax on clothing and footwear is passed on to consumers, I wonder whether the minister would briefly inform the House what action in this regard has been taken to date.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Officials of my department have already met with representatives of private industry. Within a few days I shall send a letter to the presidents of all companies involved. I wish to assure the House that some work is being done in that regard. I announced that a complete report on that matter will be submitted to the Minister of Finance before the end of the year.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, am I to understand then that so far there has been no monitoring by the department itself in this respect?


André Ouellet: There has been some already, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. dames A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question supplementary to that posed by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham. Are officers of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs actually monitoring the retail trade in Canada to ensure that the tax decreases on clothing and footwear are in fact being passed on to the consumer?


André Ouellet: The answer is yes. Such work, the matter of more than a single day, has begun and will extend over a period of weeks. Interested companies were asked to supply information and figures, in order to check that this decrease is indeed passed on. As soon as the work is
Oral Questions
completed, a report will be submitted to the Minister of Finance. I expect this will take place at the end of the year.


TRANSPORT
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the very serious difficulties in conducting the coroner's inquest at Frobisher Bay into a tragic accident a couple of years ago, would the Minister of Transport give some indication as to whether he will now, at the earliest possible opportunity, introduce legislation separating from the regulatory body the responsibility for investigation in respect of transportation accidents in Canada and other related safety procedures and matters?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I hope we can do this during this present session.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the statement by the previous Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs that stage two of the governments so-called competition legislation would likely be introduced by the end of this year, could the minister indicate to the House if that is still the schedule, and when does he plan to introduce the legislation?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, evidently when my predecessor spoke about that schedule, he was not taking into consideration a general election this summer. I have already announced that before proceeding with stage two of that legislation, there would be some intensive consultations with the parties concerned. With my parliamentary secretary and some officials of my department I will be meeting those concerned before the second stage which will surely not be completed before the end of this year.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same minister. With unemployment being projected for this time next year at 7.8 per cent, and with prices along with interest rates continuing to soar, will the minister indicate whether he plans to introduce legislation which will lessen rather than add to the regulatory harassment of business, especially of small businessmen in Canada, in order that businessmen in general can get on with creating jobs and productivity in the hope that prices will come down as a consequence?
28305-1 1

October 7, 1974
Oral Questions


André Ouellet: I do not see any relation between the premises of the hon. member's comments and his conclusions. It is essential, Mr. Speaker, to have a bill granting Canada a really fair and efficient competition. It is extremely important to have such a legislation on competition which will really protect small companies.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Finance, and I should like to welcome him back in order that he may answer some domestic questions. In view of the fact that economists now predict an unemployment rate of nearly 8 per cent for early 1975, which will result in the loss of billions of dollars in productivity in Canada, is it his intention before his budget to announce new proposals which will turn around the anticipated increase in unemployment?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, without accepting the import of the preamble to the hon. gentleman's question, what I have to say will be said on budget night. I would caution the hon. gentleman if he thinks that domestic problems in this country can be solved outside the international context.


FINANCE
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, in view of layoffs in the lumber industry, particularly in British Columbia and Quebec, along with recent declines in housing starts, does the minister now intend to instruct banks and financial institutions to lower their mortgage rates in respect of new residential housing in this country?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I think I have answered that question on several occasions, particularly in response to the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby, who now enjoys the position of leader of his party.


RESEARCH
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, in light of the commitment of the Minister of National Health and Welfare in the committee on April 4 of this year to do everything he could to provide the

medical research council with additional funding in the order of $2.5 million this year, can he now advise the House whether he has yet found the funding required or, failing that, what progress he has made to date to locate this very necessary amount of money?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I have to answer the hon. member that I have not yet found the funds she mentioned but, as I did in April, I will continue to do my best to locate them somewhere.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, could the minister advise the House whether there has been a tabulation of the number of Canadian medical scientists who have been forced to leave Canada this year to carry on their research elsewhere because of the lack of funds available through the medical research council?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, at least to my knowledge, no such study has been made. There are difficulties in assessing the causes why, in specific cases, scientists choose to move. I will inquire whether such a study has been made and try to get that information.


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the statement yesterday by the Minister of State for Urban Affairs about trade-offs in respect of green spaces in Canadian cities, will he inform the House how this trade-off principle will affect specifically the experimental farm in the city of Ottawa and the greenbelt surrounding it, and indicate whether the government is now actively planning to intrude development into these areas?


Hon. Barnett J. Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I was just speaking about the general picture in Canada, trying to make people aware of the necessary considerations we have in attempting to deal with growth in our cities. Certainly, the city of Ottawa in particular has to be treated with special sensitivity. There will be further discussions on this subject before the special joint committee of the House and Senate announced in the Speech from the Throne, and in respect of other reports which are forthcoming. This will give us ample opportunity to deal with the member's concerns, which I share.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, in view of the importance of the matter, as recognized by the minister, would he be prepared to make a statement on motions at the earliest opportunity to clarify what he and the government mean in respect of the diminution of the very precious green spaces in the urban areas of this country?
October 7, 1974

Oral Questions URBAN AFFAIRS


Barnett Jerome Danson: First of all, Mr. Speaker, this government means business. There will be ample opportunity to discuss the area of the national capital before the committee. I do not think it necessary to make a statement on motions. This is an ongoing discussion with provincial and municipal officials as well as other people in Canada. Certainly, we have to treat this with great sensitivity, and I put as high a priority on parks and recreation as on any other element in the housing field.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister who has just taken his seat. I am sure he is very anxious to get on with his job of providing more housing, and I will co-operate with him in that regard. I should like to ask him to please keep his hot little hands off any open spaces that exist in the city of Halifax.


HOUSING
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, but first may I say that on Sunday a new television star was born.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I should like to ask the minister what special program he has in mind to either lower or subsidize interest rates for builders on conventional mortgages-and I hope he heard the phrase "conventional mortgages"-in an effort to increase housing construction. On television he admitted there was a housing problem. When I posed this question on October 2 he mixed that up with the Assisted Home Ownership Program. I hope he will now answer my question directly regarding conventional mortgages to developers.


Barnett Jerome Danson: The interest rates are not a phenomenon created by this government or in existence only in this country. Governments do not set interest rates in a vacuum; they respond responsibly. We certainly have and intend to take care of those most in need to the best of our abilities. The AHOP Program has been extremely successful. We cannot manufacture artificial interest rates for special groups but we can when we recognize a subsidy as a subsidy, and we provide it where it is most needed to get the most value for the taxpayers' money.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


LAND DEVELOPMENT-CONTROL BY GENSTAR LIMITED, CALGARY-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In the light of those facts, and in the light of the fact that we are trying to get the cost of housing down for the average Canadian, may I ask now whether the minister discussed with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs the matter of Genstar Limited, a company which now controls more than 60 firms in Canada and is developing major centres, and particularly in reference to the city of Calgary regarding which there is now a confidential report showing that the firm controls the major development of that city and owns the land surrounding it. Has the minister discussed with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs reporting the matter to the combines investigation branch?


Barnett Jerome Danson: I have not discussed it specifically with the minister. I have asked for a report from my own officials after I read the report in this morning's paper, but I am sure that if the hon. member will have his colleagues co-operate in the passage of the Combines Investigation Act, we will have more opportunity to deal with these situations.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the hon. Minister of Agriculture.
In view of a considerable increase in production costs in the dairy industry, particularly in recent months, will the minister tell the House whether the government's dairy policy will be revised soon and whether subsidies will be raised to reflect higher production costs?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the National Dairy Commission, the dairy industry and dairy producers are working on the development of a national dairy policy in this country. With regard to what the hon. member has stated about input costs, we are aware of the input costs to which dairy farmers are being subjected, but I am not prepared to state what, if any, extra subsidy to dairy farmers will be granted at this time.


FINANCE
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, while the Minister of Finance was in Washington attending a most important conferences last week, it was reported here in Canada that housing starts were down drastically, so I wish to put the following question to the
28305 - 1 l'/i

October 7, 1974
Oral Questions
minister. Is he seriously considering giving incentives to encourage home ownership in Canada?


John Napier Turner: We encouraged those in the last budget which the hon. gentleman's party succeeded in defeating but which the people of Canada reinstated.


An hon. Member:: Not yet.


John Napier Turner: There were further commitments from the Prime Minister during the election campaign, and I am in constant touch with my new colleague, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, as to how to achieve the results which I am sure the hon. gentleman wants to have achieved.


TRANSPORT
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I have a brief question for the Minister of Transport. Keeping in mind that railway accidents are continuing to increase in this country and in every year since 1969 at least 1,200 railway employees have been injured and approximately 20 killed in the performance of their duties, what steps does the minister propose to take as the responsible minister to bring an end to these conditions and to force the railways to improve safety programs? I hope that in his answer the minister will not bring in the old chestnut and refer to the CTC.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think that the CTC-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, as you know we are conducting an inquiry each time there is an accident. I know that many members of this House have complained about the efficiency of the system within the department, not only with regard to train accidents but with regard to other accidents as well. I hope we will have a more efficient set up. I do not know whether it will decrease the number of accidents, because of course no country has succeeded in doing that in the past, but I hope we can improve our record.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Following the labour dispute at the Saint-Hilaire sugar refinery, the management has sent to the sugar beet producers of the region a letter advising them to stop harvest-

ing for the time being, and consequently some 25 million pounds of sugar may be lost. What step does the minister intend to take and how does he intend to proceed with the help of his colleague, the Minister of Agriculture so as to protect the interests of both producers and consumers?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take notice of this question. I will hasten to give it consideration and reply soon to the hon. member.


ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL SUGAR POLICY
Claude Wagner: I would like to put a supplementary to the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Speaker.
Following the numerous requests already received in this connection, can the minister assure the House of the government's intention to draft a national sugar policy in Canada, a policy based upon adequate tariff protection and upon a production quota provided to sugar beet producers?


Eugene Whelan: I
answered that question last week at which time I said I would be submitting a paper to my colleagues very shortly.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Peter C. Bawden (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to congratulate the Postmaster General on his new appointment. My question to him is as follows. In view of the shambles existing in the Post Office, and in particular the recent mail test conducted by the Calgary Herald which showed that 86 per cent of letters and parcels mailed from Calgary to points across Canada arrived late or not at all, will the minister tell the House what steps he has taken to provide a proper mail service which Canadians and especially Canadian businesses badly need?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: I accept the hon. gentleman's kind words but not his allegation. The postal code is in extensive existence in only two locations, one is Calgary and the other Ottawa. It is an admitted fact that there have been some problems in the city of Calgary which I think will straighten themselves out. However, I must warn the House that the introduction of any form of automation in an organization as large as the Post Office is bound to have some disruptive effects, and that is what we are trying to straighten out.
October 7, 1974


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Peter Colwell Bawden: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the shockingly bad mail service being provided to the consumers of Canada, would the minister tell the House whether he will take steps to prevent further misleading advertising by the Post Office which advises Canadians that assured mail service will provide next day delivery to designated locations in Canada?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I can assure all Canadian consumers that, in spite of the hon. member's remarks, the Canadian postal service, when compared with those of other countries, ranks among the best.

# (1450)


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Transport. Recently the minister indicated that the government soon intends to introduce far reaching reforms to greatly improve passenger service on our railways. Those reforms will cost a great deal of money. Would the minister undertake to get them started now at no cost to anybody by asking the President of the CNR to ensure that air conditioning in railway cars works regularly instead of spasmodically as it does now when people arrive at their destination exhausted after travelling in 85 degree temperatures? Would he also ask him to provide meals to the point where they have some slight resemblance to the excellent meals that used to be served on railway dining cars?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I am going to forward the hon. member's personal request to the president of the CNR.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. What action is his department going to take to settle the long standing jurisdictional dispute over the ownership of the tow path along the Grand River which has irritated the Six Nations Indians for far too long?
Oral Questions


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for advising me of his question. I have looked into the matter and discovered that the answer will require a considerable amount of research in the archives. I expect to have the information later this week and will make it available then.


EXTENSION OF PIPELINE FROM SARNIA TO MONTREAL-DATE OF COMPLETION-CONTINGENCY PLANS IN EVENT OF OIL SHORTAGE
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Since last year at this time it was thought extremely urgent that Canada should build an extension of the pipeline from Sarnia to Montreal can the minister, in spite of the predictions at that time, now advise the House when tenders are going to be called? Can he also advise the new projected date of completion and give the House any other factual information he has at this time?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may not be aware that the construction of pipelines in Canada is covered by the National Energy Board Act. An application has been submitted to the board by Interprovincial Pipe Lines but with the intervention of the province of Quebec the hearing was adjourned until a new right of way could be worked out. This has been done and the hearing will recommence on October 9. It is expected that if the decision of the board in that case is favourable, construction may commence either in the balance of this fall or the early spring, to be completed in early 1976 or mid-1976.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, was the date 1976 or 1977?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the original date was the fall of 1975 but because of the intervention of Quebec it is now mid-1976.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In the event of certain conditions being applied this winter as they may have applied last winter, does the government have any contingency plan ready so that if there is an interruption in the delivery of offshore oil the people of eastern Canada will not suffer a shortage?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, last year the House created the Energy Supplies Allocation Board which is in the process of developing a contingency plan in case there is a fresh embargo by some or all of the oil producing nations.

Oral Questions SOCIAL SECURITY


SUGGESTED GRANTING OF OLD AGE PENSION AT AGE 55
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for my erudite and honourable friend the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In reference to his welcome adoption of my party's policy of extending pensions and allowances to spouses of OAS pensioners who themselves have not reached 65 years of age, would the minister now consider adopting the rest of our policy and having such eligibility begin at 55 rather than 60 years of age?


Marc Lalonde: I am pleased to welcome the return of my honourable friend to the House and to advise him that his proposal will interest me on condition that he extend the coverage to citizens who are 45 years of age.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. In light of recent statements by the four western premiers calling for help to stabilize the beef industry in western Canada and Canada as a whole, how is the minister responding to the suggestion that a 50 per cent sharing of aid may be implemented by the federal government in conjunction with the provincial governments or that a $100 per head advance payment be made to farmers engaged in cow-calf operations?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, first and foremost we feel that the beef industry is a national problem and will be dealt with on a national basis. We feel that the request has certain merits and consultations are taking place with provincial authorities of every province, I believe, at our headquarters at the Sir John Carling Building and it is hoped that a workable program will be found to salvage the beef industry.


BEEF CATTLE-PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF IMPORT QUOTA BY UNITED STATES-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. In view of the fact that Canada's calf crop will not find space in feed lots throughout the nation, and in light of the fact that the Americans have said they would impose an import tax on beef from Canada, how is the minister responding to that and what action does he propose in order to protect Canadian farmers?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I think the action we have taken to protect Canadian farmers is the reason the American authorities are suggesting that they will take the action reported in the press. We have heard nothing more officially from the

United States than you have seen in the press. We have been in contact with them as late as Friday and the United States government had made no decision at that time. I do not know if we have been in contact with them today.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. May I ask the rationale for the fact that in the remote areas of the north during the recent Russia-Canada hockey series, the games broadcast by CTV were also shown on CBC stations?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I will have to look into that.


REQUEST FOR INCREASE IN INITIAL PRICE AND ASSURANCE
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. Due to the fact that the initial price of grain sold to the Canadian Wheat Board is far below the price being quoted for domestic feed grains, when will the minister or the Canadian Wheat Board be making an announcement that the initial price of grain sold to the Wheat Board will be substantially increased?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, we are giving consideration to the question of revising the initial price, even though the normal policy would be to set prices for the whole year. I should like to say that I hope members will help in the cause by pointing out to farmers that it is the full value of the grain that counts and not the initial price. Even if we raise the initial price, that should not be the only relevant consideration in judging whether to sell to the Wheat Board or to the off-board grain market.


Thomas Gordon Towers: A supplementary question. Will the minister give his assurance that after Canada's domestic requirements are met, this government will not interfere with the Wheat Board sales policy in a manner similar to the action taken by the United States in its recent sales of grain to Russia?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I can assure hon. members that because of the operation of the Canadian Wheat Board in the export of wheat and barley there is never any danger in this country of sales being made which have to be cancelled.

Oral Questions


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Do the terms of reference given by the minister to Dr. Noel Hall include all aspects of railway pensions, both Canadian National and Canadian Pacific, and can the minister say whether there is any indication as to how long it will be before Dr. Hall makes his report?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, if my recollection is correct, the terms of reference given to Dr. Noel Hall were very wide indeed. As to the second part of the hon. member's question, I believe the report will take another two or three months. It is going to require some considerable time yet to complete it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. Pending receipt of the report from Dr. Hall, may I ask whether the Minister of Labour or the Minister of Transport will be making representations to the Canadian Pacific Railway that it should at least match the provisions made by the Canadian National for its retired employees?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly take that matter into consideration and talk to my colleague.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The minister will recall that last March or April when I pointed out that the new regulations under the Family Allowances Act discriminated against orphans as opposed to a child with one parent, he promised he would look at the regulations and make a change as soon as possible. Would the minister take immediate steps to fulfil his promise because the three orphans in the case I am talking about have received notice that they will be taken off family allowances.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member very kindly for bringing this point to my attention last spring. The problem he raised is indeed a real one. I had asked my officials to examine this question and prepare the necessary amendments, but I cannot recall whether appropriate amendments were in fact introduced. I shall find out and report to the hon. member as soon as possible.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Leonard C. Jones (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question either to the Postmaster General or to the Minister of Public Works. When is it intended to announce the erection or acquisition of a new centralized regional post office distribution centre in the Moncton area and also the erection or acquisition of a new post office building, and facilities, in the Riverview area?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Soon, Mr. Speaker.
\
*	* j


TRANSPORT
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Central Nova. I direct it to the Minister of Transport. It concerns railway safety. As the report of the Canadian Transport Commission on railway safety was a damning indictment of our record of railway safety, has the minister taken action on that report and, as a minimum, met with the railway companies to discuss the implications of that safety report?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, yes, I met with and asked the railways to tell us exactly what they are going to do in order to decrease the number of accidents.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. As the minister admitted in the House on Friday last that he was planning cuts in the defence budget, and as he did not deny that commanders are being asked to plan for a 30 per cent cut in operation and maintenance funds, can the minister inform the House if the 30 per cent or 35 per cent cut in operation and maintenance is to be based on and deducted from the 1974-75 budget year?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I indicated in the House that we were trying to reduce expenditures to stay within the budget. We have not yet arrived at any set figures for operations but we are going to reduce capital expenditures. We will be cutting back on the number of personnel.

October 7, 1974
Oral Questions PUBLIC SERVICE


WAGE OFFER TO GRAIN INSPECTORS AT VANCOUVER
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Has Treasury Board made any further offer to its own employees, the grain inspectors at Vancouver, after the rejection of the offer of 6 per cent for 18 months and 5 per cent for the following year?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The negotiations are going on. There have been some meetings between the parties and it would not be opportune for the minister to intervene at this time.


REQUEST FOR FINAL PAYMENTS IMMEDIATELY- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. As many young farmers on the prairies face substantial payments on their land and equipment, as these liabilities bear a heavy rate of interest and as many other farmers are short of cash and finding it difficult to meet their commitments, would the minister consider instructing the Wheat Board to issue final payments for the 1973-74 crop year immediately and permit those farmers in need of money to meet their commitments and those farmers who have no immediate need for cash to defer their income until 1975?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, that action is hardly possible at present. The Wheat Board has not yet closed the accounts which are involved, and the closing of accounts and accounting is a requirement which must be met before payments can be made. The payments will be made immediately after January 1. In the meantime, cash advances are available. There is a bill now before Parliament for increasing the limit on cash advances so that cash may be available to farmers, in advance of delivery of grain, interest free.


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Can the minister advise the House whether there is at present any government program whereby the federal government can assist municipalities to retain existing green space, presently privately owned, before it is lost to development?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, there are programs of land assembly

which are part of the plan. The inclusion of green space in an integrated plan would be a desirable part of any such program.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the minister. In view of Liberal campaign promises to fight for federal aid for the retention of green space in Vancouver, I am referring specifically to the Langara lands, can the minister advise whether he has had any requests for assistance, in this case from members of the Liberal party in Vancouver?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I do not know the specific case. I speak for Liberals as well as non Liberals and do not differentiate on those grounds.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Barnett Jerome Danson: I do not know of a special case, but I speak with people, Liberal or non-Liberal; I do not differentiate on that basis. I have been in Vancouver and have spoken to the mayor. We are, as was my predecessor, very much concerned about and interested in the development of the Greater Vancouver Regional Development Plan. My ministry is working on that plan very closely with officials of the city, so that the specific case referred to will come within the over-all plan. In this case we see almost a classic example of co-operation between different levels of government in one of the most beautiful cities in Canada, if not North America.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


John Carr Munro: 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.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as members of this House are aware, the bill now before us represents the government's legislative proposals respecting the west coast grain handling dispute. Before examining these proposals it would be appropriate for me to refer to the chronology of events in this dispute. Firstly, however, I must refer to the parties directly involved: these are the Alberta Wheat Pool, Pacific Elevators Limited, Burrard Terminals Limited, United Grain Growers Limited, the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, and the Grain Workers Union local No. 333. The five existing collective agreements, which cover approximately 500 grain elevator employees, expired on November 30 of last year. Members will note that the employees have thus been without any improvement in their terms of employment for some ten months.

Initial attempts at reaching a new collective agreement proved fruitless, despite the lengthy assistance of two conciliation officers. As a result, on February 15 of this year I appointed Dr. Neil Perry of the University of Victoria, British Columbia, as a conciliation commissioner and I received Dr. Perry's impartial report on April 29.
The recommendations contained in the report were accepted by the union membership on May 5 but were rejected by the companies on May 13. Every effort was then made to develop a method of producing a negotiated settlement. But as far as the parties were concerned, the end of the road had been reached. The union's firm position was the Perry report and nothing less than the Perry report. The employers' position, although never precisely specified at that time, was that only something much less than the Perry report would be acceptable. We were faced with a complete impasse in which there was no possibility of achieving a negotiated settlement.
The fact that there was no possibility of further negotiations was underlined most forcibly to me and to the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang), when we met with representatives of the companies a few days later. Indeed, they indicated to us that the alternative, as they saw it, could well be a work stoppage. The only responsible view for the government to take was that a work stoppage was not only unnecessary, in view of the existence of a reasonable and viable alternative in the form of Dr. Perry's report, but would certainly adversely affect the national interest.
As a result of this view, and because at that time parliament was in dissolution for the general election, the governor in council, having decided that any work stoppage would adversely affect the national interest, made an order pursuant to section 181 of the Canada Labour Code, part V, Industrial Relations, to suspend any work stoppage until the election was over. This initiative in May was taken to avoid the prospect of a work stoppage which for all practical purposes could have lasted three months before parliament could be reassembled to take action.
Both the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and myself later received telegrams from the presidents of the companies involved in which they expressed concern over what they termed the inflationary consequences of Dr. Perry's report. This called for pay increases of 87 cents an hour in the first year and 65 cents an hour in the second year of a two-year agreement, with cost of living adjustments, a new pension plan and other benefits. The base rate now is $4.96 an hour. The Prime Minister replied to the company presidents to the effect that the recommendations took into account the parity issue between the grain handlers and Vancouver longshoremen and that it should not set a precedent for other wage settlements in other sectors of the economy.
On August 20, my colleague the Minister of Justice and myself, together with senior officials of my department, personally met with the four company presidents in Saskatoon. Three days later I was advised that the grain elevator companies, with the exception of Burrard Terminals Limited, had posted lay-off notices affecting some 50 per cent of their work force, effective August 23 and 26. In
Grain Handlers' Strike
view of this action, the companies were advised that there appeared no point in holding the further meeting scheduled for August 26.
As a direct result of the lay-off notices, the unions saw fit to withdraw services and mount picket operations. Subsequently, between September 13 and 30 a number of private discussions were held among the parties and departmental officials in both Ottawa and Vancouver. Following these discussions, I was satisfied that only two items were separating the parties, the pension issue and the cost of living allowance formula. As a result, on September 30 I made a proposal for settlement of these two items, a settlement that would have cost considerably less than the 61 per cent figure that has been widely referred to. The union accepted my proposal but the grain elevator companies rejected it. This brief summary is, I think, a sufficient chronological backdrop to a situation that can no longer be allowed to run its harmful and protracted course unchecked.
Before I refer to the proposed legislation I would like, with hon. members' permission, to further clarify the government's position with regard to this dispute and to rebut certain statements that have been made in connection with the government's position. First, I take issue with those parties who consider that, by endorsing the commissioner's recommendations, the government has not acted impartially and is, in effect, encouraging so-called "inflationary" settlements.
I would like to make these factual points. In this instance, the companies and union had ample time to engage in genuine good-faith bargaining during the months that followed the expiry of their old contract in October, 1973. It was not until they reached a deadlock that my department became involved, offering our experienced mediation and conciliation services. It was only after all other efforts had failed that I appointed Dr. Perry as a conciliation commissioner.
Dr. Perry is a skilled, respected, impartial expert who in fact served the same parties in 1965 as an industrial inquiry commissioner. His wide experience in labour relations also includes chairmanship of federal conciliation boards and an industrial inquiry commissioner for the B.C. government. It is neither surprising nor unusual that the government accepted his report, for the presumption behind the appointment of an outside adjudicator in any labour dispute is that the government will give credence and weight to his findings. To do so is certainly not to undermine either of the parties or to sabotage negotiations; to suggest this is both unreasonable and unrealistic. To do otherwise would, indeed, undermine the parties.
When it becomes necessary to resort to conciliation, it does not rule out further bargaining but it does mean that subsequent discussions have to take place within the new parameters of the conciliator's report. Now, no union in this day and age is likely to accept less than a conciliation report recommends, and no democratic government prevailed upon to enforce a settlement would think of imposing terms lower than those advocated by a neutral expert. In this case there was no real bargaining between the grain companies and the union since the Perry report was released; not because the government accepted the report on a basis of settlement, but because the union accepted it
166

prevented in any way, and no disciplinary action is to be taken against any employee by reason of his having been locked out or on strike. Second, the term of each collective agreement is extended to include the period beginning December 1, 1973, ending when a new agreement come into effect, or on November 30, 1975, whichever is earlier. Third, the terms and conditions of each existing agreement are amended by increasing the hourly basic rate of wages by 87 cents an hour, effective December 1, 1973, and by incorporating the other recommendations contained in the report of the conciliation commissioner.
Fourth, strikes and lock-outs are prohibited during the term of the extended agreements. Fifth, companies and unions shall resume negotiations and make every reasonable effort to agree on the manner in which the conciliation commissioner's recommendations are to be incorporated as amendments to the extended agreements. In the event that the parties cannot agree on the interpretation of the commissioner's recommendations, a referee may be appointed, whose decisions would be final and binding.
Mr. Speaker, I shall be pleased to answer any questions that hon. members may wish to ask.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to take part in what I consider to be an extremely important debate. Before doing so, I should like to express, on behalf of my leader and others in this party, our extreme sympathy to His Excellency. We wish him well and look for a speedy recovery. I think this man has the wisdom, the ability and the background to enable him to make a most significant contribution to the development of this great land of ours.
As a member of the class of '68, I stand here with some pride, Mr. Speaker, in congratulating you upon your appointment to greater heights. You have now left the realm of the backbencher. You are now making more money. You are now involved with power the like of which I have not seen. But having known you, sir, over the past 6'/2 years, I am confident you will discharge your duties admirably. As a matter of fact, I had the opportunity of testing you the other day to see how you would turn out, and I must confess that I came out of it second best.
I should also like to extend my congratulations to the hon. member for Thunder Bay (Mr. Penner) who has also been elevated to new heights. I know we will all look for a great input from him, as well as from the Assistant Deputy Chairman. This is a choice that meets my approval without any question.
I should like to adopt the sentiments expressed by my colleagues on both sides of the House with regard to the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. Both did an admirable job. It seems to me that their input will be significant, one to which I think all of us will be able to point with pride. They are not going to find their job easy; it can be a frustrating task. Yet I think all of us who have had the opportunity of being elected to this House realize that we are in the big league here. In this place we formulate
Grain Handlers' Strike
policy and direction that will move this country into the eighties and nineties, in keeping with the needs and aspirations of the Canadian people. We are continually kept aware of the legitimate aspirations and hopes of all our people-and I leave out no one.
We have, of course, seen some evidence of the denial, or perhaps I should say unawareness, of certain of our brothers, our native people, for whom I have a lot of sympathy. You are in one heck of a position when you are left out of the mainstream of Canadian life, your forefathers having been responsible for the birth of this country. But as the years went on, with our set ideas, our prejudices and our dislike of certain people because of race, colour or creed, we found these people getting further and further behind.
I hope that what happened here last week registered concern in all of us. If we do not indicate that we are aware of the problem, and if we do not bring about solutions, then your guess, Mr. Speaker, as to what is going to happen in the long run is as good as mine. We may have to revert to the confrontation of the sixties that occurred in the United States and which all of us deplored. But I think we in this House will not allow that to happen. We on this side will see to it that the government is kept aware of the situation and that it brings about solutions to the tremendous problems facing these people.
Because of the very real concern of the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) and the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) over the situation, I had the privilege of being chosen as one of nine to journey to Vancouver and Calgary to obtain the facts concerning the dispute with which we are dealing today. I must commend these hon. members, because as a result of their very real concern many of us had an opportunity of discussing this dispute not only with the union but with terminal managers and, indeed, the presidents of the wheat pools. In consequence, we on this side of the House are better informed, perhaps better informed than the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro), the Minister of Justice in charge of the Wheat Board (Mr. Lang), and last but not least, the proponent of the just society. I think we are all better informed as a result of our trip.
Not only should I like publicly to thank my colleagues, but also the members of local 333 of the union involved, the terminal managers and the presidents for their open, frank, serious and meaningful discussions, which in the long run have meant that we on this side are better able to understand the situation. We understand now, as the minister has so indicated, that the grain handling industry is in a mess.
Having listened to the Minister of Labour's sob story, I can only say that the approach of the government to this entire matter can only be described as over reaction, bungling, irresponsibility and inept and heavy-handed approach. The Minister of Labour comes from the great city of Hamilton. I have listened to him extolling the virtues of the collective bargaining process. Yet I watched him unwarrantably interrupting the collective bargaining process by blessing the Perry report, which meant that all meaningful negotiations were destroyed. The collective bargaining process as we know it was also destroyed.
The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) was asked a question about the inspectors, and although I
28305 -12V1

October 7, 1974
Grain Handlers' Strike
was aware of it before, the double standard used by the government became apparent to me. No matter whether the minister says the increase being offered is 61 per cent, 54 per cent, 48 per cent or 41 per cent under the terms of the Perry report, we find the same government offering the inspectors increases of 6 per cent and 5 per cent over a two-year period. What kind of nonsense is this? Where is the credibility and responsibility of this government?
What was not urgent has now become urgent. Hon. members opposite have had a great holiday. Ministers opposite were not preparing bills, because they have just introduced all those that were dropped in the last parliament. They were having a holiday and gloating over their victory. What they should have done was recalled parliament. In the absence of their recalling parliament the only rational conclusion one can come to is that they are unconcerned about the loss of millions of dollars, about the deterioration of our international reputation, about the economic wealth and well-being of this country.
I hear the hon. member for Middlesex-London-Lambton (Mr. Condon) commenting, but he knows what I say is the truth. He is a labour man himself and understands the situation. He knows that the government destroyed any meaningful negotiations between the parties when they endorsed the Perry report. I shall have more to say about that report because it was not really a final report; it only made suggestions. Why did the minister not mention that?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: He did not read it.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: We understand that. My colleague from Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) says that he did not read it, and according to the information we on the committee received, you are doggone right that he did not read it at the time the government blessed the Perry report. They had no idea what severe implications there were. In an over reactive, heavy-handed sort of way the government said, "Okay, let's go; this is it". I do not think I am disclosing any confidentiality when I say that the government said to the companies that if they did not accept the Perry report they were under threat of sanctions. As a matter of fact, I will be very pleased when the minister comes before the standing committee-I think that is the proper course to take-and we can find out what the heck went on here. We want to question the Minister of Labour, that great proponent of the collective bargaining process who subsequently destroyed it. I should also like to speak to the minister responsible for the Wheat Board about this question, because he is supposed to see that grain is not only grown in this country but is moved. His input into this matter was disastrous.


John Carr Munro: What about the company line?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Now we hear the minister asking about the company line. I suggest the speech he made was not along company lines or union lines, and was not even made on behalf of the Canadian people. The minister has abdicated his responsibility as Minister of Labour and he should resign because of the mess in which this country finds itself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Give us back Mackasey.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: He was a good man. I can say nothing about the former minister of labour except that he was, and still is, my friend. Mr. Speaker, you thought I was going to say something else, but I would just like to stand on that.
Let me review the grain situation as we find it in Canada today. When the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Justice cancelled their planned meeting with grain company officials on August 22, it was on the basis that it would appear unproductive to pursue discussions. At that time, both ministers dismissed the necessity of recalling parliament by claiming that the situation was not serious enough to warrant such drastic action. The minister, according to a news comment made in Vancouver on September 4, said that while the dispute was serious to the farmers in terms of economic repercussions, he did not think parliament should settle disputes which did not have national consequences.
What is the matter with the thinking of the Minister of Labour? This dispute has not only national consequences but international consequences; and this has been the fact for some time. Notwithstanding what the minister has said, a telex from the Canadian Wheat Board to the Minister of Justice, and other information from government sources, makes it clear that the federal government's representatives were virtually unaware of the complexities of the situation. According to Canadian Wheat Board figures, the situation was far more serious and potentially damaging than government officials cared to admit. In the telex to which I have referred, the Canadian Wheat Board illustrated with dates, figures and amounts the gravity of the situation both in national and international perspective.
The Wheat Board claimed that the port of Vancouver is capable of a sustained export volume of a minimum of 25 million bushels of cereals per month. At full operational efficiency, 30 million bushels per month can easily be accomplished. The record for grain exported through the port of Vancouver was achieved in May, 1973, when 36.7 million bushels of wheat were processed in one month. However, due to the circumstances brought about by various labour disputes during the past few years-and other matters, I might add-the Canadian Wheat Board claims that the port of Vancouver has been in a continuous demurrage situation since the August, 1973, national railway strike. The demurrage costs which are expected to be incurred from the present work stoppage could easily reach $10 million. These debts would be paid from the 1973-74 pool accounts, payable by the producers. I recall the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) and the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), questioning the propriety of this, but their concern met with a negative response from the government.
Foreign grain contract commitments require a daily unloading capacity of 700 cars, five days per week until the end of December, 1974. The Wheat Board has calculated that under a work stoppage situation of six weeks duration, it would take until mid-May, 1975, to fulfil foreign commitments at an unloading rate of 700 boxcars per day. As a result of this, the Wheat Board felt that its foreign contractees may be forced to look elsewhere for

grain and wheat supplies, and this prophesy became a reality when one considers the action of Japan in buying United States wheat. Consequently, estimates of the cost of the strike in real terms indicate that $10 million in demurrage charges will be incurred, with up to $250 million lost in potential sales.
The instability of the labour situation at the port of Vancouver is well known internationally. When the contract with China for 76.4 million bushels of wheat valued at $350 million was undertaken, it was stipulated that only 60 per cent of the total volume be shipped through the port of Vancouver, I suggest for this reason.
The Minister of Labour says we have new problems, and on October 7 he speaks about the appointment of an industrial commission, about which I will have more to say a little later. For three consecutive years, a period during which the prairie farmer could sell virtually every bushel of wheat delivered to the port, Canada has had trouble keeping its foreign contract commitments, let alone making extra sales. In the first year, delays were attributed to the unusually heavy snowfall in the Rockies. This was followed by a shortage of boxcars, and now the grain handlers' strike.
Although no official figures are available, government spokesmen have intimated that Canada is falling behind its export schedule at the rate of 15 million bushels per month. It is expected that by the time the grain handlers' dispute is settled, this figure will have reached 50 million bushels. However, statistics confirm that backlogs are never caught up, especially when grain shipments are dependent upon the Canadian transportation system which has been publicly denounced by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) as being in a mess. Those are the facts which this government, for some reason, has callously disregarded. The consequences of this dispute affect us nationally and internationally, yet the minister said he did not want to recall parliament because he did not want to turn this body into a labour court. What are we doing right now? I will have more to say about that as well, Mr. Speaker.
It is now admitted that the situation is urgent. Was it not urgent four weeks ago, or five weeks ago? Did it suddenly become urgent because this government decided it was going to adopt the Perry report, notwithstanding any contrary opinions?


Mitchell William Sharp: What is your opinion?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Now we hear that voice in the wilderness bleating. I have a great deal of respect for the hon. gentleman who is now government House leader, but I suggest the best thing he can do now is to talk some sense to his colleague and other members to his left in order that we might reach agreement as to the determination of this bill, not only in terms of the length of the debate but the hours of sitting. I suggest in that way he will be making a magnificent contribution.


John Edward Broadbent: Let's finish it all today.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Now we hear that other voice in the wilderness to my left, a man who is also from the class of '68. I suggest he is allowing his position to go to his head.
Grain Handlers' Strike
I. say, with all due respect, that we sit here today as the highest court in the land, in effect suspending the democratic freedoms of labour and management and thereby overriding the collective bargaining process-something that could have been avoided, in my view, and something that is distasteful to all hon. members.
What is most unusual and extremely questionable is not the fact that the government is asking hon. members to declare grain handling, in all its aspects, an essential service; rather, it is the forced imposition by the government of the role of arbiter on hon. members, with power to settle and to set the terms of an agreement. This is what is extremely unusual. In these circumstances, one readily recalls the dispute involving the railway workers during which parliament ordered the resumption of operations, asking that compulsory arbitration be imposed, and setting a minimum wage hike from which deliberations would start. But that process is not to come about this time. That which is usual and acceptable is being flagrantly disregarded and replaced by a procedure which is totally unacceptable.
Notwithstanding all that I have said, I would now point out some concern about the fact that much has been said about union and management in this dispute, but it seems to me that in the absence of leadership from this government in the fight against inflation, and because of its complete lack of anti-inflationary policies which has resulted in a free for all, dog eat dog society, one cannot really blame workers, unionized or not, who pursue with determination and vigour cost of living protection. Workers are retaliating against the loss of purchasing power, which has increased steadily since June of 1973.
Accordingly, the Perry suggestions, to the union's way of thinking, were most acceptable in the absence of any government initiative to wrestle inflation to the ground. What other choice did the union have, under the circumstances? To reject the suggestions would have been called insanity, particularly when the government indicated its approval beforehand. I would also say that it is not easy to point the finger of blame at management because, after all, their stubbornness is related to a genuine, sincere and probably true assessment of the situation, namely, that the government-approved settlement which they will impose is highly inflationary and damaging to the economy. That is a position which this opposition party accepts.
Who, then, should be blamed and condemned? None other than the Trudeau Liberals. I point the finger of condemnation at the government for its failure to tackle inflation, for creating a climate of economic instability and uncertainty, for creating lack of confidence in the economy, for creating confrontation collective bargaining, and for the attitude that nothing can be done about inflation.


John Napier Turner: Who is the author?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I thought I heard the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), but perhaps I am wrong. In this regard, the president of the Canadian Labour Congress said in a recent speech:

October 7, 1974
Grain Handlers' Strike
Economic instability will drive workers into a position where they will have no choice but to disregard their contractual obligations and to strike regardless of the consequences.
He also said this could result in breakdown of the collective bargaining system. We all know he is right. Workers are now disregarding existing contractual obligations, ignoring back to work orders, ignoring court injunctions and government legislation to end legal strikes. In these circumstances, one could not fault the minister when he screamed for the formation of a body to resolve this question, or his intention to invite business, labour and government officials to form a continuing body to study labour relations and to intensify the examination of the collective bargaining process.
I want to know what happened to the Woods task force report, the Freedman report regarding the public service and all their recommendations. Are they to gather dust, in the usual manner, at the expense of the taxpayer? In any event, I thank the minister for adopting in a very devious way part of our policy which calls for a public interest disputes commission such as recommended in the Woods report. I refer the minister to our policy which is found on pages 4 and 5 of "The World of Work" prepared for the last election, under the heading "making the collective bargaining process work and safeguarding public interest". I assure the minister that he will find it most rewarding and informative.
We were very concerned about deterioration of the collective bargaining process, we were concerned about protection of the public interest, and we were very concerned about the movement of essential services. In that regard we adopted the principle indicated in the Woods report, which I understand the minister is now trying to steal bit by bit. Instead, he should be saying that the government will bring forward legislation to appoint a commission independent of government, particularly of this government, composed of representatives of the consumer, labour and management, in order that we can determine what are essential services, to assist the parties and thereby bring about solutions and remedies to improve the collective bargaining process.
I thank the minister, also, for his initiative in calling a meeting of labour, management and government, but I believe he is very naive if he plans to meet the other parties without having any anti-inflationary policy and expects a meaningful discussion to result. That is the crux of the matter. In that regard, it is my view that neither labour nor management will budge one inch. The meeting will be doomed from the start; surely the minister is aware of this. Surely the minister and his front bench colleagues are aware that this country is crying out in desperation for any kind of, step-at this point I am looking at the Minister of Finance-which would show that they are aware of the damaging effect of our 11 per cent runaway inflation.
These groups are looking for leadership in their fight against inflation, for some bold initiative, not the same old reply that inflation is licked, or inflation is a world phenomenon, which I heard the Minister of Finance say today and which only means that little can be done. We need some reassessment on that side. Make no bones about it, the government is in one awful mess.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The sooner the government approaches this matter with some credibility and honesty, the sooner our country will return to some stability and order. The current legislation holds many unpleasant ramifications. For instance, there is little doubt that it ignores completely great concerns of labour and management with regard to the need for increased productivity, greater efficiency, worker incentives and communication.
The present circumstances surrounding grain handling, with all its ramifications-the minister mentioned this- including worker unrest and dissatisfaction, demand that those concerned come up with long-term solutions which will bring some stability and order to the collection, movement and loading of grain. This legislation ignores these problems and, therefore, by implication condones and perpetuates conditions as they exist, notwithstanding the announcement of the minister this afternoon regarding an industrial commission. Why could he not have incorporated that in this bill? Is that an impossibility? They have all the brains over there-so they say, Mr. Speaker. Why did the minister not incorporate that in this bill? It would have given this whole exercise some meaning. Or am I wrong in terms of procedure? All they are doing is using their powers to coerce the workers back into an unworkable, dispute-ridden system until they obtain the legal right to walk out again. We should be just as concerned about the long-term approach to grain handling.
In light of this and in keeping with what the minister has indicated today, I demand that an industrial administrator be appointed immediately to inquire into every aspect of grain handling, with terms of reference related at least to the matters I have mentioned. As a matter of fact, you could add to that the government's mishandling of this entire situation.
The current dispute between the grain workers and the Canadian grain elevator companies, the names of which have been disclosed by the minister, has many other unpleasant ramifications. For instance, there is very little doubt in my mind that the settlement proposed by the Perry report will be inflationary, despite the calculation made by any party involved, whether it be 61 per cent, 54 per cent, 47 per cent or 40 per cent. Any settlement in this matter will have far reaching and severe effects on the economy of this country.
The government, however, does not appear to recognize the serious inflationary consequences inherent in such a settlement. In fact, the Minister of Labour is quoted as saying that this particular settlement would not be excessive in the context of labour contracts negotiated in British Columbia over the past few months, and he reiterated this today. But the British Columbia Employers' Council has another opinion. In a recent telegram to the Minister of Labour and the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, the council said that the settlement would indeed be "excessively inflationary in the context of the inflationary spiral and the ripple effects of such a settlement".
The grain companies contend that this settlement will equal a 61 per cent increase over a two-year period if all costs are calculated. The British Columbia Employers'
October 7, 1974

Council, using figures submitted by the union, calculates the increase at 47 per cent over the same period. But, by using their own figures, the B.C. Employers' Union has discovered that the actual increase will be in the order of 54 per cent.
It is very difficult to determine what the calculations are, Mr. Speaker, and what the end result will be with respect to any calculation except the 61 per cent. I would refer hon. members to a lead editorial in the Toronto Star of Monday, September 9, 1974, entitled "Up, Up and Away" which reads in part:
The federal government which is pressing western grain companies to accept the terms of a conciliation report as a settlement with grain handlers says it doesn't know how the companies figure the contract would cost an inflationary 61 per cent over two years.
Here's how. The calculation assumes-what else can one assume- that the consumer price index continues to rise by 1 per cent a month. The present basic wage is $4.96 an hour. Add: 87 cents wage increase, December, 1973; 19 cents cost of living allowance, November, 1974; 65 cents wage increase, December, 1974; 50 cents cost of living allowance, April, 1975; 21 cents cost of living allowance, November, 1975; 40 cents pension plan; 21 cents other fringe benefits.
Total: $3.03 an hour. Which is a 61 per cent increase, extreme by any standard. Does Ottawa really mean to put its seal of approval on that kind of package, thus establishing it as a target for other unions.
There is some question here because the union figures do not jibe. I find it strange, because of the complexities and implications of the COLA clause, that the government was in such a hurry to embrace it. I say "embrace" because they accepted it without knowing what it really meant. Now they want to give us a referee to assist the parties in determining what Dr. Perry meant. The minister shakes his head. However, I have read the bill, and it provides that any amendments or suggestions that cannot be understood by the parties involved are to be referred to the referee, who will tell them what they are all about. That shows that the minister does not know what this problem is all about.
The government has not released anything to indicate what they expect the figure to be on a percentage basis. All I can recall seeing from the minister is his press release of September 30, which indicated that there were only two unresolved issues remaining in the Vancouver terminal grain elevators' dispute and that they would produce a total settlement package costing considerably less than the 61 per cent widely reported in the media. What is this word "considerably", Mr. Speaker: what does it mean in terms of actual figures?
In connection with the press release, I tell the minister that he has been challenged by a responsible person, the solicitor acting on behalf of the wheat pool, who said, that "Munro told half story", according to a headline in the Ottawa Citizen of October 3. He is quoted as saying:
The minister hasn't told the whole story and why he chose to do this is a mystery to me.
Later he said:
Munro seems to be playing games.
The minister's statement in his press release, namely, that there are only two unresolved issues in the Vancouver terminal grain elevators' dispute, was also questioned by Ira K. Mumford, general manager of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, in an article in the Globe and Mail of October 2. In the same article, E. K. Turner, president of the
Grain Handlers' Strike
Saskatchewan Wheat Pool quoted part of a telex sent the minister as follows:
In fact, there is no agreement on approximately 40 items, including those referred to in your telex.
Is the minister playing games? Is he being less than honest? I do not know, but that is Mr. Mumford's impression-and he ought to know because he is involved. Mr. Turner says there are 40 issues, including the two issues of pensions and benefits, whereas the minister says there are only two issues. What conclusions can we on this side reach except that the minister is playing games, is playing hanky-panky? Despite any discrepancies over the actual cost, Mr. Speaker, it is probable that a settlement of this size will constitute a precedent for future contract negotiations, as did the 1966 St. Lawrence Seaway settlement. The Prime Minister has either forgotten, or refuses-contrary to all respected opinion-to accept that fact when he indicates that this dispute is unique and that the settlement being imposed will not set off another round of inflationary demands, a proposition to which my party cannot lend any support.
Let us review for a moment the St. Lawrence Seaway settlement. In this case, 1,260 Seaway employees were awarded a two-year contract calling for an increase of 20 per cent immediately and a further 10 per cent following in January, 1967-or, in all, 30 per cent-when the inflation rate was stabilized at 3.6 per cent per year. At that time the Liberal government displayed its well known ineptitude, incompetence and complete disregard for the collective bargaining process by jumping in and promoting a proposal which gave the union 5 per cent less than its original demand of 35 per cent. And this was after the conciliation board's majority report had recommended a total package increase of 14 per cent over two years. Now, is that responsibility? Is that what you call leadership? They are aware of the circumstances, and they make these awards in keeping with the exigencies of the situation.
Let me continue. The Economic Council of Canada dealt with this settlement in 1966 in its third annual review, assessing all the relevant facts. At this time I believe it is not only advisable but very necessary to refer to the council's assessment, which was as follows:
Normally, bargaining in Canada is not characterized by strong national pattern setting. For example, settlements in the steel and automobile industries in Ontario do not usually exert any great effect on collective bargaining in British Columbia which tends to have a life of its own. But large, highly publicized settlements to which governments are parties inevitably have somewhat more impact on the climate of collective bargaining across the country.
That is the crux of the problem. From the moment the government embraces any figures or intervenes, the benchmark is made. This is true whether you like it or not. The Economic Council of Canada considered this sort of situation in 1966 and I have referred to its conclusion. It is not my conclusion, Mr. Speaker. It is a conclusion to which all members, particularly government supporters, should pay attention.
The Globe and Mail of June 22, 1966, registered its concern when it said that a pattern had been set for resolving major labour disputes and wage scales, one that would prove much more difficult to break than it had been to

October 7, 1974
Grain Handlers' Strike
establish. The tendency will be for the normal processes of negotiation to be regarded as little more than formal preliminaries to an appeal to the highest authority. No matter whether we consider the assessment of the Economic Council or the observations of the Globe and Mail, the message is clear. The government's attitude in this dispute has been totally irresponsible and should be condemned. The government has completely disregarded the conclusion of the Economic Council of Canada, to the detriment of this country's economic well-being.
In my view, the repercussions of the original Seaway settlement were most inflationary; and those repercussions have been felt ever since at the bargaining table in contract negotiations. Furthermore, it has become increasingly apparent that since the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) indicated that the suggestions contained in the Perry report would be implemented, a climate has been created which has become intolerable. The proposed settlement, in every way, is comparable to the Seaway settlement, if one considers the implications of repercussion, publicity, government involvement and spin-off. On the basis of past examples it is not difficult to prosphesy the effect of a 48 per cent or a 61 per cent award on our economy because our rate of inflation is now running at 11 per cent.
The spin-off will be staggering. It is felt that the spinoff from the proposed award will affect between 11,000 and 12,000 workers, including 1,500 grain handlers at Thunder Bay, 3,200 longshoremen in British Columbia- the minister will run into trouble on that settlement- 3,500 managers of grain elevators throughout the west and 260 grain inspectors employed by the Canadian Grain Commission, a government agency. All these men will be able to claim that their jobs and responsibilities are just as important as those of the grain handlers and that they are entitled to an equal award. What will the Minister of Labour say to them?
Let me now turn to a speech the minister delivered to the western region of the International Woodworkers of America, in Vancouver, as reported in the Globe and Mail of September 28, 1974. Does the minister not remember that speech? If he does not, I will remind him of it. He spoke of catch-up. The minister's theory of catch-up is interesting. He said, as reported, that catching up has come to mean catching up with other unions as much as with the cost of living. Catch-up agreements must in no way be viewed as precedents for other groups with no legitimate catching up to be done.
You are not that naive, are you, Mr. Minister? Of course, Mr. Speaker, I say that through you. I am not complaining about the person who wrote the speech, but the minister should have read it before he delivered it. That statement was made after the minister and his cohorts blessed the Perry report, thereby attempting to cover up the awful mess the government had got itself into previously by setting a precedent.
I say here and now that the rationale of the minister's remarks will not be accepted. I say to the minister that his type of thinking is not acceptable. The fat is in the fire. The minister is destroying the collective bargaining process as we know it, and he is in trouble. His troubles are so large that they defy the imagination. He will find it very

difficult, if not impossible, to extricate himself. Of course, I say all this in a friendly way. The minister is a friend of mine; he comes from the Hamilton area. We are trying to do our best. The minister has been misguided, and for that I extend him my sympathy. I remind the House that the Minister of Labour said that this is a hell of a time for anyone to be minister of labour. I agree. But the minister is the author of his own misfortunes and will have to suffer the consequences. What will those consequences be?
Let us talk about the Vancouver grain inspectors. When the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) was asked a question about these inspectors earlier, he gave the stock answer, "Oh, well, we are negotiating and it would be irresponsible to say something concrete at this time." That was the gist of his words. I do not think I am revealing confidences in making this further submission. I am talking about the Vancouver grain inspectors. I am informed by an authoritative source that the government has a double standard, in that it has endorsed the Perry report involving increases of about 65 per cent and accepted a settlement for officers and deck hands of 75 per cent, but has offered only about 11 per cent to the inspectors, over 27 months. Is my suggestion regarding officers and engineers not correct? Do you think, Mr. Speaker, that others will not seek the same sort of settlement?
Let me point out, while I am on the subject, that the Minister of Labour in the past has been quoted as saying that workers working side by side and doing the same job should earn the same money. What manner of hanky-panky are we witnessing. The government is offering one group of workers about 11 per cent over two years and offering others who work side by side with them between 48 and 61 per cent. Is that what you call equal pay for equal work? Is that what we mean by the just society? As I have said, the minister will run into trouble.
My second point is this. The Vancouver grain inspectors have endorsed the Perry report as a fair criterion for the settlement of their current dispute. The minister must know the effect of what he is saying. He must believe in what he says.
My third point is this. Withdrawal of the services of Canadian grain inspectors would shut off movement of grain through the port of Vancouver. How does that apply to the minister's catch-up theory? I agree, this is one hell of a time for one to be Minister of Labour, and things are just starting to pop. These things are happening in our country because of this government's incompetence.
My last point is this. Treasury Board's offer is completely unacceptable and completely irrational. Where do we go from here? My points have concerned the grain inspectors. The minister may think that catch-up does not apply to everybody. He is wrong: it does. So much for the minister's argument about catch-up. There can be little doubt about the eventual effect on the grain industry, in negotiations and settlements, of the government's intervention in this situation. How did the government get into this mess? It was easy.


An hon. Member:: They have a talent for it.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: As my hon. friend says, they have a talent for it. Dr. Perry, when he submitted his report to the Minister of Labour, made clear that it was only a
October 7, 1974

suggestion. But the minister has not said that. At no time since this affair began has the minister said that the Perry report was only a suggestion for action. Dr. Perry's covering note to the minister reads as follows:
As it has now become clear to me that the differences in expectations between the contracting parties-arising from a series of accumulated past issues as well as the special, inflationary circumstances of 1974-remain too wide to be resolved through further conciliatory efforts, I am, therefore, submitting for your consideration some suggestions-
That is the word the minister likes to hide because of the implications.
-which, hopefully, might form the basis upon which the two parties could ultimately enter into a two-year agreemment.
Consequently, the report was not intended to be adopted verbatim as the settlement proposal, primarily because it recommended granting the union more benefits than the union had requested. I understand the union did not ask for COLA. The union did not seek parity with the longshoremen. For some strange reason, and I do not question this, Dr. Perry recommended it. If the government did not know it, it should have, yet holus-bolus, in an overreaction it said, "Okay; that's for us. Let's grab it."
The government's adoption of the Perry report as a basis for settlement prevented any further consultation between the contracting parties. My information reveals there could have been a settlement, yet the minister, who is always projecting the virtue of the collective bargaining process, cut it off. This was told in no uncertain terms to those who had an opportunity to go to Vancouver and Calgary. There was some hope that these parties could have reached a voluntary settlement-but no, the minister, the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister could not keep their mouths shut.
The government could have used some discretion in this matter. If it really had had concern about what it was doing, it could have sent them back to work: a new referee, conciliator, or whatever you want to call him, could have been appointed. Perry could have been told to look at this matter again because there is a great deal of complexity and misunderstanding with regard to application of the COLA clause in the benefit structure. We could have been all right in that regard. I see the minister shakes his head. The government, instead, chose to arbitrarily employ the Perry recommendations as a settlement tool and to publicly criticize the grain elevator companies for their refusal to accept the report's recommendations, further alienating the western agricultural community by forcing that community to take such a demeaning position.
In the whole of Canada, in the second quarter of 1974, the average annual base rate contract agreement increase was 12.6 per cent, in compounded terms, compared with a first quarter, 1974, figure of 11.4 per cent. The average increase in one-year agreements was 14.3 per cent; in two-year agreements, 16.4 per cent for the first year and
10.2	per cent for the second; and in three-year agreements,
13.2	per cent, 7.5 per cent and 6.4 per cent for the first, second and third years respectively. Is the Minister of Labour not aware of these figures?
In British Columbia in particular, in the second quarter of 1974 the average annual base rate increase was 15.7 per
Grain Handlers' Strike
cent. Yet the Perry report recommends a settlement of 17 per cent in the base rate for the first year, plus additional increases for pension improvements and fringe benefits equalling 8 per cent and 4 per cent respectively, as well as cost of living adjustments. Yet the Minister of Labour claims that this settlement is not excessive in the labour context of British Columbia. Not only is it obvious that the minister is slightly out of touch with the intricacies of the labour situation on the west coast; but it is obvious that he is slightly out of touch with his own government's so-called anti-inflation policy as outlined only one week ago. The policy to which I refer is contained in the following excerpt from the throne speech:
For its part, the government will exercise restraint in its own expenditures ... while controlling expansion of new activities which, although desirable, would contribute to inflationary pressures.
Restraint is the only policy the government has managed to come up with to fight inflation. But restraint begins at home. While the government asks business to practice voluntary restraint in an effort to combat spiralling inflation, it allows its own spending to increase by 21.9 per cent and gives its own employees arbitration awards which do little but feed inflation. Between 1966 and 1973 the cost of living rose 26 per cent. Federal wages increased 50 per cent. In 1974 the government is expected to pay $4,010 million in wages to its employees, up from $3,638 million in the previous fiscal year.
Paramount in illustrating federal government excessiveness in previous contract negotiations is the recent arbitration award granted to 673 federal information officers. This group signed a 27-month contract which grants a 15 per cent increase within 12 months and only three months later grants another increase equal to the rise in the cost of living over the previous full year. This adds up to an increase of 30 per cent over a full 15-month period. I do not know where we are going.
Public Service Alliance president Claude Edwards says that other groups will begin to demand the same comfortable settlement as that awarded to the information officers. In other words, this is now regarded as a precedent for other groups within the jurisdiction of the Public Service Alliance. This is restraint? When you relate this whole matter to the Perry report and the minister's blessings of the same, you can readily understand the kind of problems which confront the minister.
We are being asked to approve a piece of legislation which will obliterate the word "restraint" from the context of the Canadian economy. We must keep in mind that in December of this year approximately 90,000 railway workers, 33,000 postal employees, east and west coast and St. Lawrence longshoremen, and Lakehead grain handlers will all come to the bargaining table. What will prevent their insisting that the Perry report recommendations be extended to their contracts, and what justification will there be for refusing them if the measures now before us become law? This is the ramification: this is the matter about which we are concerned.
We do not have an anti-inflation policy in this country. In the absence of such policy, the only people who can protect themselves adequately are organized workers. They are the only workers able to exert any kind of pressure. In Canada at the present time there are 2,556,000

October 7, 1974
Grain Handlers' Strike
unionized or organized workers, representing only 25 per cent of a total labour force of 10,152,000. Therefore, nearly 75 per cent of the total labour force is wholly unprotected against inflation, not only because they are not organized but because their government has not yet faced up to the reality of inflation.
What could illustrate this attitude more adequately than the fact that parliament is now being asked to vote into law legislation that will exert excessive inflationary pressure on the economy and will establish a benchmark precedent which will be used as a further basis for protecting those already cushioned from inflation? If the government insists on being excessive, then let their excessiveness be directed to the neglected 75 per cent of the labour force who desperately require an anti-inflation policy.
I have attempted in all sincerity to bring before the House the legitimate concerns that we on this side have faced and have wrestled with ever since we journeyed to Vancouver and Calgary. We knew that in the long run a position would have to be taken. I have indicated our concern about the proposed settlement being inflationary. Second, I have stated that the spin-off as a result of a benchmark being set would be damaging to the economic well-being of this country. Third, I have stated that there is no awareness of the need to come up with solutions which will bring stability and order to the grain handling industry.
Fourth, the Perry report was not final but, rather, offered suggestions which might have formed a basis upon which the two parties could ultimately reach agreement. Fifth, the bill obliterates the word "restraint" from the government's thinking and its approach to finding solutions to halt or to reduce the two figure, runaway inflation. It disregards 75 per cent of the labour force least able to protect their shrinking dollar. The imposition of the role of arbitrator upon the federal parliament, with power to determine an agreement, is wrong.
In the light of all these circumstances, we find the bill unacceptable, and accordingly we shall not vote for it on second reading.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, once again parliament has been called upon to legislate a settlement in a dispute between management and its employees at a stage of a lock-out or strike and, in the process, to order management to resume full operations and the employees to return to work.
Along with the other members of my party I have always believed the collective bargaining process must be allowed to proceed freely between the two parties concerned, with every encouragement from government and the public, as well as from those more directly concerned with the dispute. We must always do all we can to encourage free collective bargaining preferably with no interference from outside parties.
There is a role for government, at each level, to play in the process of encouraging free collective bargaining. This principle has long become part of our society after decades of struggle by working people in Canada. It is accepted

even by those, some of whom sit in this House, who pay only lip service to the principle. They know it has become an essential part of relations between organized employees and their employers.
Before I go further I wish to say that over the years the overwhelming majority of labour-management disputes are settled through free collective bargaining without strikes or lock-outs, and that most of them are settled amicably. Relying on my own memory I believe that between 75 per cent and 90 per cent of contracts are renewed each year without resort to strikes or lock-outs. This speaks well for the success of the bargaining process.
For every strike or lock-out which occurs, there are nine or ten other disputes which are amicably settled by collective bargaining. But to judge from headlines or the opening news lines we hear over radio or t.v., one could easily be lead to believe that collective bargaining doesn't work although, in fact, the opposite is the case. It does work, and it works well in most instances. However, like all processes it is not perfect since so much depends on the good faith, good will and real desire to reach agreement on the part of the human beings involved on both sides of a dispute. This is why I say there is always a role for government to play, in the area of conciliation and even arbitration, on those few occasions when the bargaining process breaks down.
We in this party do not like to see parliament overriding the bargaining process. I am sure this is the feeling of most if not all hon. members in this chamber. However, we recognize, as we have on previous occasions, that when the bargaining process fails and there is a serious interference with the welfare of the nation or a significant section of the nation, there comes a point at which government should intervene to end a lock-out or strike, to resolve the dispute and, as a last resort, to order men back to work and require employers to resume operations, as is the case in the legislation before us.
Nonetheless, there is a commonsense way for government to intervene and I do not think this course has been followed. In fact, I am compelled to say that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro), with the assistance of that walking disaster looking for a place to happen, the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, (Mr. Lang), acted ineptly when they announced publicly that the government would legislate on the basis of the Perry report. What little experience I had on one side or the other of the bargaining table, when a third party appeared to assist, at no time did the third party make public statements which could be construed by either of the other parties, as taking sides.
Surely, there was a more commonsense way of indicating the important role which, once in a while, it is necessary for the government to play. The public statements made by the Minister of Labour and the minister in charge of the Wheat Board effectively prevented any resumption of collective bargaining in this instance; one side or the other needed only to sit back and wait for the inevitable legislation. The ministers should have been much less concerned with public posturing and more concerned with getting the dispute settled.
I have talked with the farmers and workers about this dispute over the past five or six weeks. The message I get,
October 7, 1974

particularly from the farmers in my constituency, is this: get the dispute settled, get the men back to work, get the grain moving. They say this regardless of the merits or demerits of the case put forward by the companies or by the employees. That is the first priority in the minds of the farmers of western Canada. This is why we feel the bill should be dealt with expeditiously. It could be out of this chamber tomorrow, certainly on Wednesday, and it could be the law of the land by Friday at the latest. We still feel the measure should have gone to the Committee of the Whole, or, failing this, that the standing committee need call only the minister and his officials as witnesses in the interest of getting the legislation through quickly.
This is the fourth or fifth time, if my memory serves me correctly, that parliament has been put in this position as a result of an industrial dispute, and until one basic issue is solved it is a situation that will face us almost annually in one industry or another. The issue is basically one of parity. To secure industrial peace in any sector of our economy, parity, or to use a better word, fairness, is essential.
Farmers in my constituency, certainly in western Canada and I believe in all Canada, are fair people. They want to pay their employees fairly, and they are willing and want to provide good, clean working conditions. They want fair working relations and agreements with their employees. Both sides to this dispute, and all of the members of this House, must face up to and deal once and for all with the issue of parity in this industry.
So long as you have the situation where one group of workers receives substantially more pay than another group of workers, doing relatively the same work on the same work sites, you must face the problem of parity every year, indeed daily. I say this because it is intrinsically unfair to permit that sort of situation to continue.
This is not the first time, as I said earlier, that this issue has arisen. I recall when I was an employee on the railway in the forties and fifties that the issue of parity, of fair pay for the same kind of work, was always before us in our negotiations year in and year out. It was not until that issue was reasonably or satisfactorily settled that progress was made by both sides in railway wage negotiations. The same can be said of the auto workers.
I suppose the instance most spoken of-and my good friend from Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) mentioned it-is that of the seaway workers. One can say what one likes about the 30 per cent settlement that Mr. Pearson's government awarded, but I would remind the House that ever since then we have had relative industrial peace on the St. Lawrence seaway. This is because the issue of parity was met head on and dealt with.
In that case you had a situation where men working 150 feet apart for the same employer and doing the same job had a wage differential of $1 to $1.50 an hour, and the higher paid workers were on the U.S. side of the border. Once that issue was met and dealt with, and the reality finally faced by parliament, relative industrial peace has been maintained on the St. Lawrence seaway.
The Perry report goes some way toward meeting this issue and facing this reality. Farmers I have talked to,
Grain Handlers' Strike
almost all of whom are active members of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, recognize that this problem has been in existence for years, and they have honestly and genuinely tried to grapple with it, as have their employees. As I say, the Perry report goes some distance toward this end.
I for one do not want to be faced with coming back here a year from now to deal with the same issue in the same industry all over again. After the end of the first year the Perry report award still leaves the grain handlers about 25 cents an hour, and another 25 cents an hour in pension contributions, behind the rate paid to the longshoremen. At the end of the second year they will be relatively even-not completely, but reasonably even.
However, some time this winter the longshoremen will be negotiating a new contract with their employers, and the odds are that they will be given some kind of increase. This means that the grain handlers, even with the increase awarded by the Perry report, will once again be some distance behind the longshoremen with whom they work side by side. I submit that in that event the same problem could be back in front of us once again.
In these kinds of circumstances it seems to me that it will take three or four years of progression before a reasonable semblance of parity is reached. I believe, I hope not naively, that the employees and employers will be prepared to take the time to reach a settlement of the issue of parity progressively. My information-I think all hon. members are aware of this-is that discussions are now going on concerning a merger between the grain handlers and longshoremen. In the long run I believe this will be in the best interests of both the employees and the grain companies. Although it may be painful at times it will go a long way toward ending, once and for all, the issue that men who do the same work should be paid fairly.
The other matter that has been bothering me, and which I know has been bothering people in my constituency, is the cost of the settlement compared with the cost of the dispute. On the figures contained in the Perry report, the estimate of the grain companies is that the cost of the settlement will amount to some $3.8 million over two years. I have had different figures from both sides to the dispute, and also from neutral sides, regarding what this means to the farmers' pocket. The employees say it will cost about half a cent a bushel. The companies feel it will cost one cent or 1.1 cent a bushel. But even if it costs 1.5 cents a bushel, the farmers say to me "Settle and get them back to work".
Mr. Vogel of the Canadian Wheat Board has presented figures showing there will be $10 million in demurrage charges this year alone, something in the order of almost three times the cost of implementing the Perry report recommendations. In light of that, and in order to face up to the basic issue of parity, I believe, as many farmers have said to me, that the cost of settling will be far less than, and far preferable to, the cost of the dispute. In other words the dispute is costing the farmer two or three times as much as the Perry report recommendations.
I want to say one other thing about demurrage charges. This question has been raised before. The minister in charge of the Wheat Board has been asked and pleaded with countless times, by members of parliament, farmers and farm organizations, to deal with this issue, one that

October 7, 1974
Grain Handlers' Strike
also has to do with fairness. I am not just talking about fairness for the workers but fairness for the farmers. If through no fault of the farmers demurrage charges are assessed, on waiting vessels, surely it is intrinsically unfair to require the farmers to pay those charges? Surely this is a proper charge on the nation as a whole? If, through a breakdown in industrial relations, a failure in our transportation system, or on account of weather or for countless other reasons, the loading of boats is delayed, then surely the cost of that delay should be borne by the nation as a whole, and not levied solely against the farmer?
If the government wants at least to appear to be evenhanded and fair in this whole matter, in addition to the legislation we are dealing with the minister will announce tomorrow that the people of Canada, through the government, will pay these demurrage charges.
There has been much said about how much these Perry recommendations will involve. Both sides have come up with figures. I think we can now rely on the figures put out on August 29 as reported in the Vancouver Sun. That article was based on a statement by Mr. A.M. Runciman, who heads the United Grain Growers, in which the grain companies came up with a new figure in respect of what the Perry award would cost. The new figure is somewhat less than they originally suggested. The workers in turn came up with a figure somewhat more than they had originally said.
This article states:
"This is the figure (48 per cent) we wished had been used all along," declared A M. Runciman, President of the United Grain Growers, in an interview from Winnipeg.
Runciman said 61 per cent was "valid" on the basis it was used, but "48 per cent is a more balanced presentation."
"We were not kidding anybody with the 61 per cent on the basis of the $4.96 wage rate," said Runciman, although it had been widely quoted as the calculated increase on both wages and fringe benefits of the Perry report.
I hope that anyone else who may take part in this debate, for whatever purpose, either to magnify the amount of the award or, on the other side of the coin, to argue that it is not sufficient, will not bandy about the 61 per cent figure. From Mr. Runciman's statement, we should now rely on the 48 per cent figure.
I have spoken about farmers being fair. I suggest that they are and have no desire to treat their employees unfairly, but they must be in a position to treat them fairly. When economic conditions hurt them their ability to treat their employees fairly decreases. I am confident they are willing to accept the one-cent a bushel cost in order to get the grain moving again, although perhaps not with a smile, but they would more willingly accept it if something were done about the other costs which far outweigh the cost of this increase. The one cost to which I have referred is the demurrage charge. That should not be taken out of the farmers' pockets by the Canadian Wheat Board.
Let me give another illustration of what I mean, Mr. Speaker. A farmer, with whom I spent almost an hour speaking on the telephone the other night, told me about costs and gave me this illustration. A 64-inch plastic belt

for his combine cost 79 cents in 1967, and cost 89 cents in 1968. Last week the same belt cost $4.88 and the farmer had to buy two the same day.
I suggest that if we want to prevent the possibility of this kind of dispute taking place in this industry and in others in the future, it is long overdue on the part of the government and parliament to act in respect of these kinds of costs to our farmers.
I have a stack of papers before me which includes reports, charts, statistics and figures on both sides to the dispute, and from our own research people in the government. I have listened carefully to both the minister and the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander). I do not think this is the occasion for members of parliament to use up time going into all the details in order to present the arguments put forth by both sides.
The purpose of this legislation is to end the dispute, end the work stoppage and get grain moving. I am not sure how much a detailed debate would accomplish at this point of time, particularly in view of the fact that these arguments have been put forward by many people for almost a year, and I doubt that any airing we might give the facts here would shed any further light. What we want to do now is deal with the matter quickly. Therefore, my colleagues and I urge that we not only limit the length of speeches but also the number of speeches in order that we can implement this legislation.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 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 Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall)-Housing-Consultation with provinces to expand programs; the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-Social security-Suggested increases in family allowances and old age pensions- Government position; the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Holmes)-Agriculture-Request for progress report on re-establishment of sugar beet industry.

It is customary at this time for the House to proceed to the consideration of private members' business, but since the draw of private members' bills and motions will take place only tomorrow, no such business will be considered at this time.
In consequence of this, the House will return to the consideration of the grain handling operations bill. [English]
As the draw in respect of private members' business will take place tomorrow, no business under this heading can be taken up at this time, as would normally be the case.



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.
Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, since this is the first time I have had the chance to speak since the session started, may I first of all heartily congratulate the Speaker who will chair this session's debates and, hopefully, several future debates as well.
I wish to assure him that he will enjoy our wholehearted co-operation. The experience which I have gleaned through a few years in the House has led me to understand that the Speaker, despite all his qualities, needs the cooperation of all hon. members in order to discharge his fairly onerous duty and chair the debates for the good not only of the members, but also of all Canadians, whose representatives we are here, so that the debates can be led to their anticipated results.
Mr. Speaker, we are today starting to study a bill providing for the settlement of a strike which has been going on for several weeks on the west coast. The examination of this bill does not occur in a traditional setting. We had to adjourn the debate on the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne to face a situation which has suddenly become serious. This strike has been going on for several weeks, as I stated earlier. Early in August, the Social Credit Party of Canada asked the government to resume parliamentary work in order to bring about an end to this trike, since we had foreseen that it would be a lengthy one. Our experience of previous conflicts led us to doubt that this strike could be settled without the government being forced to resort to legislation.
However, Mr. Speaker, the government turned a deaf ear to our claims and we were not alone in this. The other parties as well as farm and trade organizations throughout Canada called for government action.
The minister just told us a moment ago that the Governor-in-Council, at the outset of the election campaign, suspended the right to strike in this Pacific port until election day because it would apparently have been detrimental to the Canadian economy. But a few weeks too late, it is realized that the government did not fear as much for the Canadian economy as for the economy of the
Grain Handlers' Strike
Liberal party, because if a strike could affect the Canadian economy during the election campaign, its effect would be the same after the election. Still, the government waited three months before acting to put an end to this strike.
Mr. Speaker, we are aware that this method of settling a labour conflict is not too popular either with trade unions or with employers.
Given the context, this procedure is becoming popular with Canadians. And we know that a strike of such magnitude has a high cost to the nation's economy and everyone loses. Grain handlers in western ports are the first victims of the strike, but employers also lose. Grain producers, especially those in the Prairies, stand to lose much from the strike. Canadian trade also loses a great deal. On this point, I do not expect our overseas clients to be happy with those ever repeating strikes.
On August 31, 1972, a special session was called to settle a strike in western ports, quite similar to the one before us today. On August 30, 1973, almost a year to the day, a special session was called to settle a Canadian railroad strike, following an earlier one. On October 7, 1974, a special bill was passed to settle a strike in western ports, and in October 1975 we will probably be debating a bill to settle a labour dispute in some federal area, probably a harbour strike, maybe an eastern one this time involving the Atlantic or the St. Lawrence. It may be a mail strike, or a railroad or an air transport strike.
The same situation will probably occur next year.
Mr. Speaker, what are the provisions in the bill before us to settle the strike? Upon passage of the bill, the workers will be forced to go back to work. The strikers will have to return to work, the companies that imposed the lockout will have to call workers back on the job. The employees are told: You will get 87 cents more an hour starting December 1, 1973. An arbitrator is appointed to help settle the dispute, to find points of agreement, to negotiate a labour contract for the next few months.
But then, Mr. Speaker, if it is possible to appoint an arbitrator today in an attempt to solve the dispute, why could it not be done two months ago for instance to end this conflict which has caused so many problems at all levels of the Canadian economy? We waited until today. Mr. Speaker, a question still remains; probably tomorrow morning, or as soon as the bill is passed, the worker will be forced back to work, with an offer of 87 cents an hour. But how much will he get out of that increase of 87 cents an hour?
Part of this 87 cents will go to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Basford) who will hand it to the government of British Columbia.
Mr. Speaker, I expect the government to take in taxes 30 to 40 per cent of that increase which the companies will be forced to pay their employees. The worker will come out of that strike a loser because management will have to raise its freight rates and profits to meet the higher wages they will have to pay. But the worker, the grain handler who will be forced back to work tomorrow morning will receive only part of that increase.
He will get only part of that increase, and come out a loser. Mr. Speaker, it is the same thing at all levels,

October 7, 1974
Grain Handlers' Strike
whether it be in the public or the private sector in Canada. There is always a salary increase following a labour dispute. But every time the government takes its share of the increase, so the worker is always a loser. He always wants to boost his purchasing power but he is worse off than before.
Mr. Speaker, what the Canadian worker wants, be it in the field of production or public services, Pacific or Atlantic ports, transportation or private enterprise, is first and foremost a purchasing power high enough to allow him to meet his own needs and those of his family. That is what the worker is seeking, Mr. Speaker, and today that possibility is taken away from him on account of the price rise which is practically accepted and which seems to be encouraged because it suits the government. In the production field for instance, every wage increase means a price increase. Therefore, the government is taking not only a part of that increase through income tax, but it also increases its revenues indirectly through an increase in the federal tax and in the provincial sales tax. Therefore, the government wins on all counts.
That is why the worker is ever more deprived of the fruit of his work and is endeavouring by all means to strengthen his purchasing power. The only thing he can do at the present time, is to call for higher wages.
Mr. Speaker, such a situation cannot last any longer. If an effective way of putting an end to it is not found rapidly, there will never be any way out and we will get bogged down deep.
The bill before us will not solve anything. It will force workers, grain handlers in the Pacific ports to go back to work, but afterwards, we will have to start afresh.
We had a debate on August 31, 1972, during which the leader of the Social Credit Party of Canada, the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette), said the following, which I am quoting from page 3910 from the official report of the House of Commons Debates:
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-231 is not the solution to the problem. We know we will have to begin all over again, for the same causes generally produce the same results.
The leader of the Social Credit Party said that two years ago. We now face exactly the same problem in the same area.
Mr. Speaker, we must find other means to solve this problem, to avoid Parliament-having to deal with such conflicts time and time again. The Social Credit Party of Canada has often asked that a labour court be established, not to settle labour disputes, but to prevent them. This is what the leader of our party asked once again that same day in the same speech. He said, and I quote:
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that a Canadian labour court be created as soon as possible in order to prevent disputes and to maintain the best possible relations between labour and management.
Mr. Speaker, this suggestion should be accepted and recognized by the government. It is up to the government to decide whether to institute such a labour court, as I said, and as was said often before, not to settle labour conflicts, but mostly to prevent them.
Mr. Speaker, this will obviously not be sufficient if the government does not take the necessary means, not only to stop the present increase in the cost of living, but also to

reduce it so that the Canadian dollar may regain its former value. In this way, the Canadian worker who lives on a pension or a fixed income, who has saved some money, will not lose the value of his dollar. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the government has the duty to control inflation, and that this should be done even before the institution of a labour court.
Mr. Speaker, those are two important subjects with which the government should deal immediately. It must do so during this session if it wants to act seriously and be taken seriously by the Canadian voters. Everyone suffers from the situation, and there is no saying that our overseas clients may not tire at some point or other, whether it be in connection with grain or other goods we offer them, of seeing those delays occur at every turn and look to other producers, to other exporting countries. There again, we would suffer from not being able to export our surpluses.
Mr. Speaker, that is the message I wanted to contribute to the debate on this bill. As for me, I feel it should be passed as soon as possible, to put an end to a conflict which has lasted much too long; we should also take the necessary steps, during this session, to ensure that this situation does not constantly recur in the future as it has especially in the last few years.


Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, it is not without a considerable degree of trepidation that I, as a freshman member of this House, rise to make my first remarks in this chamber in the course of this crucial debate with respect to the west coast grain handlers' dispute.
As the representative of Assiniboia constituency-one of this nation's greatest agricultural and, particularly, grain producing regions-this dispute and its settlement are of paramount concern to me at the moment. It is essential that the interruption in Vancouver grain movement be brought now to a speedy conclusion by parliament because it is quite apparent that exhaustive efforts- they have been exhaustive on all sides-toward a negotiated solution have not been, and will not be, successful.
I regret-as I am sure most hon. members of this House regret-the fact that we are here today dealing with this problem in this manner. Surely the floor of this House must not become the commonplace location for major labour-management negotiations in this country to take place. The prime responsibility in this area, through the collective bargaining process, rests-and ought to rest- with employers and employees. Under our laws, and in the national interest in most cases, they are quite properly called upon to sit down together to resolve their differences, find common ground and reach contract settlements without damaging slowdowns or destructive work stoppages, and without possible mischief or violence and the eventual necessity of parliamentary intervention. But in the present circumstances, parliament has no alternative but to take this action, and I hope expeditiously, to conclude a contract so that our grain exports through Vancouver can resume.
October 7, 1974

I must say that I appreciate the view expressed by the spokesman for the New Democratic Party, that his party wants this legislation to move forward quickly so that grain can begin to move through Vancouver. I regret the attitude of the official opposition, which seems not to be very concerned about the situation at the moment.
I suppose somewhere in the annals of our industrial history we might find what could be described as examples of perfect negotiations or perfect industrial relations. But most surely these examples would be few and far between in our less than perfect world. The present situation in Vancouver falls far short of perfection when viewed from almost any perspective, and the difficulties of this past summer have taken place against a sorry background of sour relationships and discord extending back more than a decade. In view of this sad history, I particularly welcome the proposal today by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) that an industrial inquiry commission will soon be appointed to thoroughly investigate the history of labour relations in the grain handling industry at Vancouver.
Requests for such a move have come from such diverse sources as the Palliser Wheat Growers' Association and, I believe, the National Farmers' Union. I know we will all wish the commission well in its work toward achieving a better industrial relationship between the grain handling companies and their employees. I am sure prairie grain producers are looking forward to an era of more stability in this field so that they need not fear further costly disruptions in the movement of their grain into export position.
There are two general issues with which I shall deal briefly. First, some parties in this House and outside have tried to paint the government as the ogre in this sad situation. I ask members, before they make their judgment in this case, to look carefully at the chronology of events which stretch back for one year. Negotiations began for a new contract on October 19, 1973, almost a full year ago. The existing contract was due to expire on November 30. Direct negotiations between the parties continued for almost two months, without success.
The parties requested federal mediation assistance about the middle of December, 1973. That assistance was forthcoming immediately and two skilled mediators struggled to find reasonable common ground for agreement between the parties. They worked for another two months but were unable to show signs of progress. A clear impasse had been reached and the Minister of Labour moved to appoint as conciliation commissioner Dr. Perry, who began his duties on February 15, 1974, four full months after discussions had begun originally. So this was hardly a premature move.
The appointment apparently was well received. Dr. Perry is a skilled man, an expert who is widely respected and well known in the field and, as the minister pointed out earlier, he had worked with these same parties a few years previously. It is interesting to note that amid all the controversy surrounding the dispute nobody has attacked Dr. Perry's competence, ability or impartiality. There has been criticism from some sides of the recommendations he
Grain Handlers' Strike
put forward, yet nobody has attacked his ability to deal with the situation or his competence in the field. Dr. Perry worked with both sides for 214 months but was unable to draw them together. Finally, he produced a report recommending what he saw to be a fair and reasonable settlement.


John Allen Fraser: Surely it was a basis for settlement.


Ralph Goodale: Yes, it was a basis for settlement. Those words are important. This was the best advice available to the parties and to the government of Canada. Clearly, he had done a sound and thorough job in the circumstances. The Perry report in itself was the end product of this particular collective bargaining process. We must keep that point in mind. It was a process which the parties themselves over a period of 614 months, with all the help in the world, had failed to make work.
What was the government to do with Dr. Perry's report? Could it reasonably, after all that had gone before, say, "No, we don't particularly care for this report. We will put it aside and appoint another conciliation commissioner who will work with the parties for another 2 Vi months and produce another report which we may or may not accept?" And on and on the process could go.
Clearly, once the parties directly involved in the negotiations, the employers and employees, had allowed their negotiations to deteriorate over more than half a year to the point where an expert, impartial third party had to investigate the situation and produce a thorough report, with recommendations, all the parties, the employers, employees as well as the government, had to be prepared to give that particular report some credence, authority and weight. The view adopted by the government was that the Perry report could not simply be tossed aside as unworthy of discussion.
The government urged this view on all sides, privately and eventually publicly. The workers agreed to it, the companies did not. To ensure continued grain movement during the period parliament was in dissolution, the government acted under section 181 of the Canada Labour Code to prevent a strike or lock-out, indeed to prevent a stoppage in grain exports, until August 8. All the while efforts continued at the official and ministerial level to have negotiations resume on the basis proposed by Dr. Perry. His report was clearly intended to be a basis for further negotiation, but this negotiation did not prove successful. Finally, in late August all work stopped. Exhaustive efforts to bring about a voluntary settlement failed. Further efforts would be pointless. And here we are today.
Allegations of blame are not helpful if we are to reach lasting solutions to difficult problems of this nature, but I believe two points should be put on record. First, once it was made clear to the representatives of the union that the government, if forced to do so, would legislate an end to the dispute on the basis of principles contained in Dr. Perry's report-again, these words were carefully chosen-there could be no excuse for continuing a work slowdown which hampered grain movement. That course of action was not responsible, and perhaps contributed to the further deterioration in relations. It certainly added to the harm done to western grain producers.

October 7, 1974
Grain Handlers' Strike
Second, once it was made clear to the companies that the government, if forced so to do, would legislate on the basis of Dr. Perry's principles-again, these are important words-it was illogical for them to persist in refusing to discuss the report and work out a settlement on the basis of the report. The final result, as we are witnessing today, was clearly inevitable. The companies said they were standing on principle in demanding parliamentary action. But it should be borne in mind that that standing on principle resulted in substantial losses being borne by prairie producers. They are losses which could have been avoided if the companies had accepted voluntarily, several weeks ago, the result which they then knew would be inevitable. If they had wanted to avoid responsibility, if they had wanted a scapegoat, they could have pointed the finger at the government. In the meantime they could have saved western farmers several million dollars.
It is interesting to consider the figures to which the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) referred.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The grain companies do not pay demurrage; the Wheat Board does.


Ralph Goodale: Demurrage charges totalling nearly $10 million have been incurred over the past several weeks, because grain has not been moving. As I said, it is interesting to note the figures mentioned by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre. For instance, the total cost of the increases suggested by the Perry report might be $3.5 million, perhaps $4 million, over two years. The demurrage charges alone which the Wheat Board has had to pay would have paid 2 Vi times for the increases in the new contract.
Given this recent chronology of events, the long history of sour labour relations in this industry on the west coast and the difficult attitudes adopted at times by both sides, and given the work done by Dr. Perry in his 2 Vi months of effort, the government's action in the circumstances has been fair and reasonable. Let me point out-this is particularly important to grain producers-that if the government had pursued a course of action other than the one it did, we probably would have seen a full work stoppage, perhaps a violent one, not in late August but perhaps in May, in April or even earlier. The grain kept moving, albeit at a slower rate, until the last week of August. That, in itself, was a considerable contribution in view of what might have happened.
Let me say one final word about the figures. Percentages have been mentioned in this House, in the press and elsewhere. Anyone who wants to put forward a view can sharpen his pencil and come forward with calculations in its support. When you break it down, Dr. Perry in his recommendations makes three separate points. They must be separated, because if you try to add them together you are adding apples and oranges. He talks about wages, about a cost of living adjustment and about a pension plan. If you break down the wage figures, you will see clearly that the increases range from 31 per cent to 32 per cent over two years, which is 15 per cent of 16 per cent per year. In terms of the situation in Vancouver, perhaps even the national situation, that would not be out of line when you are talking about a wage package exclusive of a cost of living adjustment.

When considering the pension plan provisions, bear in mind there had not been, by and large, any effective plan in place for the past several years for these particular employees at Vancouver. Clearly, the pension plan figures cannot be simply lumped in with the wage figures. There is a qualitative difference between an increase and having a pension plan at all. They cannot simply be added together to come up with some grotesque figure which does not fairly reflect the situation.
I do not want to take up any further time of the House dealing with the arguments pro and con the particular politics of the situation. As we go about our difficult task today, the problems are serious enough. I hope there will be a speedy resolution. None of us like the job we are called upon to do today, but I urge the House to pass expeditiously the legislation before us so that the crucial product, the grain, can begin to move. As this serious dispute ends, as the employees go back to work and the grain moves into export position, I hope all members of this House and all Canadians will heighten our resolve to find in the long run a better way.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, the issue we are discussing today is like a gramaphone record I have been hearing for 20 years; the more things seem to change on the west coast, the more they remain the same.
I wish to congratulate the new member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale) for presenting the government case so logically. I congratulate him on his delivery. However, I must warn him that he will never succeed in being a lasting success in this House by becoming an apologist for those "two babes in blunderland" who wandered around on this issue this past spring.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: There is a mess on the west coast and everyone knows it. These stoppages we have had since 1965 are going to continue this fall, next spring, and forever after. If it is not the grain handlers, it will be the longshoremen or some other group. All I can say is that the job to which we should be addressing ourselves is how we are going to eliminate these perennial stoppages. All parties agree that is our job. I wish to direct my attention to what are the issues.
First, there is a gulf or gap between labour men and management that is too wide to bridge by the absolute and sterile methods now being used in labour-management negotiations. The rigidity and barrenness of this approach are not only hitting Canadian producers of grain, but hitting the world in a way the continuation of which we cannot tolerate. I am referring to the fact that there is a hungry world out there.
These working men and farmers know as well as I that we have a job to do. We know what stands in our way is this barren, sterile labour-management type of procedure that is laid down. It is not for me to lay down a new labour-management procedure. I just want the House to know that the misinformation given to us by the hon. member for Assiniboia is very simple. He talked about two months and four months of exhaustive negotiations. I can
October 7, 1974

assure this House that both management and labour agree on one thing. There were no real negotiations at any time. That is the first point.
I am not here to kick the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) and the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Lang) around. I have more important things to do at this time. In passing over the events, I believe that management blundered badly. Because of its impatience it brought in this government machinery last fall and put itself on a slippery slope it could not get off.
I do not blame management for being annoyed when no negotiations took place. Suggestions for negotiations were put before them in the Perry report. The government stepped in and in effect said, "Even if there are no negotiations, we will legislate this proposal into being". By all the evidence on both sides, there was infringement of the legalistic type of labour-management negotiations which are set up under the government machinery. There is no debate on either side of the issue on that score.
All this talk and hammering at each other does not get at the question of stopping the grain stoppages. We must be aware, as we should have been aware for the past 25 or 30 years, that the food crisis is coming upon us in increasing crescendos. We have to do our part. The producers and working men both know this.
As pointed out by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin), the farmers want to move grain. They know that for years we moved grain through terminals on the west coast for a reasonable amount. We kept it at six cents a bushel because increasing costs were met by growing productivity.
Some of us from the PC caucus went to the west as a group of people, not to negotiate or interfere, but to determine facts. We found that what the Perry report and what various government officers in the negotiations talked about are altogether different from what labour wanted to talk about. Labour wanted to talk about how they could increase efficiency, productivity and get incentives for this new type of work force people they have to deal with, the young men. They wanted better communications with their boss.
As everyone knows, the bulk of the grain going through the west coast is put through terminals owned by co-operatives which have their headquarters on the prairies. These democratically owned co-operatives delegate to local management the running of these terminals. When they deal with the 550 men in this local, they do not deal with them as human beings. They hire the best lawyer that money can buy; $500 a day. To earn that pay, he is going to grind down on every point that he can.
We hear about the dirty tricks division of the politicians. You should see the dirty tricks division in this type of negotiation. I do not blame the lawyer for doing the best job he can to make the best deal possible for management. That is his job. However, this is not a sterile, barren situation where you are dealing with automation.
The young men in the labour force in that part of the country are the same as your sons or mine. They are 25 or 30 years of age. To them dollars and cents are not the only issue. They want to know why they have to work in that dusty, dirty environment, why there is only one toilet for
Grain Handlers' Strike
130 men, and why there are no shower facilities in some of these places. They want to know why they have these working conditions that most of us do not have to endure. They will put up with this if they know why.
These are modern-day human problems. Since labour wish to talk about efficiency and incentives or, as they call it, better communications, I think if would be easy to formulate a program of action. The bill before us does nothing to settle the basic grievances which have arisen on both sides, between two sincere groups of people, over the last 20 years.
The minister tells us he will appoint an industrial inquiry commission. I do not care how many he appoints. Any farmer I know, with half the brains he was born with, could sit down with his opposite number in this labour union, also with half the brains he was born with, and come up with a solution within two or three days without fooling around with an inquiry or anything else.
I realize the whole labour-management situation in the industry is in a mess and needs inquiry. But in this particular job, faced as we are with the challenge to keep grain moving, the first step in any action program should be to see to it that the presidents of these co-operatives and privately-owned terminals out there meet face to face with their opposite numbers in this little labour union. Let one of the terms of reference relate to ways of increasing productivity and, believe me, if these men do as they have done before, they will give us this increased productivity, and there will be no inflation at all.
Any agreement which raises wages even by 5 per cent is inflationary if there is no corresponding increase in productivity. But if these men, as they have done before-and thank God for it-increase their productivity, there should be no unwillingness to pay them more automatically without the silly farce of a strike. Therefore, as part of this action program, we need those directly affected-the leaders of the farm organizations, the employers and the heads of the labour unions-to meet in an effort to produce this new type of contract which includes productivity formulae and the provision of incentives, and to agree that grain, a food absolutely necessary in the world today, should be taken out of the field of labour-management disputes.
There is enough of an Irishman in each of us that we like a fight now and then, but these disputes should not result in the stoppage of vital food exports. I believe the longshoremen would also agree. I submit that the Perry report does not meet the criteria I have outlined. I have read it a number of times but I found no mention of productivity, no mention of increased efficiency, no mention of incentives for these men so that they would want to work-


An hon. Member:: Not in the terms of reference.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: That is right. It was not in the terms of reference. That is what happens once one begins to think in legal terms and put these matters in the hands of lawyers. We should never forget that we are dealing here with human beings. My point is simple.

October 7, 1974
Grain Handlers' Strike
I do not care how fine the Perry report may be or how bad it may be. It does not meet the basic criteria which must be met in the interests of the farmers and the workers. It does not deal with the need for increased productivity or increased efficiency, possibly brought about by increased automation and so on. For this reason it does not deal with the root problem. And because it does not deal with these things it is inflationary. The employees do not want a settlement to be inflationary. They want to accept the principles of productivity, of efficiency, of incentives and, above all, of improved communications with management. If, by these means, they can move more bushels of grain through the port, there is no inflation involved.
In many industries it is hard to quantify gains in productivity or efficiency. But that is not true of the grain business. The number of bushels or carloads moved in a year, a month, a day or an hour can be precisely measured. If the men's ideas can lead to increased productivity I know the farmer will wish the workers get their reward for producing those ideas and putting them into practice. Similarly, if it is machinery or new technology which leads to increased productivity, management has the right to share in the gains as well.
I think it can be gathered I am speaking with some feeling on this subject because I had to endure some anxious times myself in 1961. After a decade in which the farmers had been completely up against it, we finally found a little market for 60 million bushels a year in China. And my experts in the department, in the Wheat Board, on the Board of Grain Commissioners, the Harbour Commission, and management out there, told me with great sincerity and conviction that it was impossible to move that amount of grain via the west coast. Well, Mr. Speaker, when one has fought so hard to achieve something it is awful to be told by the experts that you cannot do it.
I know nothing about moving grain, but I do know something about human beings. I asked the railway heads and the farm representatives and the labour representatives-17 different groups in all-to meet to consider this challenge. And, believe me, in five days those human beings doubled the productivity of those port facilities without a dollar being spent in new capital investment. Nearly all the ideas came from the labour side. The increased flow dramatically increased the gross income of the companies, and when I suggested that labour surely deserved some of it, management said, "Very well, 10 per cent will go to labour." This represented a 60 per cent increase, yet not one voice was raised in complaint, because productivity had been doubled. I am talking now about the basic wage.
When we added up the extra $1.5 million which went to them it meant an increase of 60 per cent in their basic rate. Workers came to me at that time and said, "We have worked for this company for 20 years but this is the first time we have met our boss, and he is not such a bad fellow after all". They gave their word that as long as the oral agreement then reached was in being there would never be a strike by grain handlers or longshoremen on the west coast.

That was the situation until the companies made the mistake, in 1965, of hiring a lawyer who introduced a side issue of one kind or another. As a result, there was a breakdown. The companies, realizing their mistake, got rid of that lawyer and hired another. This brings me back to square one.
I think I should conclude, Mr. Speaker, by putting my arguments in point form. I should like to suggest that when the presidents of these grain companies sit down with their opposite numbers in the labour union they immediately agree, as they agreed in 1961, that we need a single grain allocation authority. Whether or not this be a transportation man, we need a grain allocation authority, someone who can direct the traffic and stop this silly sort of thing that is taking place in the name of competition.
Secondly, I suggest they accept the fact that we need a new grain handling system on the prairies to tie up with the modernization of the grain handling system on the coast. This has been held up for 25 years, for reasons that only people on the prairies understand.
Thirdly, I suggest they should discuss with the co-ops, and then recommend to the government, a new tax system that allows equality of tax treatment for private enterprise which is competing with the co-ops both on the prairies and in the terminals. That is the only way to protect the interests of both farmer and workers.
Fourthly, to get the grain moving and keep it moving, they should immediately accept the concept of a 24 hour a day operation in all the terminals, seven days a week, and put an end to the two shifts a day, five days a week pattern. They should work with the railways instead of against the railways.
I happen to know that there will be a volume of products coming through to the west coast greater than management knows about, certainly greater than even the labour fellows expect. These products that will be coming from the prairies in the next two decades are going to require tremendous efficiency in handling capacity on the west coast.
I should like to repeat that nothing is new, as I said in my opening remarks. But I felt keenly enough about this six years ago to propose a type of contract that now I hope labour and the company presidents will consider. These proposals were put forward in 1968, not in 1974, and are quite simple.
First, there should be a cost of living clause, and secondly, an agreed upon productivity gain rate, which gain would be shared on a formula mutually arrived at between management and labour. Thirdly, there should be constant negotiation to allow for external influences and new information. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, these words have meaning both to labour and to management. Fourthly, there should be provided built-in inducements to maximize productivity, and fifthly, participation of both sides in a program of labour supply, training, etc. Lastly, I would add a grievance procedure that could be activated continually and quickly. I suggest such a grievance procedure is obviously required. When men work under difficult and dirty conditions a fight soon develops, and it is better to
October 7, 1974

Grain Handlers' Strike
settle it within 24 or 48 hours than let it turn into a great sore.
I have taken my full time, Mr. Speaker, but I plead with the House, as I have on many previous occasions. We know that the Perry report is going to go through, and you cannot blame labour for accepting it. On the other hand, you cannot blame management for screaming its head off at the way things were handled. Nevertheless the real issue is to get at the basic problems on the west coast. Perhaps when we get all straightened around, since the system is more efficient by far on the west coast than on the east coast, we can then start work on the system on the east coast and bring about the same efficiency there.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the Postmaster General rising to ask a question?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Since the hon. member's time is limited, this can only be done with unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I thank the hon. member for his thoughtful speech, and I agree with much of his sentiment. However, I did not hear him so well over here, and I was wondering whether he said that in 1961, when there was a return to increased productivity, the men received a 6 per cent increase. Is that what he said?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: No, Mr. Speaker, I said 60 per cent.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I thank the hon. member.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might answer the question further by saying that wages in those days, if I remember correctly, were around $5,600 a year. The extra amount to each man was roughly $3,500, which is where I got the rough percentage of 60 per cent. It was also agreed at that time, and management actually put this into some of their contracts, that there be a productivity clause, which would be taken into account in the next contract two years later. I was no longer minister in 1964 and the clause was dropped. So, I have now made a new proposal. Knowing the fellows on both sides of this issue I am positive that this is a basis they will accept, and we will then get away from the whole question of labour-management disputes involving grain movement.


Mr. Olivier:: Mr. Speaker, may we call it six o'clock, and I will speak at eight this evening?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the House agree to call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m. this day.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to congratulate you on your election and assure you of my full and entire co-operation in the carrying out of your duties which I hope will last for a long time. I also wish to offer you my services if necessary.
Mr. Speaker, in the discussion of the bill entitled: "An Act to provide for the resumption of grain handling operations on the west coast of Canada" we have to deal with the basis of negotiations for collective agreements and to show more especially how a conflict can deteriorate at the social and humanitarian levels. That kind of conflict can give rise to a crisis which can sometimes be called a national crisis, because those individuals must work to ship abroad the grain necessary for the survival of people. Those workers have to earn reasonable wages for their work.
My hon. colleague from Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain made quite relevant remarks on the negotiation. He pointed out the need for continued negotiation in collective agreements. I would agree with him because I participated for seven or eight years in negotiations coming up every two or three years. One could see that those negotiations kept coming back on the same technical details. They were negotiated, and there was indeed a considerable loss of time. On the other hand, to have on-going negotiation, those parties would indeed have to act in good faith, and show respect one for the other.
I think that in this conflict management showed no respect at all for its employees. On the contrary, they refused to play their economic role by refusing to discuss negotiable demands and saying that Dr. Perry's recommendations were similar to those made in 1970. I do not consider Dr. Perry's recommendations to be so extravagant because in the province of Quebec about 100,000 workers in the public or quasi-public service now have that. If the expected rise in the cost of living is set at about 4 per cent and actually turns out to be 7 per cent I do not see anything abnormal in saying that the difference between 4 and 7 per cent is 3 per cent. This is a fair increase that the government of Quebec gives all its employees.
I think the recommendations contained in the report are a decent minimum for those employees, a minimum that will merely allow them to catch up on the dock workers who work with them everyday. I think that should be considered as a minimum that is certainly not extravagant and will not contribute to fuel inflation. I, for one, do not think that inflation is the result of salary increases. Many other factors cause inflation. When there is talk of productivity, of yield, no mention is made of the high cost of money, of the rate some people charge: there is a marked preference for talking about the rate of production of the human being.
To my mind, claiming that granting an increase to those people will cause inflation is trying to evade the problem.

October 7, 1974
Grain Handlers' Strike
I should also like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) for the way in which he dealt with the problem. First of all, I firmly believe that he gave the two parties a chance to come to an agreement before asking Parliament to intervene. Let us go back to the beginning of the conflict. It will be recalled that in September of 1973, more specifically on September 17, 1973, the unions advised the company of their wish to negotiate. Here we are in October 1974 and negotiations between the two parties have been a complete failure. Why? For several reasons, and I believe the preamble to Dr. Perry's report should be quoted to understand precisely what the merits of the claims and why it was impossible to reach an agreement based on compromise before being forced to pass an act of Parliament.
Dr. Perry said in part that the effects of the rising cost of living, especially in the second year of the old collective agreements, gave the workers a distinct feeling of being cheated and a sound conviction that the loss in purchasing power should be made up one way or another.
Widely spread uncertainties as to the future trend of consumer prices had stirred up fears with respect to the validity of a long term contract at this time.
There were other important considerations. For example, there was no pension plan for the whole industry on the west coast. A pension plan without contributions was being established; there were also frequent cases of higher wage scales in related industries, clear differences in the hopes of both parties regarding what could be achieved in that year through amendments. Furthermore, the negotiations were made difficult by previous negotiations.
In such circumstances, the subsequent recommendations could only indicate a series of provisional changes which both parties could accept while trying to reach an agreement in such a difficult year.
I think that in the previous conflict between the companies and the employees lies the explanation for the sad state of these negotiations.
There are probably some difficulties with the union, but most of all there is bad faith towards the western coast employers.
A quick look at the recommendations Dr. Perry made is enough to make one wonder why the parties did not agree.
First, as far as money is concerned, the people are asking for a 15 per cent increase that Dr. Perry supports. And we learned from the minister that the annual pay rise in British Columbia last year was 15.7 per cent. Therefore, I do not think that Dr. Perry was overly generous in making this recommendation.
Second, to contend, in 1974, that there must be a two year contract is to me quite normal. That was another rejected recommendation.
Third, he said there will be a further general increase of 65 cents as of December 1, 1974.
Fourth, he referred to cost of living adjustments to hike any increase of more than 4 per cent a year.
At the outset I explained that this practice is frequent, at least in Quebec, in the civil service and related bodies since 1970. I can't imagine why workers on the waterfront could not be granted similar benefits, whether they are

employed by government or private enterprise. If private enterprise really wants to show leadership and demonstrate that it has a social part to play in Canada, it is in cases such as this one that it should do so. If they are not of good faith and force us to sit today, then these companies compel us once more to settle problems they brought on themselves. What employer today would dare refuse to grant a pension plan? It is indeed impossible to understand that such employers still exist. Most of the changes proposed by Dr. Perry are minor changes in the area of employer-employee relations. Indeed they are far from being major changes.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know where we could go if we had such firms everywhere in Canada. First of all, our time would be spent intervening between unions and employers, something I should greatly deplore. In my opinion, the settlement of a conflict ought to be left to the parties involved.
This is a very special situation. For the past year and a half, the government has been at least trying to appoint a special investigator to help settle the problem between the parties, and it is realized, after reading the report, that there was always one party which refused to accept Dr. Perry's recommendations.
The management knew that it just did not have to accept. To wash its hands of the matter, it knew that someday a responsible government like ours would take means to solve the problem, and that once we had passed this law, the company could tell its employees: "Well, I have to live with this, I give it to you because the government is forcing me to do so." This is not how we shall create some sort of harmony between the unions and management.
I call on the good will of these owners to review entirely their philosophy concerning the attitude of unions. They must realize that, in 1974, unions are here to stay. They have a role to play and they do so. Of course as a politician, I have to face up to the consequences of this, the same as everyone else. What the unions are asking is not always convenient for us, but they have contributed greatly to social evolution in Canada. In their own way, through the mandates they have received, they have contributed to improve the situation of a great majority of the population.
If we can accept this, if we can stop looking for lawyers to study continuously the legal aspect of issues, the situation will improve. My colleague from Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) pointed out that whenever a lawyer is hired to look into a labour conflict issue, the problem remains unsolved for months. Mr. Speaker, the best example of this, I have witnessed in my constituency. The United Aircraft of Canada Limited hired the best lawyer, in other words the dirtiest they could find, to try to defend their cause. The workers have been on strike nine months and, according to the company, they will stay on strike for a long time. The company amuses itself by finding legal points to embarrass the union and not to solve the problem. The fact that they have 2,700 strikers on their hands, does not disturb them but let the strikers hire a good lawyer to represent them, that disturbs them. The

company keeps on doing research work and spends millions of dollars in fees to security agencies and all that kind of thing.
I might say in passing that I disapprove of that kind of employer that may be found in western Canada just as I do in my constituency. I believe it is immoral in 1974 not to be able to accept that a negotiating agent, duly commissioned by its members, duly accredited, be not held in respect. Those employers will never be respected by others.
Whenever employees are being prevented through their agent to accept negotiated settlements, it is bad. And it is still worse in this case because a conciliator makes recommendations, the union accepts them and the employer says that he does not accept them. Then the employers will come and say that unions contribute to the disruption of social order, Mr. Speaker. That is what they will say very soon. And it is the comment we often hear. If the employers really want to be held in respect by unions, they must also begin by showing respect for their employees and in order to do that, let them show respect to their negotiating agents.
Mr. Speaker, that is one of the best examples of employers who cannot adjust to the 1970's, who cannot adjust to social changes. That reminds me of a group of conservative men having a little business of their own, who want to preserve it and are anxious to keep their rights. They will have to learn that there are employees who allow them to make profits. If this is so I do not see why these employees should not benefit also.
Mr. Speaker, Dr. Perry's recommendations are minimum ones. In 1970 this was already being negotiated in Quebec. Now we have them in 1974.
I think it would be indecent to maintain here that we will contribute to inflation in Canada because we are giving a 15 per cent increase to some employees. There are bosses, Mr. Speaker, who will "screw" us for 60 per cent. And the bosses, the big consortiums, will "get" us even more by trying to "get" us with their income tax returns. You do not have to worry, that is where they make their money. And they are quite capable of doing this. After that, they tell us that because we are granting a 15 per cent raise we are contributing to inflation. They are really indecent.
We are quite lucky in Canada to have people who can respect the law and who are conscious of the fact that if they do not win there is a government who can support them. That is what is important.
I said before, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) really did good work in this case. I also said that I absolutely did not want government intervention between management and unions to become a normal procedure. I think that the Minister of Labour gave us an example of the patience one can have. All this started exactly on September 17, 1973 and we are now in October 1974. I think that the Minister of Labour has given both parties their chances and if management had really wanted to negotiate and accept Dr. Perry's recommendations we would not be in this position of being forced to vote a law to get respect for what is a vital minimum today.
Grain Handlers' Strike


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate I would like first of all to compliment the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale) for rising to make his maiden speech on such a contentious issue. I listened to him carefully. At the beginning of his speech he outlined the problem and said he regretted very much that parliament has to be the final negotiator in the conciliation and the bargaining process when the two parties were unable to reach agreement. I am sure all members of the House regret this also. But he failed to tell the House why the two parties have failed to reach an agreement in this particular dispute.
Normally when you have a labour dispute the two parties meet from time to time, and meaningful negotiations take place eventually when each party realizes that the other is seriously concerned. I have yet to hear why negotiations broke off, but I think the reason is obvious. The minister in charge of the Wheat Board (Mr. Lang) has stayed out of this debate so far because his head is hanging low. He is the culprit. He is the person who deliberately intervened. As early as the first part of May he told the companies to settle for the Perry recommendation or the government would force it on them. It was at that point that meaningful negotiations ceased.
If I had been head of the labour union I would not have sat down to negotiate either. I would have known I had the government on my side and that, if I hung on long enough, the companies would be forced to accept what Perry recommended. The minister in charge of the Wheat Board erred in intervening as rapidly as he did.
I might accuse the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) of playing politics in trying to keep this sticky wicket away from the last election. He used section 81 of the Labour Act and said that there should be no walkout or strike for a period of two months after the election. That was within his power, and he had to do it because already the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board had destroyed any chance for meaningful negotiations.
Members of the Liberal Party can rise in this House and call the grain companies anything they like but they should recognize when the negotiations stopped; they stopped when the government intervened. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), as I supposed he can do when he likes the minister who made the booboo, stepped in and supported the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. However, we have noticed a certain amount of demotion in the Liberal cabinet recently, and as suggested by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), there should be a few more.
The hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt (Mr. Lang) has done everything to destroy western Canada since he became a member of the cabinet. In the short time available this evening I want to point out that his actions during the time he has been a cabinet minister bear out his past actions. His first action was the well remembered LIFT program. Where did operation LIFT come from? It did not come from his brain; it is all outlined in the Canadian agricultural report submitted by the task force

October 7, 1974
Grain Handlers' Strike
on agriculture in 1969. It was dreamed up before he became minister.


Otto Emil Lang: You yourself recommended it in 1968.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am sorry; you cannot find that in any quotation anywhere.


Otto Emil Lang: Hansard. I will show you.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The minister picked that idea out of that book and attempted to sell it to western Canada.
The minister can correct me if I am wrong. Wheat production fell by 150 million bushels in the following year. I may be out a little, Mr. Speaker, but the minister is indicating general approval of that figure. Any schoolboy can figure out how much wheat is worth today. Before August 1 at the elevator on delivery it was worth $3.50 a bushel. I hope the farmer gets $1.50 a bushel on final payment. A bushel should be worth $4 on a ball-park figure, so $600 million is what this minister has cost western farmers.
What did he do next? He brought in the grain stabilization bill. Parliament defeated that bill and saved western Canada millions of dollars. What was the next thing he did? He had a fire sale of barley across the world, selling at least 20 cents to 50 cents a bushel below the price he should have been getting. The minister nods his head in approval. He sold barley and failed to adjust the price of barley for a two month period.
The next thing he did was to devise a feed grains policy. The evidence is in the Canadian livestock report of 19721973. That policy cost the western feeder $50 per head for every animal he fed last winter. In an effort to bail out the western feeder this spring the government spent $3'/2 million per week subsidizing or supporting beef prices. One can figure that over 26 weeks that cost about $90 million.
Now let us look at the grain strike. The hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt asked the people in that constituency to vote for him. He is a minister in the cabinet, but I wonder if the people in Saskatoon-Humboldt realize that his position there has cost them millions and millions of dollars. I have already accounted for something like $700 million.
Let us look at April 10, 1974 and what Mr. Vogel, chairman of the Canadian Wheat Board, had to say about the rail strike. That strike was similar to what we had this summer. The minister failed to make his point in cabinet, and parliament should have acted long before he did. He failed to have any weight whatsoever in cabinet.
It is no wonder that many farm people believe the Wheat Board would fare better in the hands of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) who has power in cabinet. The rail strike was brought before parliament, and what did it cost us? According to Mr. Vogel during the rail strike last year approximately 45,000 boxcars representing 95 million bushels were lost, and vessel demurrage charges cost producers of western Canada hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars. This year he said, "No, we are not going to pay any demurrage charges; the government is not going to intervene there."

This holdout is because the companies could have settled it any time, at the government's price, acceptance of the Perry report recommendations. According to Mr. Vogel, in this particular strike demurrage charges alone will come to $18 million. The minister in charge of the Wheat Board suggests they will only be $10 million. I will make a little deal with him. Will the minister pick up everything over $10 million? If it is not going to be a cent over $10 million what has he got to lose? He does not call me on that one, and that is too bad.
We have gone down a whole list, Mr. Speaker-operation LIFT, grain stabilization, barley sales, a feed grains policy, and a railway strike which cost Canada millions of bushels of lost sales and millions of bushels of potential sales. Now we have the grain handlers' strike. It all began quite innocently, as do most wage negotiations. The companies and unions sparred a bit and felt one another out. The companies asked for a conciliator and the Minister of Labour appointed one. The conciliator did not bring in a final sealed document, but brought in a list of suggestions which might be used in reaching a settlement.
The government has blundered. The minister from Saskatoon-Humboldt has blundered. Recently we witnessed firings from the cabinet. I suggest that that minister should be demoted. He is too involved with questions of justice and abortions to have time for anything else.


An hon. Member:: Wait until he deals with marijuana.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: An hon. member says, "Wait until he deals with marijuana." Somebody also suggested that he may already be dealing with it. In any case, whom are we to believe. Some say that these workers will gain 61 per cent, but the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) says they will get only 15 per cent. Witnesses should come before the committee to clear up whether the increase is of the magnitude of 15 per cent, 41 per cent or 61 per cent. How is the COLA clause to be negotiated? We don't know, but we are asked to pass this bill on second reading tonight.
The Toronto Star of October 2 says that we have inflation by the bushel in Ottawa, that giving the Vancouver grain handlers 60 per cent over two years is inflationary.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in his telegram to Mr. Runciman, President of United Grain Growers, said that the present settlement should not be considered as a precedent for wage settlements in other sectors of the economy, because the men in this dispute are trying to catch up with the longshoremen. Once they catch up, the longshoremen will go on strike to get ahead of the grain handlers.
The true test as to whether the companies have been the culprit in this matter is this: did they have difficulty in obtaining grain handlers? That will show whether they were stingy with regard to wages and working conditions. The answer is no. Grain handlers are available to any grain company operating on the west coast. So, Mr. Speaker, their pay has not been as bad as suggested by some speakers this afternoon.
Certainly the Prime Minister is wrong in suggesting this settlement will not set a precedent. It certainly will. The
October 7, 1974

government knows it will set a precedent. Grain inspectors at Vancouver who work for the same elevator companies the grain handlers work for, and who do much the same work as the grain handlers, will come out on strike next and demand a similar pay increase.
The government has offered them a niggardly 6 per cent. The Minister of Labour and the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) know that 6 per cent more will not satisfy the grain inspectors. The Minister of Labour already knows, after the settlement affecting terminal workers at Thunder Bay and personnel working on ships in the St. Lawrence, that the 61 per cent figure has already become a guideline in Canadian wage settlements. He agreed to the settlement of those two disputes at 65 per cent and 69 per cent.
This evening we heard that the grain handlers will get only 15 per cent extra, not 65 per cent, as happened at the Lakehead. Of course the figure will vary, depending on whether it is applied to the top, bottom or middle of the wage scale. The grain companies have taken the average. Without doubt the reference of this matter to parliament has set a precedent for future parliaments. It is all very well to intervene and say there shall be no strike or walk out, but the point is this: meaningful negotiations cannot go on. There should be no intervention which prevents meaningful negotiation.
But the government intervened, and its intervention will cost the Canadian economy vast sums because the proposed settlement is inflationary. Further, this wage settlement will inspire similar wage settlements in future. They, too, will be inflationary. Frankly, I regret that parliament has been made the final arbitrator in this dispute. I think Dr. Perry should come before the committee and say how he interprets the COLA clause in the contract, or how he arrived at the COLA clause which will affect the grain handlers.
Years ago the grain handlers decided to do away with their own pension plan. They voluntarily did away with it in wage negotiations because the Canada Pension Plan had been introduced. Now they want their pension plan reinstated, with the companies to pay all the costs and the workers to pay none. Surely Dr. Perry could come before the committee so that it can determine how large is the increase that is being granted. Is the Toronto Star correct in alleging that in Ottawa there is inflation by the bushel, and that this is an increase of better than 60 per cent?
Like it or not, what the government does will set a precedent in wage settlements. It will affect inflationary pressures in this country. If the increase is to be only 15 per cent, it behooves members of the House to seek the proof of that; otherwise w.e shall merely be encouraging inflation. I shall be interested in hearing government supporters on this point. Are they prepared to have the matter clarified before the committee? We, as legislators, should know whether the increase is to be 61 per cent or 15 per cent. The matter should be cleared up. I hope this bill is sent to committee so that witnesses may be called to answer these questions fully.


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I intervene in this debate to say that I support this bill and support my colleagues in this matter which is
Grain Handlers' Strike
of great importance to grain handling in the port of Vancouver, part of which I represent in this House, and important also to the prairie and national economy.
I was disappointed with the position taken by spokesmen for Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. As spokesmen for all other parties said this afternoon, we regret the necessity for parliamentary intervention in this labour-management dispute. We regret that parliament must be the final arbitrator. Obviously if this work stoppage had been settled by the free collective bargaining process, if the settlement had been freely arrived at, in an atmosphere of healthy labour-management relations, all parties in this House would be happier than they are this evening.
Obviously at some point in any dispute involving the public interest, the rights of the public outweigh the private rights of the parties involved. That point has been reached in this work stoppage involving grain handlers in the port of Vancouver.
This afternoon we listened to a full and lucid explanation of the circumstances giving rise to this legislation by my colleague, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro). We also listened to the official spokesman of the Conservative party, the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), who made a great speech. It was generous, genteel, witty and cleverly put together. It was one of his better speeches in the House of Commons. I compliment him on his official statement this afternoon on behalf of his party.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: You can stop there.


Stanley Ronald Basford: In the course of his speech the hon. member roundly attacked the bill. He attacked the formula used in the bill. He attacked the Perry report, the Minister of Labour, and the minister responsible for the wheat board.


An hon. Member:: And the government.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Yes. He attacked everyone it was possible to attack. However, nowhere in the course of his remarks on behalf of the official opposition did he propose what parliament should do to get wheat moving to and out of the port of Vancouver.
Nowhere did the hon. member suggest how we as a parliament, the highest court in the land, which today and tomorrow will be attempting to get the companies and the men moving wheat through Vancouver this week, should approach this problem. Instead, to my very considerable dismay he, and the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) engaged in narrow partisanship.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Ronald Basford: The hon. member for Hamilton West told us how he had gone to Vancouver and Calgary and saw what was happening. I would have thought that on this occasion the hon. member and his party would have risen above partisanship and, on the floor of this House, sought a solution to the problem that now exists in Vancouver. However, I do not think members opposite are really interested in a solution.

October 7, 1974
Grain Handlers' Strike
I wish to quote from an article that appeared in the August 27 edition of the Vancouver Sun. British Columbia members of parliament were interviewed about whether parliament should be summoned to deal with this situation. I quote:
And Tory Ron Huntington-
He is the new Conservative member for Capilano.
-said Parliament should be called, but only to embarrass the Liberal government and not to resolve the grain strike situation-
"What's the point of having Parliament get involved now that the bargaining system has already been destroyed? But it would be tremendously embarrassing to the present government to have to call Parliament.
"On that basis, I would say, 'yes, call Parliament.' But I wouldn't want to see the government or the minister taking any discretionary action."
Asked if he was recommending that the government go to the effort of expense of calling the House in order to do nothing, Huntington said: "Yes, it would be very embarrassing to them. That's the only point of it all."
It is tragic that the hon. member for Hamilton West and his party should regard this situation not as one to seek a solution to a very serious work stoppage in Vancouver but to seek a partisan advantage. They seek to embarrass the government rather than to relieve the situation affecting the prairie wheat farmer and the Vancouver cargo handling facilities. I would have thought that in this new parliament we could have looked to Her Majesty's official opposition for a somewhat higher contribution to the debate and the resolution of these issues.
What the official spokesman of the Conservative party and the hon. member for Crowfoot have proposed today will not move one grain of wheat. It will not get one ship weighing anchor from English Bay. It is unfortunate that we have such a lack of leadership from the official opposition. This evening I appeal to them to forget that position, to be statesmanlike, to support this legislation, to get it to committee as quickly as possible, to get the work stoppage in the port of Vancouver over, and get the grain and ships moving again.
Here is a group that for a month has been saying "call parliament". They have been blaming the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) for not calling parliament. We have now convened. We now have legislation. But they have adopted a policy which would make parliament impotent to deal with this particular situation. It is a truly deplorable situation and I hope the hon. member for Hamilton West will mend his ways during the course of the debate.
The bill before us is the usual type of bill for these unfortunate circumstances. My colleague explained it this afternoon. The bill contains five provisions, namely, that grain handling will be resumed, the collective agreement will be extended, the term of conciliation commissioner will be incorporated into the collective agreement, all strikes and walkouts are prohibited, and negotiations will resume on how the terms of the conciliation commissioner will be incorporated. Failing agreement on that, a referee will deal with the question. What the bill does can be examined in detail in committee, I hope tomorrow or the next day, when my colleague will appear before the committee.
One other point the hon. member for Hamilton West raised is that the bill did not set out that there would be
an industrial inquiry. He criticized the Minister of Labour for making that announcement today. The establishment of an industrial inquiry is set out in Sections 196 and 197 of the Canada Labour Code and need not be incorporated into this special legislation, Bill C-12. Therefore, in making his announcement this afternoon the Minister of Labour was acting in accordance with legislation already passed by parliament and which is already the law of the land. It was put forward by my colleague, the present Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey).
There is a need for this industrial inquiry into the whole history of labour management and grain handlers in Vancouver. The need is great. As the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) said this afternoon, we do not want to come back next year, or the year after, and again have to pass legislation. As the minister said, we have seen a long and tedious history of labour management difficulties in the grain handler's situation at Vancouver.
We must seek a means of permanently establishing labour management stability in grain handling and cargo movement to and through the port of Vancouver. My colleague mentioned returning to the days of the dispute at the time of the St. Laurent government. For 21 years we have seen a history of mediators, conciliators, inquiry commissions of one sort or another, strikes, walkouts and labour management disturbances. In the interests of both parties and, more important, the interest of the national economy, the cause of the difficulty must be removed. We must resolve the underlying labour management difficulties.
It seems to me that an industrial inquiry as proposed by my colleague is a suitable instrument for initiating that kind of process. It would hear from all the parties concerned and, undoubtedly, it would take into account some of the constructive comments made by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) this afternoon. It is essential that the underlying causes of unrest be removed.
The Port of Vancouver is the nation's busiest port. It is the second busiest in North America and the twelfth busiest in the world. Over the next five years we shall have to spend, depending upon what analysis one reads, anywhere between $500 million and $1 billion on upgrading marine facilities and access to the port. We cannot legitimately expect the public and the private sector to invest capital of this magnitude without taking steps to improve the labour-management climate in the port. It seems to me this is the whole purpose of the two-pronged approach proposed by the government through the Minister of Labour.
First, the bill before us ought to be passed as quickly as possible so that operations in the port can be resumed. Secondly, from a longer term point of view, there should be an inquiry into the whole history of labour-management in the hope of producing permanent solutions and creating healthy industrial relations. I hope the commissioner will be imaginative in the way he looks at his terms of reference, and that he will suggest to all the parties involved long term solutions to the problems which have

October 7, 1974

vexed wheat shippers and all others engaged in port operations. I hope the official opposition and its spokesmen will recognize that it is essential to pass this legislation quickly and that they will forego what is an obvious delight to them, that is, an attempt to derive some partisan advantage at the expense of the Minister of Labour, or of the Wheat Board, or of the government.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Humbug!


Stanley Ronald Basford: Again, I appeal to the statesmanship of hon. members opposite. Let them show the country that parliament, when it is called upon to be the final arbiter, can act decisively in the national interest.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Listening to the unctuous tones of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Basford) I looked across the aisle expecting to see a halo above his shiny visage. I heard him attack Her Majesty's loyal opposition for showing partisanship, and call upon us for statesmanship, in fact demand from us all the things which he and his colleagues have failed to produce. It seems to me he wants us to endorse the clumsy solution which is being foisted upon the country by the government and, in the process, somehow, to accept responsibility for it. I say to the minister: This is your baby; don't expect us to look after it.
As one of the members chosen to go to the beautiful city of Vancouver to look into the background of the situation, I did so with a certain advantage. Like the government, I did not know very much about the subject. And as I looked into the various ramifications of the matter, and spoke to the parties involved, I quickly learned that this was an extremely complex human issue. We were able to speak with union members and their negotiating team led by Mr. Henry Kanes who, I may say, personally impressed me a great deal.
We found that, unlike some other less progressive unions, this one was anxious to come to grips with the challenge of moving grain more quickly through the Port of Vancouver. We found that the union was interested in discussing working conditions, new methods of processing grain and cleaning it on the prairies, and the introduction of equipment which will speed the unloading of cars at the terminals. In other words, there was a great willingness to participate in a team approach, using what one could call, I suppose, an approach by way of industrial democracy, leading to all kinds of long term solutions, adopted in a constructive way in co-ordination with the management of the companies and prairie agricultural interests.
Also, we found that management were most concerned about certain questions which were fundamental in their eyes, which meant they had to take account of past history, and of what had happened to the farmers on the prairies in the bad years when some of those who grew the grain received less by way of remuneration than those who handled it at the elevators and expedited its passage to world markets.
It is said there is nothing altogether new and that if one examines the background of any situation one will find in the past a parallel to what is occurring in the present. So I
Grain Handlers' Strike
took the opportunity to do some research. I go back to the Liberal administration led by Alexander Mackenzie in 1877. The Governor-General, Lord Dufferin, said at that time in a speech at the City Hall in Winnipeg, on September 29:
You have been blessed with an abundant harvest, and soon I trust will a railway come to carry to those who need it the surplus of your produce, now-as my own eyes have witnesses-imprisoned in your storehouses for want of the means of transport.
Well, today we find that a vast amount of Canada's grain reserves are still imprisoned in a storehouse, or, more precisely, in the great grain terminals on the west coast and there is no way because of a strike or lock-out, in which we can transport them to our customers and to the hungry people of the world. This is a deplorable situation and it seems to me that implicit in this situation is the government's failure to demonstrate any degree of statesmanship. For if statesmanship had been shown, the present situation would never have developed.
I suggest there is a natural alliance between the prairie farmers, who do such a fine job of growing our wheat, and the people on the west coast, who do such a fine job handling it, and that there is a great deal of room for the benefits of productivity to be brought into effect as was stated by my hon. friend, the Member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton), the minister of agriculture in the regime of my right hon. friend from Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), in his excellent speech this afternoon. It is unfortunate that in recent years no one on the government side has made any attempt to bring these two groups of people together for the benefit of themselves and of the nation.
The transportation system necessary to the movement of these vast quantities of wheat has become obsolescent; the collection system on the prairies has become obsolescent. Now we see that labour-management relations between the two groups have also become absolescent. It is clear that in this country, one of the greatest wheat and grain producers in the world, we can no longer deliver our harvest to customers abroad because the government cannot give leadership or devise a formula for setting up a proper climate for industrial relations.
That sincere people like the grain handlers in Vancouver, management and the owners-presidents, if you will-of the terminals, who reside on the prairies, cannot come together for the common good of all is one of the biggest tragedies of the whole affair, at least to me as a member who has not been too close to the situation but who has the benefit of looking at the situation without any preconceived ideas.
I should like to say something about the transportation aspects of the matter. Only a few months ago eastern Canadian agriculture was jeopardized by the lack of transportation facilities to move feed grains to this particular part of the country. The mismanagement of the transportation system of the country has had the end result of placing an increased burden on consumers in the form of higher prices. For example, let me look at the feed grain supplies in eastern Canada.
190

October 7, 1974
Grain Handlers' Strike
We forget, perhaps within the confines of this debate, that there was an equally serious labour dispute involving the Great Lakes terminals, which in turn had a direct effect not only in that particular region of the country but in the extreme eastern region of Canada as well. Roger Perrault, chairman of the Canadian Livestock Feed Board, expects difficulties. This is what he said in a recent news release:
The system will have to operate smoothly from now to the end of the Great Lakes navigation season to get enough domestic feed grain into position for normal movement during the winter months. Otherwise, eastern Canadian farmers may have to pay the extra cost for moving more grain than usual by rail and there could be shortages of some grains in certain areas if there are further delays and interruptions in the movement... Since feed grains are a major component in the production of milk, poultry, eggs and meat, consumers should not expect lower price tags on these food items in the year ahead.
Difficulties in labour-management relations not only had serious repercussions on our international sales-and these difficulties were very adequately dealt with by the members who have spoken here today. Our country not only lost credibility as a reputable supplier of this vitally needed commodity, grain; our internal economy has also been seriously affected. This makes it all the more important that something be done by the government along the lines suggested by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain, and hinted at by the Minister of National Revenue. What we need is something constructive, statesmanlike if you will, that finally will allow labour and management to participate jointly in finding what I refer to as some sort of industrial democratic solution.
It is obvious that not all industries offer the same opportunities for productivity that will lower the cost of settlements relative to inflation, as is the case with the present grain handlers' strike. Some industries have a greater labour content and are more marginal. But surely here in grain handling there is the type of situation where there is a real and obvious gain to be made by invoking productivity, perhaps marrying to some extent COLA and productivity, in an attempt to come to some sort of innovative solution. Surely there must be some greater initiative to be shown than is shown by this bill we are discussing tonight.
This bill, while necessary in the present context to break the logjam, or perhaps I should say the wheat jam, and get this commodity flowing again, does nothing else. It illustrates by its content that there is nothing, shall I say, contemplated of an imaginative nature to settle any future difficulties. The provision in clause 7 for appointing a referee is, as far as I am concerned, a sort of built-in admission of the fact that there will undoubtedly be difficulties in interpreting this clause, which as I recall embodies the fringe benefits that are set out in the Perry report, a report that was treated, or mistreated as if he were cast as an arbitrator.
If this bill offered any sort of innovative approach or promised some particular solution to this unfortunate situation, then I would have no trouble supporting it. But all it is in fact is some sort of self-destruct mechanism. What is going to happen is that these kinds of large settlements will inevitably be reflected in the economy.
The Canadian Manufacturers Association, for example, are this evening registering great concern about what is

going to happen to negotiations in the private sector as a result of this legislation. The very magnitude of some of these settlements that parties are driven to, because of the government's failure to bring forward some sort of general inflation policy, will only help increase the inflationary spiral and thus erode the very gains workers have achieved, leaving everyone worse off, particularly those who are not unionized and who have not been able to protect themselves by getting similar types of large settlements. So what we have is nothing more nor less than a vicious circle, and the situation is exacerbated by the difficulties that a country our size is having with its transportation system.
Pretty soon, both on the Great Lakes and on the west coast, longshoremen will be out on strike unless there is some greater ingenuity shown than has been shown in the dealings with the grain handlers. Then it will be the turn of the railway workers. Although I sincerly hope this will not be the case, there could be difficulties with the postal workers. Indeed, there could be difficulties with the whole broad spectrum of the Canadian work force. Yet all we can do tonight in parliament is to bring in a bill which to a certain extent is dictatorial and coercive. It does not even have the virtue of giving the parties at least something of what they wanted leaving the rest to be decided by continuing negotiations.
It has been suggested that if the wage demands were split, and the union given $1.30 or $1.40 increase, which is something in the vicinity of what its members were asking originally, and another arbitrator were appointed to negotiate some of the fringe benefits, then we as parliamentarians at least would not be acting dictatorially and telling these people what is fair. Certainly I do not know what is fair, and I suggest that many of my colleagues in this House do not know what is fair either.
We are sitting here as the highest court in the land purporting to deal with something that is vital to the lives and livelihoods of workers, something that is going to affect the industrial management-labour complex of this country. Yet we do not have the necessary expertise collectively to make this judgment. This is a task for people with greater background experience than many of us in this House have, though perhaps there are some who do have this experience. That is why I object to this particular procedure used by the government, and why I cannot support this particular bill.


Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, this is the second time during my short experience in this House that parliament has been called upon to legislate men back to work. I find that a disagreeable duty, as do my colleagues in this House. It is also disagreeable to see the kind of political manoeuvring that is taking place here in order to gain points, to gain advantage over the plight of the working people of this country.
When this House legislated workers in our railway system back to work the members of the Conservative party were quite eager, as were the members of the Liberal party, to offer a wage settlement that was far below what a conciliation officer recommended. Today we find a variation on that theme. Today we find a conciliator who has recommended a wage settlement still below what the
October 7, 1974

workers wanted, but to which the companies have violently objected.
We heard the Conservative member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner), and others, come out very strongly on the side of the companies, using the argument that the whole system is inflationary and that the workers were not bargaining in good faith. It is very disturbing to me to see that kind of politicking going on rather than an examination of the issue on its merits.
Let me review for the consideration of this House why we find ourselves in this situation today. This cannot be expressed better than it was by Mr. Perry in his letter to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) on April 22, 1974 as follows:
As it has now become clear to me that the differences in expectations between the contracting parties-arising from a series of accumulated past issues as well as the special, inflationary circumstances of 1974- remain too wide to be resolved through further conciliatory efforts, 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.
If we stop playing political games and are honest with ourselves in wanting to get the wheat moving again, and to do something just for the workers in the elevators in Vancouver, we should start by asking ourselves why these negotiations broke down. I submit that the blame for the breakdown in these negotiations lies primarily with the companies, and I should like to outline why I say that.
For collective bargaining to work there must be an understanding and a willingness on both sides that there be a settlement at some point in time. Each side is going to argue very vigorously for its cause, but there has to be that fundamental willingness to settle. I do not see that willingness when I look at the history of these negotiations. What I see is the grain handlers' union being frustrated, not only by the circumstances under which the men work but by the attitude of the companies, to the point that they have been forced finally to take strike action.
First of all, what are the components of this frustration? If we examine the working conditions in those elevators in Vancouver we discover low morale among the working men. There is a problem with excessive dust. The companies have installed machinery to extract the dust, but it is not working properly. Much of the dust remains in the elevators, with the result that the men work under very unhealthy conditions.
We also find a shortage of the facilities one would take for granted in any enlightened area of employment, such as a shortage of showers, toilets and lunchroom facilities. The companies are using damping chemicals which have proven to be a hazard to health because of their nature and the lack of exhaust venting facilities. We also find many documented examples of unsafe working conditions in these elevators. In addition, there is evidence of inefficient management and inefficient operation in the companies' attempt to automate the elevators.
We have here a group of workers who are cognizant of the responsibility to move grain, working under condi-
Grain Handlers' Strike
tions which have continuously deteriorated, but which they have brought to the attention of management. They have seen their suggested improvements continuously rejected. When we consider the companies' attitude toward working conditions we see a lack of care and understanding. More important, when we look at the attitude of the companies toward negotiations it becomes evident that they have been using obstructionist tactics.
There have been four occasions during the last 14 years when negotiations between the elevator workers and the companies have gone the route of conciliation. On four occasions the conciliation reports have been accepted by the union but rejected by the companies. This must be borne in mind before we place the blame on one side or the other too quickly.
Let us look at the history of negotiation and decide who have been the obstructionists. I maintain it has been the companies. During the present dispute the companies terminated welfare and other benefits which had already been established and included in past contracts. Obviously there is not just a dispute in respect of wages, because the welfare and fringe benefits that had been established under previous contracts were suspended. That can only be interpreted by the working person to be harassment and obstruction.
There have been constructive attempts by the negotiators for the unions to put their position to the ultimate owners of the co-operatives, namely, the farmers. This includes the suggestion to management that there should be a farmer representative, as an observer only, at the negotiating table. These suggestions have been rejected out of hand by the companies.
The employers on this occasion asked for conciliation when the report was brought in. Once again the companies rejected this. The companies have refused to accept Mr. Perry's report even though they knew full well, as a result of statements by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro), that parliament would eventually legislate the report into law. What kind of an attitude is that? I suggest it is an attitude of obstruction and nothing else.
I wonder whether the companies would have been so willing to continue this delay by not accepting the conciliation report if they had been shipping flax and rape-seed through these elevators rather than wheat, particularly in view of the fact that the companies have to pay demurrage charges in respect of flax and rapeseed whereas the Canadian Wheat Board has to pay the demurrage charge on wheat?
When one looks at the attitude of these grain companies it becomes very evident who is responsible for the breakdown in the collective bargaining in this situation. I have on my desk some very glossy publications by the grain companies regarding the cost of this wage settlement. I might say that there has been a great campaign carried on in the newspapers, as well as on television and radio. Let us examine the situation to see whether the cost of this settlement is as inflationary as the companies maintain.
First of all, the companies have claimed that the cost will be $3.03 an hour above the present base rate of $4.96 an hour, inclusive of pensions, cost of living and wage benefits. They have claimed that the increase would be 61
28305-13?!

October 7, 1974
Grain Handlers' Strike
per cent. That was their original claim, and this resulted in headlines to the effect that the settlement would be extraordinarily inflationary. We now know that the same companies, having done some further calculations suggested to them by their officials, have revised this increase from 61 per cent to 48 per cent. The unions have also bandied some figures around. They claimed that the total cost would be $2.20 an hour, or an increase of 44 per cent.
Even if you take the company figure, or the union figure, and work out the actual cost of this wage settlement per bushel of wheat, the range is somewhere between three quarters of one cent and one cent per bushel. Is that supposed to be inflationary?
If we look at the Perry report and the whole problem that was exposed in it of the inefficiency of handling grain in those elevators, it would seem to me that that one cent per bushel could easily be made up by the union and management sitting down together and working out a more efficient way of handling the grain. They have tried some automation but it has worked very badly because of poor installation and management. If the two sides, in the interests of the Canadian public, got together and worked out a more efficient handling of that grain, this increase could be absorbed in increased sales and exports; it would not be inflationary.
If we consider the Perry report, the wage factor alone amounts to a 15 per cent increase a year. What do you expect the working man in Canada in whatever area or whatever union to settle for when the cost of living alone in this past year has risen by 11 per cent? Is a 15 per cent wage increase in those circumstances inflationary? He is running just to stand still.
What is so galling to these men working in the elevators and on the docks is the fact that they are working side by side with longshoremen who, in many cases, are doing similar work and being paid more. If that is not a frustrating experience, I do not know what is. How many of us here in this House would be willing to accept a differential in pay because of our kind of job or the number of hours we are working? It should be similar pay for similar work.
Let us look at the difference between the longshoremen and the grainhandlers. The basic wage rate for the grain workers is now $4.96 an hour. Under the Perry report, in the first year that would rise to $5.83 an hour. What are the longshoremen getting who are working beside these grain handlers? They are getting $6.08 an hour. May I remind this House that at the end of November the longshoremen's contract comes up for renegotiation, and again they will be seeking a higher settlement. So here you have grain workers today getting paid $4.96 an hour while longshoremen working beside them receive $6.08 an hour. That is obviously unjust and discriminatory.
The pension plan is also, for those who care to look at it, very different between the two groups. The recommendation in the Perry report is that the employer contribute 25 cents an hour for the pension of the grain handler. Already the longshoremen receive a contribution from their employer of 53 cents an hour. If you look at the overtime rate between the two groups, again you see vast discrimi-

nation and vast differences between double time and time and a half.
What these men are asking seems to me very fair- comparable pay for comparable work. It seems to me then that these men have a just case. Their arguments make sense and it is the duty of the House to pass this legislation quickly, not only so that they can at least get a just settlement but so that the grain can begin to move in this country and the economy get back on the right track. I cannot for the life of me understand the attitude of my colleagues in the Conservative party who will vote against the bill and at the same time want a prolonged debate all night on it. They want the standing committee to call various witnesses before it to prolong the situation, the settlement of which they demanded all summer.
These men are playing politics, and the government is playing politics in delaying the settlement of this issue.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Reginald Cyril Symes: They are not serious about settling the problem and giving justice to the workers of this country. Instead they want to win political points. It is time this bill was sent to committee and passed as soon as possible so that the workers can begin to catch up and get a just settlement, and the grain can start moving.


Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of regret that I rise to speak in this debate. I think that most members of the House were hoping that the whole situation would have been solved some time ago. Then it was indicated this afternoon, and also this evening, that if it had not been for the government, mainly the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) but also the minister responsible for the Wheat Board (Mr. Lang), we would have had a settlement by now and we would not have to spend time dealing with this matter in the House.
We have spoken much this afternoon and this evening about the various aspects of the strike, but as yet we have not really referred to the cost of that strike to the people whom it will affect. The first ones whom it will affect are the western Canadian farmers, although it goes without saying that this strike will have repercussions right across our whole economy.
Mention has been made about the kind of demurrage charge that the Wheat Board will have to pay. Ultimately, if the Canadian Wheat Board has to pay, it comes out of the final payment alloted to farmers. Let me quote from an editorial in the Vancouver Sun of August 19 in which it is stated that, according to reliable reports from the Canadian Wheat Board, the cost could range anywhere from $10 million to $15 million, a record demurrage charge this year.
It goes on to say:
The largest demurrage in the past amounted to $2.4 million for the crop year 1972-73.
The article goes on to say that we have agents for various boat companies that were chartered to haul Canadian grain. One ship is called Aquafaith. The article says:
Agents for the Aquafaith, which arrived in port on July 5-and was on demurrage for 36 days before she was fully loaded for China, say
October 7, 1974

demurrage will come to $240,000. Demurrage on the Aquaglory, which arrived July 9, amounts to $200,000, they say.
The Kinko Manx waited 24 days and cost the Wheat Board $144,000 before she finally departed on Friday.
This money will come directly out of the farmers' pockets in the end, and anybody who says that this strike will not be costly first and foremost to the Canadian farmers is not telling the whole truth.
A second important consideration is the loss of world reputation which Canada will suffer. This has certainly been noted before by various people. I think there is no doubt that we are talking of a situation in which, at present, there are four countries out of 151 that export grain to the rest of the world. Canada is one of those four countries, the others being Argentina, Australia and the United States. Along with the loss in world reputation we have a moral obligation to move grain to feed the world at a time in which famine and starvation are becoming widespread.
The previous speaker alluded to the fact that the only crop that was moved out of Vancouver on which we certainly lost was wheat. That is not true. We have loss of other sales-not necessarily deferred sales, but actual loss of sales.
I have before me a copy of the "Rapeseed Digest" dated October, 1974 which is published by the Rapeseed Association of Canada every month. In it appears the statement:
Canada's new parliament met on September 30, but even if the labour problems are given a high priority on the calendar of the House of Commons, it appears doubtful that work will be resumed before mid-October. In the meantime, European suppliers of rapeseed have cut deeply into the market in Japan, with sales reported to total 175,000 metric tons, the equivalent of 7.7 million bushels, all for shipment before the end of 1974.
This loss of market will not be recovered by Canada in the 1974-75 crop year.
These are just some of the ramifications of the situation, in addition to what has been said earlier this evening, Mr. Speaker.
Personally I feel that the interference of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) in this situation is unforgiveable. When we were in Vancouver we were told that if the government had not stepped in there might have been a chance to settle the strike if the two parties could have got down to meaningful bargaining.
The minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Lang) also has to bear some of the blame. On the one hand he is acting in the interests of the farmers, although on this particular issue I think he sold western Canadian farmers down the drain by condoning what was done by the Minister of Labour. It seems apparent he only works for the farmers when it is politically advantageous to do so. That situation cannot continue, Mr. Speaker.
This strike is unique in that it raises the question of parity with longshoremen. I have here a copy of a telegram sent by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to the President of the United Grain Growers on August 14. The telegram says in part:
Without accepting your figures, we would agree that the settlement is costly. However, your representations and those made previously on
Grain Handlers' Strike
your behalf by your senior management, fail to take into account the unique aspects of this situation. You must have been informed by your labour relations advisers of the issue of parity with longshoremen performing similar tasks to members of local 333 on the same waterfront. This factor must have been one which influenced the content of the conciliation commissioner's report. Moreover, this factor, which is unique to this particular dispute, means that the settlement proposed by Dr. Perry should not set a precedent for other wage settlements in other sectors of the economy.
In the area of parity a valid question would be why the companies should be forced, by a report which was admitted to be inconclusive, to accept parity for two such separate groups as grain handlers and longshoremen? It is commonly accepted all over the world that they do different work and have different working conditions. Longshoremen really do not have an assurance of steady employment.
It is remarkable that the government only saw fit to offer the Vancouver grain inspectors of the Canadian Grain Commission, who work side by side with grain handlers, a 6 per cent wage increase over 18 months and a 5.5 per cent increase over the following 12 months. No wonder Mr. C. W. Lewis, chairman of the bargaining committee of Local 60, asked Mr. Trudeau on August 22 that the basic wage of grain inspectors be "at least parity with all Vancouver grain workers". This justifies the stand that the Perry report is just a springboard for increased inflation across the country. It certainly shoots down the argument that this is a unique and special kind of settlement. I believe the Minister of Labour has said that publicly before.
The Perry report is being resisted for one real reason. As I understand it, the companies wanted to have the Perry report discussed in parliament because they wanted the government to put its money where its mouth is.
The government admits that inflation is the number one problem, and approves of a settlement which will award an additional $3.03 an hour to 550 grain handlers. You can call it a 61 per cent increase over two years if you are comparing it with the basic wage of $4.96, or you can call it a 52 per cent increase if you are comparing the $3.03 increase in wages, cost of living, pensions and fringe benefits, with the former package.
Regardless of the percentages, a 50 per cent increase, with no increase in productivity in terms of goods and services, if applied to everyone in this country, simply drops our dollar value by one third in two years. I believe this settlement will be an inflationary signal to all labour, organized and unorganized-every one. Any time you discuss an inflationary settlement in a fishbowl as this one has certainly been, it becomes a very real target to everyone else. It is not surprising in view of the publicity that has been given to the settlement because of the intervention by the government, that an emotional impact is felt all across the country when discussing the Perry report and its ramifications. In the long run this may have great impetus and fuel the fires of inflation in the next year, or year and a half.
We have a precedent that has been cited already. Only eight years ago Prime Minister Pearson sanctioned that famous 30 per cent seaway employees' award. At that time it was not considered inflationary but it did serve as a goal for everyone else, and inflation took off.



October 7, 1974
Grain Handlers' Strike
We have talked a lot tonight about the effects on different people in this country. I think first and foremost it is the farmers who feel the effects. It would be interesting to hear what three or four of them have said about the strike, the grain companies' demands and the government's response to holding the line in the strike. I have a letter here from a farmer in Fincastle, Alberta who says:
We are inflating our money so rapidly that it is threatening the stability of our money. If we have any part to play in setting a base of inflation of 61 per cent over two years, it will mean we helped to destroy all confidence in our money and we all know what that means to all of our society.
I received other letters over the past few weeks. A farmer from Kelvington-Nut Mountain, Saskatchewan writes:
If the grain handlers get this increase the farmers will be paying it in the final end. Along with all other labour forces increases. Is Mr. Trudeau then going to give us a 61 per cent subsidy on grain? It is high time that the government faced this inflation issue and did something constructive about it, instead of by fuelling it.
There are many more letters to the same effect and I suppose all members of the House are getting them. These farmers are very very concerned, as are all segments of society, over what is happening to the economy and the way inflation is going.
It may well be asked why grain farmers feel this way when they are earning the highest income in their history. Without being disrespectful to those in other occupations, I think farmers are probably more sensitive than others to inflation, because they have tightened their belts many times during the past 25 or 30 years. Grain farmers are sensitive to the costs of those items they must buy in order to grow a bushel of grain. Land is less of a factor in costs today.
Did you ever think how the farmer is hit by inflation? He has to buy his fertilizer, other chemicals and machinery. When the prices of those go up, his grain becomes more expensive to grow; yet grain prices do not necessarily go up by an amount equal to his increased cost, because he is competing on the world market. Actually there is some indication that grain prices will come down in the next year or 18 months. Costs of production are a most important factor for farmers today, because they face what may be the severest cost-price squeeze in history.
What will happen after the strike is settled at Vancouver? I hope it is settled as quickly as possible. We want to see grain moving from the port again. As I say, what will happen after the strike is settled?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That shouldn't be too hard to figure out. Look into your crystal ball.


Jack Burnett Murta: My crystal ball tells me that productivity in the port of Vancouver will be low. I say that because labour-management relations, poor as they were previously, had degenerated even more this past summer.
When the Conservative caucus committee went to Vancouver it was impressed with the attitude of the union which talked of modernizing rail traffic to the port and of modernizing port operations. The union wanted to be involved in the work being done. Unless the two sides can

come together after the strike is settled and improve relationships, the future looks bleak. If the two sides do not come together, if labour-management strife in Vancouver continues, our exports of wheat which have been steadily dropping during the past few years will decline even more. Our percentage of sales on the world market will be even smaller that it is now. For the good of the entire economy, productivity at Vancouver must be raised. This is a must.
We must also encourage the heads of the grain companies and of the unions to get together and find meaningful ground for discussion of common problems, because there are common problems. Unless we do that, the future looks bleak. If we do that then there will be a future for the continuing movement of grain through the port of Vancouver.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I hoped that we could refer this bill to committee this evening, but it seems that that is not possible. I regret that. The Wheat Board has tried to plan on the basis that parliament will move quickly. It wanted to act, but now it will face some awkwardness in its planning. The board hoped that parliament would be able to deal with the matter today, and calculated accordingly.
Some of my colleagues are puzzled by the opposition of the Conservatives to this bill. They want to know the explanation for their opposition. I have been puzzled by it myself. Then it occurred to me that it is perfectly natural, because in the grain companies which do not like the settlement and which they presumably support, they have found another set of allies who have decided to campaign against inflation on the backs of the workers.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: The minister is really grovelling.


Otto Emil Lang: I do not begrudge members opposite their last twinge. I just wish that this bill could go to committee and be returned to the House so that grain could move again.
Earlier today I was interested to hear the remarks of the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin), who made some nasty comments about me.


An hon. Member:: Oh, no!


Otto Emil Lang: 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.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto Emil Lang: Hon. members have talked about the problem we faced in this country as we watched the process of labour negotiations come down to the wire, so to speak. We took note of the final phases of negotiation and of the conciliation report.
October 7, 1974

That report was made after the parties had failed to reach agreement. It was issued in a case in which, as even the most unbiased observer would agree, there had been a bad history of labour-management relations. If I may say so, as the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) was too diplomatic to say himself, the history of bad labour-management relations has arisen largely because of the way in which the companies had negotiated over many years in the past.
The hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta) said that when he was in Vancouver somebody told him if we had stayed away from the matter a little longer it would soon have been settled. I ask, who told him that? No doubt a representative of a company told him. In view of the bad history of labour-management relations, we saw the possibility of a strike. Of course, the conciliation report, drawn up in those circumstances, is bound to be an important factor in any future settlement.
We took action under the Canada Labour Code, action which was provided for only three or four years ago. This allowed us, because we were in the middle of an election campaign and therefore in no position to deal with the strike, to postpone the period in which a strike or walk out might occur legally until one month after the writs for return were in.
The interesting thing to note is this: although one can go through the process of postponing the legal time in which a walk out or strike can occur, one cannot with that process make workmen work, or make employers maintain them on the job. Even when there was no talk of a walk out or strike, the port of Vancouver, in May, and for three or four months previously, had been working at about half speed. While some may blame the present situation on the dissatisfaction of the men because of their relationship with the companies, or on the attitude of the companies, the fact is that unless you maintain an atmosphere of goodwill you will not keep a business working. You will not keep it going simply by declaring that something is illegal and not to be done.
It is the goodwill of the situation that is important. We saw this situation and we saw that the port would likely be closed even if we had, as we did, exercised the power under the Canada Labour Code to postpone the date for a legal strike or shutdown. We thought it was important to indicate to the men and the companies, whom we believed would be interested in maintaining the port open, that if in the end they did not reach a settlement, which we hoped they would continue to reach for, we saw the inevitability of what Dr. Perry had recommended in his report as the basis for final settlement.
That led us to think we should have the port working all out full time. As the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale) stated, we regret that that did not happen. Even in the period before August 23 the port was partly idle and demurrage charges totalling $3 million piled up during that time.
What amazed me is that in these circumstances the companies refused to sit down and negotiate with the Perry report as the basis. They chose to go about the country, at least the farming community, taking from the
Grain Handlers' Strike
Perry report every possible ambiguity, or even less than ambiguity, and twisting it to the extreme possible against their interest in order to come up with this figure of 61 per cent. I repeat they had to twist it against their interest.
I said earlier they seemed to be trying in that way to coast in on some of the talk about inflation that was going on in the country at that time. Everyone recognizes now that that figure is ridiculous in relation to the Perry report. The figure is in fact significantly below that.
We talk about percentages. We, especially those in this place, should appreciate that without examining the base and the circumstances, as Dr. Perry has done, percentages are meaningless. If the farmers have had a rapid increase in percentage terms in the amount they get for wheat or barley, until they get to the point where they are finally getting what they deserve, is there any point in talking about a 100 per cent increase from $1.70 to $3.40? Of course not. You have to look at the realistic situation around you in order to judge. That is where we stand today. We stand here with a good deal of talk about the losses that have been suffered in this strike.
There have been significant losses to the farmer. We have said this from the beginning. I mentioned the $3 million in demurrage charges. This is probably related to the months of slowdown. Let me say at once that relating demurrage to a specific cost is very complicated. Therefore, it will never be satisfactorily or finally settled.
I am simply relying on the best estimates the wheat board can give me. It still concludes today that another $7 million, in addition to that $3 million, may be associated with the actual close-down of the port. That means a total loss to the farmers, mainly through the Canadian Wheat Board but also in connection with the other grains, of $10 million.
There have been some rather broad and sweeping statements about the losses. There have been statements about losses of goodwill. I regret the difficulty we cause our good customers by not being able to deliver when they expect grain from us. However, let me say that this year we happen to be extremely fortunate in that we have such a sellers' market. We may have time to build the goodwill. It may be very difficult to put a specific figure on losses.
We are also told about lost sales. As we sit here at this point in time, I think that can be discounted. We have seen the example of the demand, unfulfilled, from the Soviet Union. We can see the kind of demand there is throughout the world. It will allow us to move as great an amount of grain as we can, notwithstanding the close-down. That was not necessarily foreseen. No one could have predicted that in April or May. However, we can now say that that is how it will be.
The hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) put another figure down for this lost sale, although it seems to be for the same grain we did not sell when we had the railway strike, or when we had the snow and ice a few years previously. He keeps managing to recycle that unsold grain. I intend to put a little pile in front of him some day and say, "There is the grain you talk about that we did not sell all this time." It is our good fortune that that is probably not a real cost. But we are left with the

October 7, 1974
Adjournment Debate
$10 million, still a significant figure any way you look at it.
Once the government had taken the position it did, why did the companies allow this strike to happen? I can understand them waiting before July 8 because they may have hoped something different would happen and they would be faced with a new ballgame. However, in the month following that, they really had no reason at all.
I would like to observe that among the losers in this strike are the men who have lost their time and wages, and the farmers who have lost through the significant demurrage charges. However, the losers do not necessarily include the grain companies. This year they will likely move every bushel they would have moved in terms of throughput with or without this strike. They will likely store more grain because it will be there a little longer than it would have been without the strike. They will not be the losers.
My hope in urging them to settle was based on the fact that the most significant among them are in fact farmer-owned. I thought they should have been sujected to the fact that the losses to the farmers would be significant and should be counted in their calculations. That was not to be. Therefore, we are here this evening with this legislation, legislation in practical terms, inevitable in its terms once the independent conciliator had brought down his report. I therefore say to hon. members at this late hour, one minute before 10 o'clock, let this bill have second reading now, go to committee, and let's get on with the work without further partisanship.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek rising to begin to speak?


Mr. Hamilton (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I wish to call it ten o'clock.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am sure you understand it is the intention to proceed with this debate tomorrow.


Mr. Speaker:: On that same point, I might inform hon. members that with the continuation of this business before the House, the House will meet at two o'clock in the afternoon.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to bring the Minister of State for

Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) back into the House at this late hour.


Barnett Jerome Danson: I haven't left yet.


Jack Marshall: I especially regret it because I know how hard he is working to bring more housing to Newfoundland. On October 1 I asked the minister about the progress being made to implement various programs under the National Housing Act, particularly insofar as they refer to the Neighbourhood Improvement Program, the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program and the rural and native housing program. While I appreciate the reply he gave, the urgency of the situation dictates further clarification.
The situation is not only urgent, it is desperate. I requested an adjournment debate, Mr. Speaker, because it is impossible to elaborate on a question in the House in the time allotted to us. Incidentally this should be the subject of consideration when we are talking about reforms in the House of Commons, to which reference was made in the Speech from the Throne.
Since the announcement of the aforementioned programs I have been a strong advocate of them but was naive enough to think they would come into effect within a reasonable period of time. However, all I have experienced is frustration in dealing with the various elements which fall within the minister's responsibility, and I continue to receive answers which do nothing more than emphasize the need for rethinking our priorities.
The RRAP program, for example, provides loans for citizens in the low income brackets. Those whose income is $6,000 or below can qualify for a loan of up to $5,000 with 50 per cent being forgiven. This is fine. It is exemplary, it is wonderful, and I give the government full marks for its introduction. But after 15 months virtually nothing has been produced.
I am sure the minister will tell us once again that the consultative process is going on to speed up its implementation. Nevertheless, here we are, some 15 months after the amendments to the National Housing Act were introduced, and little or nothing has been accomplished. A member who troubles to make inquiries receives only the usual excuses in letters such as the following which I received from the President of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. In a letter dated September 17, 1974, Mr. William Teron stated:
Thank you for your letter of August 23 concerning Neighbourhood Improvement and Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Programs.
As you are no doubt aware, RRAP is to be delivered in two separate approaches; one in the urban context linked with NIP and the other as an element of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation's Rural and Native Housing Program. Under the 1974 NIP agreement between the federal government and the Province of Newfoundland, $1.34 million is provided for activity under this program. Of this total, $639,000 was approved last June for Corner Brook and we anticipate the remainder will be allocated very shortly for St. John's. In both instances, the funds will be used to complete projects financed under the old urban renewal provisions of the National Housing Act. In all likelihood, the delays to which you referred were engendered by the necessity of identifying and recasting older proposals so that they could meet NIP and RRAP objectives.
October 7, 1974

He went on to say that he shared my concern. That is what we hear all the time. They share your concern, but nothing happens. I shall not go into details of further complaints. All I wish to do is help the minister by placing before him a number of suggestions.
Since we are in a period of oil crisis I maintain that a great contribution could be directed toward helping those living on low and fixed incomes in many thousands of homes across Canada by immediately implementing standards across Canada to include, as a priority, the immediate insulation of homes which are substandard in quality, thereby reducing the wastage of home heating fuels.
Similarly, in the Province of Newfoundland it is necessary that the province increase the fuel allowance during the colder months of the year due to the fact that it is impossible for those receiving social assistance to cope with fuel costs. The federal government has to pay 50 per cent of this cost.
Home-owners living on welfare cannot possibly maintain their homes properly at a time when the cost of building materials is so high. I can only say that not only would both levels of government save millions of dollars in housing repairs; they would also save millions of gallons of heating fuel now being wasted.
The answer is not only to treat this RRAP program on a priority basis but to direct meaningful action, initiated by the minister, and demand that the $10 million now allocated be increased to a realistic figure. In addition, the necessary steps must be taken to expand this very worthwhile program as an emergency measure and thereby contribute toward relieving a critical area of shortage in Canada. Lastly, we should specifically provide a stop gap to the need for new housing, a need that is difficult to cope with under present circumstances.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the interesting suggestions put forward by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall). He suggested there have been undue delays in implementing both NIP and RRAP. We have made tremendous headway in bringing these new programs into operation. First of all, in the case of NIP, the neighbourhood improvement program, we have signed the necessary agreements with nine of the ten provinces so far and expect to sign the tenth agreement very soon. Under these agreements we are allocating more than $40 million to the provinces for this program.
The provinces have since selected the municipalities, and a total of 64 municipalities are proceeding with neighbourhood improvement programs. Altogether these municipalities have now selected 33 neighbourhoods, and the people who reside in these neighbourhoods are actively engaged in determining the needs of the neighbourhoods for assistance under the legislation. I think we can be proud of these achievements, and I am delighted with the support that we have had from the provinces and municipalities. Indeed, the hon. member himself supported my predecessor in many of these programs. As we move into 1975 I am sure this program will begin to show very positive results.
Adjournment Debate
We must not overlook that it was this House that passed the legislation that required municipalities to adopt bylaws of minimum maintenance and occupancy standards. All the municipalities participating in the program have enacted these bylaws and this in itself is a most important achievement. I think the hon. member would agree, since I know he expressed concern about this when the legislation went through the House.
Turning next to implementation, the legislation prescribes that grants and loans for the rehabilitation of substandard property can be made available in NIP areas. Now that we have 33 areas designated under the NIP program it is possible for CMHC to apply the benefits of RRAP-the residential rehabilitation assistance program-and I am very happy to be able to inform the House that rehabilitation loans and grants have been made in 15 municipalities, and that many more municipalities will shortly benefit from this program.
I am the new Minister of Urban Affairs, as all hon. members know, and it would be inappropriate for me to take any credit that more properly belongs to my predecessor, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Basford), as well as to the provinces and municipalities which have so wholeheartedly co-operated with us in these programs. It is a co-operative effort right down the line.
It has been suggested that the rural and native housing program announced earlier this year by the federal government has been slow in getting started.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


SOCIAL SECURITY-SUGGESTED INCREASES IN FAMILY ALLOWANCES AND OLD AGE PENSIONS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, October 2, as recorded in Hansard at page 34, I put this question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde):
In view of the recommendation made to the government a few days ago by the Chairman of the Food Prices Review Board to the effect that because of drastic increases in the cost of food there should be immediate increases in family allowances and in old age security, is the government giving consideration to this recommendation?
The reply of the minister was as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is surely aware that old age security pensions will be raised during October and that family allowances will also be increased as of next January 1, so as to compensate for the rise in the cost of living.
I came back with a supplementary question which was in fact an attempt on my part to say to the minister that he should have known better than to try to get away with that answer. What I was drawing to the attention of the government was the need for something more than quarterly escalation so far as old age security is concerned, and the need for something more than annual escalation so far as family allowances are concerned.
Indeed, had I time I could use a number of quotations to cite as my chief witness the Minister of National Health and Welfare himself. I shall limit myself to two or three things he said when he appeared before the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs on Tuesday, March 13, 1973.
198

October 7, 1974
Adjournment Debate
At page 1:12 of the report for that day there is an indication of a discussion about the escalation of old age security. The request was being made by Liberal members that the then annual escalation be put on a quarterly basis, and this was the reply of the Minister of National Health and Welfare:
Of course it would be possible to have it twice a year. Theoretically it would even be possible to have it every three months. But every time you do that you increase your cost of administration; we have calculated that it would add about $2 million to the cost. And the money that you add to the cost of administration would not go to the senior citizens. So my inclination at the present time is to try to increase more often the total amount of benefits, including escalation, rather than load the system with more frequent escalation-
Over at page 1:22 of the same day's record the minister is reported as having said:
My point is that one way for Parliament to compensate for this unavoidable lag is to change the basic amount, every once in a while, as has been done at different times, and people catch up then-more than catch up-on what they might have lost in terms of the delays in the escalation. That is what I meant.
That was the point I was trying to make to the Minister of National Health and Welfare the other day. Escalation on the basis of the consumer price index, in which there is always a lag, never enables pensioners or recipients of family allowances to catch up with the cost of living, let alone with any rise in the standard of living.
The minister has enunciated the proposition that every once in a while there has to be an increase in the basic amount. I believe that is what Mrs. Plumptre was calling for, and that is what I am calling for now. I insist that the time has come for the government to quit relying on the quarterly escalation answer every time the plight of pensioners is raised. The time has come for an increase in the basic amount. On this first occasion of a late show in this session I want to establish this point and make it clear that this is a point I shall keep pressing until we win it.
I appreciate the fact that the minister is not able to be here tonight to answer my question, but he is well represented by a new member in the person of the hon. member for South Western Nova (Miss Campbell), who comes into this House as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare and will shortly be making her maiden speech. For once that phrase seems to apply, does it not?
I welcome the hon. lady particularly because she comes as the representative of a constituency that includes the area of Barrington Township, into which my ancestors moved over 200 years ago. I still regard that area as my ancestral home. I am very partial to that part of Nova Scotia and I know the kind of people the hon. lady represents.
I hope that in her initial statement tonight she will recognize the point that I am trying to make and that she will speak for her pensioners as others of us are trying to speak for the pensioners across Canada when we say that although we have welcomed quarterly escalation, if that is all we get we might as well not have secured it. What is necessary now is an increase in the basic amount of old age security and an increase in the basic amount of family allowances, and I hope that the hon. lady will be able to tell us tonight that this basic problem is under consideration.


Miss Coline Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare):: May I first congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on your appointment and wish you success in the future. I must confess that I feel a certain honour that, not only as a new parliamentary secretary but also a new member of parliament, I have the pleasure of replying for the first time to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), a member whose skill as a great parliamentarian is well known.
However, to get down to the specifics of the hon. member's question, since he is referring to the recommendation of the Food Prices Review Board I would draw his attention to the following quotation from page 2 of the report of the board, which reads as follows:
In the first half of 1974, after tax income in Canada rose rapidly over the corresponding level in 1973. With the exception of farm income, the main components of personal income have displayed more rapid rates of increase this year than in either of the two previous years. Transfer payments from government, reflecting particularly the substantial boost in family allowances, have played an important role in the increases in personal income this year although gains in labour income and in unincorporated business income have been building up as well.
Although I need not remind the hon. member of certain facts, I would point out to other new members like myself that family allowances were increased effective last January 1974 from an average of approximately $7 to an average of $20 per child. This amount will again be increased in January 1975 by an amount proportionate to the change in the consumer price index. I would also point out that the old age pension is being increased every three months to take into account increases in the cost of living. At present, a Canadian citizen of 65 and over is in effect guaranteed an income of not less than $199 a month.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And ten cents.


Coline M. Campbell: All this talk of personal income and after tax income may lead the hon. member to think that I am too buried in statistics to be aware of the poverty in which many of our families and senior citizens in my own area and elsewhere in Canada find themselves today. Quite the contrary. In my experience as a legal aid lawyer I have seen firsthand many of the problems they face daily. But I disagree with the hon. member when he says that a blanket increase in family allowances and old age pensions is the way to really help them at this time.
This government is presently engaged in a review of the entire social security system. As an interim step in this review the government has committed itself in the Speech from the Throne to providing allowances on an income tested basis to spouses aged 60 to 65 of old age security recipients. The speech also stated that:
The federal-provincial social security review is continuing on an urgent basis. Studies on alternative approaches to the reform of the income security system are expected to be sufficiently advanced to enable federal and provincial ministers to agree upon a preferred approach at an early date. Similarly, it is anticipated that proposals for the reform of social services will have been agreed upon shortly.


Mr. Speaker:: 
AGRICULTURE-REQUEST FOR PROGRESS REPORT ON RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF SUGAR BEET INDUSTRY
Mr. J. R. Holmes (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I asked to take part in the adjournment debate this evening because the matter of the sugar beet industry in western Ontario relates like a fairy tale, with the author being the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan).
On October 4 I asked the minister first if he would present his long awaited national sugar policy and, second, if he would indicate what progress he has made toward fulfilling his commitment to re-establish the sugar beet industry in southwestern Ontario. The minister's response can be found on page 124 of Hansard for that date. Suffice it to say we still await a national sugar policy, and the question of re-establishing the sugar beet industry was evaded.
I believe it is relevant to review the drama of the sugar beet story which has created uncertainty and frustration among a large segment of the farm community. I find it inexcusable that a large number of farmers genuinely concerned in revitalizing the sugar beet industry are but pawns in a game of politics.
Let me briefly review the story. In 1968, after an intensive investigation of the technical, social and economic aspects of the sugar beet industry, the government embarked on a program of lower trade barriers to cane sugar and the maintenance of low sugar beet production in Canada.
Let me remind you that the government of that day was the Liberal party and the policy of that day was supported by the Minister of Agriculture. As a result of that decision the last time beets were grown for the C. & D. sugar refinery in Chatham was in 1968.
The dust had barely settled when the Liberal Party had incorporated, as part of a local agricultural policy, the re-establishment of the sugar beet industry in southwestern Ontario. In the election of 1972 we had the unique situation of a sugar policy in Ottawa calling for a reduction in sugar beet production and a policy in southwestern Ontario calling for an increase in sugar beet production and a refinery.
What has happened since the election of 1972? During the last parliament the minister spoke in Chatham in January, 1973, and again in Tilbury during the month of February. On both occasions he pressed the point about establishing a sugar beet industry. Let me quote here from the London Free Press of February 24, 1973, when the minister said:
"I want a solid brief from those farmers to show that there is genuine interest in setting up a sugar beet industry here in Ontario. The next step will be to convince interested companies to set up a plant to handle the crop. If it can be shown farmers are willing to produce a large enough crop to allow for economic operation year in, year out, I think they will put up the refinery."
Adjournment Debate
"That's what I mean when I say that I want a national sugar policy. There's a heck of a lot of work still to do, but I think we can do it, and I think we can get a new industry for our farmers."
Mr. Speaker, let me remind you that during that same period of time, the two policy era, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) had introduced a budget in which he proposed a tariff reduction of 30 cents per 100 pounds of imported raw sugar, clearly supporting the position of 1968.
Again on December 17, 1973, as recorded at page 8795 of Hansard the following exchange took place:
Me. James A. McGrath (St. John's East): Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Agriculture, by way of a supplementary question, whether, in view of the very serious situation regarding the sugar market and the effect this will have on the cost of living in Canada, he is now prepared, after two years, to bring in his sugar policy?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, my sugar policy is not two years delayed; and by the time the two years are up you can be sure we will have a new sugar beet industry and a new sugar refining industry in western Ontario and a policy for all of Canada.
I specifically asked my question last Friday because this matter was shelved during the recent election campaign and frankly, sir, the minister's response has not been reassuring.
I should like to quote from the "Lambton Farmer" of February 14, 1973. There is an article entitled "Can Beets Come Back? Some Say It's Wrong," which reports an interview with Professor Donald Thain of the School of Business, University of Western Ontario. He was a member of the federal task force which produced the book "Canadian Agriculture in the Seventies". The article quotes Professor Thain as follows:
"I'm certain this is happening now because the Liberals are in a vulnerable position," said the western professor. "They need votes. This couldn't have happened two or three years ago because they didn't have to be concerned then about buying votes with sugar beets."
I am not going to accuse the minister of such tactics. I am a reasonable man and I am prepared to accept his promises as genuine and sincere. However, I believe that time is running out. I believe the minister is responsible for presenting a national sugar policy to parliament. Sir, he made a commitment to establish a sugar beet industry in southwestern Ontario, an industry which he said earlier would be in operation by the end of 1974. In conclusion I simply ask the minister either for honesty or for action.


Mr. Leopold Corriveau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in congratulating you on the position you have been called to hold.
The hon. member asked two questions: 1-Whether the Minister of Agriculture could advise the House of his national policy on sugar, and 2-What progress has been made with regard to his commitment to restore the beet industry in south western Ontario.
In his reply, the minister mentioned some of the problems that will have to be studied, adding that his department is working on them and that he will submit a report to his colleagues as soon as possible.
28305-14"/:

October 7, 1974
Adjournment Debate
Amongst the problems mentioned by the Food Prices Review Board is that of production, total demand and the increase in the cost of production.
Some of these problems are the competition of other crops in sugar beet and sugar cane producing countries, a change in the membership of the European Economic Community, amendments to the international agreement on sugar and the challenge in the United States Congress of the American agreement on sugar.
The government has already made changes to the sugar rate structure, but when considering new changes, we must give our approval to some countries like Australia.
The Minister of Agriculture still believes that sugar beets can be grown in Ontario, and as in other parts of the world there is strong competition, on a cost-benefit basis, from other products such as wheat and soybeans.
All these crops vie for available lands. Even in western Canada, there exists sugar beet refineries.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I wish to assure the hon. member that it is an important issue and as the minister said in his answer, he hopes to produce a report once his colleagues have considered his suggestions.


Mr. Speaker:: 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 10.30 p.m.

Tuesday, October 8, 1974