1975-03-24

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) I should like to lay on the table copies in both official languages of a preliminary report entitled: James Bay hydro-electric project: environmental concerns and recommendations for protection and enhancement measures.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, as a result of the strike by longshoremen on the west coast, the government has decided to put forward legislation which it hopes to have expedited by the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: I therefore propose that an order of the House be made which would permit the introduction of the bill now, would permit the bill to be advanced any number of stages at any one sitting, would order the bill for consideration on second reading at four o'clock this afternoon and that the bill be referred, upon second reading, to committee of the whole. After the House has had an opportunity of seeing the bill at four o'clock I may have further requests.


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the announcement by the House leader, we are prepared to consent to his request for expedition. I hope that we can have, well in advance of four o'clock, copies of the bill which we are to review, which is in accordance with some discussions that were held this morning.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the representatives of the parties along the lines indicated by the government House leader. I may say that we are prepared to give consent to the introduction and first reading of the
bill at this time. We are also prepared to give consent to an order for second reading consideration to start at four o'clock, and for the order to be that the bill be referred to committee of the whole House.
I may say that this consent is on the understanding that a printed copy of the bill in some form will be in our hands within minutes. I see the government House leader nodding his head. We will need time to study the bill. Any further consents, of course, will have to wait until four o'clock.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I attended the meeting of the House leaders this morning and, on behalf of my party, I agreed that the bill be read a second time as soon as possible and referred to the committee. I trust the House will continue to support the request of the minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are two points in respect of the distribution of the bill. For the benefit of hon. members, I am able to confirm that the bill has already been printed in sufficient copies to distribute in English. The French copies are on their way, so it is to be hoped that that request is therefore complied with. There is, however, a minor variance between the consent which has been put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and that put forward at the suggestion of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp). The President of the Privy Council has suggested an order that the bill be advanced more than one stage today, which of course would go beyond committee stage and perhaps to third reading in the same day. I take it that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is extending his consent, and that of his colleagues, only to the point of putting it into committee of the whole this afternoon, or does his consent go on to further stages if that is agreed to?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I think I made our position quite clear, and I am sure the government House leader understands it. Our consent is that we are willing to start second reading at four o'clock today, and we are willing that when the second reading debate finishes the bill shall go into a committee of the whole House. We are not at this point giving consent to any further expedition. We reserve that until we have seen the bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Since the order must be upon the consent of all hon. members at this time, the order would be up to the point of the committee stage, the bill going into committee of the whole stage as outlined by the President of
4400

March 24, 1975
Agriculture
the Privy Council, and if those terms are agreed to it shall be so ordered. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.


WEST COAST PORTS OPERATIONS ACT, 1975 MEASURE TO PROVIDE FOR RESUMPTION OF LONGSHORING OPERATIONS ON THE WEST COAST
Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-56 entitled "An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of longshoring and related operations at ports on the west coast of Canada."


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: In accordance with the order just made, the bill shall be read the second time at four o'clock this afternoon.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 43, and in view of the disastrous drop in the price of table stock potatoes from Prince Edward Island on the Ontario market by some 74 per cent this week, as advertised by a national food chain, meaning a return for the farmer of much less than half the cost of production, and in light of the continuing failure of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) to announce immediate aid to the potato producers of Eastern Canada or long-term alternatives for effective and fair marketing procedures, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. McKinley):
That the Minister of Agriculture make a statement on motions within the next 48 hours indicating the action he is prepared to take to rescue the potato industry of Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick from extensive bankruptcy and the collapse of numerous family farm units.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43 and requires the unanimous consent of the House prior to presentation. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 relating to a crisis situation of the utmost concern to all Canadians. Canada's economic problems have become immense. This situation is too serious to be affected by the pressures of partisan politics. I would, therefore, hope that all members of this House will give careful consideration to the following motion. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan):
That it is the will of this House that the Prime Minister set up an all-party committee to deal with the very serious problems of inflation and unemployment, to draw up guidelines for wage settlements and arbitration rules to decrease the number and frequency of serious and crippling strikes and to study the recommendation of further immediate tax reductions to low and middle income Canadians.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


BILINGUALISM
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to propose a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43 as a result of numerous representations received from my constituency and elsewhere on the subject of the Royal Military College, Kingston. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie):
That in the opinion of the House there is no justification or any necessity for the Royal Military College, Kingston, Ontario, becoming a bilingual institution. Since such a move would constitute unwarranted expense of some millions of dollars and not be in accordance with the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Bicul-turalism, the government should, therefore, rescind immediately its recent decision designating the Royal Military College bilingual.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
March 24, 1975


HISTORIC SITES
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise to propose a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. I do so because in these days when Canadians are being urged to be interested in the heritage that is ours we in Manitoba find it difficult to understand the rather exorbitant fee that is to be levied, starting April 1, for admission to Lower Fort Garry on the Red River, in our province of Manitoba. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That this House urges the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to cancel the proposal, which has been set to come into effect on April 1, to charge a fee of $2 per person or $5 per family for admission to Lower Fort Garry, a place which should be open to all Canadians who wish to visit it, Lower Fort Garry being part of our western heritage and truly a national historic site.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PROCEDURE AND ORGANIZATION
Mitchell William Sharp: that the second report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization presented to the House on Friday, March 14, 1975 be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
.	EASTER ADJOURNMENT
On the order: Motions March 21, 1975-The President of the Privy Council:
That when the House adjourns on Wednesday, March 26, 1975, it shall stand adjourned until Monday, April 7, 1975, provided that at any time prior to that date, if it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time during the adjournment, Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice, and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time; and
That in the event of Mr. Speaker's being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker or the Deputy Chairman of Committees shall act in his stead for all purposes of this order.
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?
Order Paper Questions


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, could this motion be stood for consideration later?


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the motion shall stand for later consideration?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS ACT, 1972 AMENDMENTS TO CHANGE THE CALCULATION OF PROVINCIAL REVENUE EQUALIZATION REVENUE RELATED TO PROVINCIAL OIL AND GAS REVENUES
Mitchell William Sharp: for leave to introduce Bill C-57, to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, 1972.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 813, 894, 1,130, 1,189, 1,242, 1,355, 1,361, 1,364, 1,458, 1,474, 1,516, 1,525, 1,529, 1,548, 1,552, 1,578, 1,582, 1,607, 1,664, 1,677, 1,710, 1,711, 1,713, 1,714, 1,716, 1,717, 1,718, 1,719, 1,720, 1,722, 1,727, 1,730 and 1,760.
If questions No. 547, 703, 784, 1,036, 1,663 and 1,745 could be made orders for return these returns would be tabled immediately.
Would you be so kind as to call starred question No. 1,678?
I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand. [Text]


Mr. Stevens: 1.	As of March 31 in each year 1968, 1970, 1972 and 1974 (a) how many were employed by the Company of Young Canadians (b) what would have been their aggregate salaries if all were employed for a full year (c) how many had salary levels of (i) $20,000 or more (ii) $35,000 or more (iii) $50,000 or more?
2.	What was the salary or the salary range for each of the five highest paid employees of the Company?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: I am
informed by the Company of Young Canadians as follows:
1.
4402

Order Paper Questions
(a)	1968-233 1970-171 1972-271 1974-335
(b)	1968-S 413,069.64 1970-* 301,199.88 1972-*1,389,125.76 1974-*2,175,122.52
(e)	(i) $20,000 or more
(ii)	*35,000 or more
(iii)	$50,000 or more
2.	1968-1 *17,000-19,000
1970-1 *17,000-19,000 1972-1 $20,000-22,000 1974-1 *26,000-28,500
1968	1970	1972	1974Nil	Nil	1	2Nil	Nil	Nil	NilNil	Nil	Nil	Nil
4 $12,000-14,000 4 *11,000-13,000 4 $13,000-15,000 4 $19,000-22,000


Mr. Neil: 1.	How many Canadian Armed Forces personnel graduated as pilots in each year 1968 to 1973 inclusive and, of these, how many are still members of the Forces?
2.	What is the estimated cost of pilot training?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: 1. The number of Canadian Forces personnel, who graduated as pilots in each year 1968 to 1973 inclusive and the number who are still members of the forces are listed in the table below:
	Number of Graduates			Number
Year	Regular Forces	Reserves	Total	still in the Forces1968	99	99	701969	223	-	223	1951970	151	-	151	1391971	51	10	61	501972	86	1	87	731973	40	8	48	342.	The estimated current annual cost of all pilot training is $26.6 million stated in fiscal year 1974/75 dollars. Of this sum $3.5 million will be recovered from the Netherlands for the cost of training Dutch pilots.


Mr. Forrestall: Has the government established any interdepartmental groups to examine the impact upon Canadian shipbuilding, ship repair and merchant seamen and officers of the possible ratification by Canada and sufficient others of the world community of the proposed Code of Conduct for liner conferences flowing from the UNCTAD meetings in 1974 and (a) if so, what is the membership and what are the terms of reference (b) if not, for what reason?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: (a)
Interdepartmental groups have not been established to examine the impact upon Canadian shipbuilding, ship repair and merchant seamen and officers of the possible ratification by Canada and sufficient others of the world

community of the proposed Code of Conduct for liner conferences flowing from the UNCTAD meetings in 1974;
(b)	The Convention on a Code of Conduct for Liner Conferences has many optional provisions. For instance, the 40-40-20 cargo sharing formula would apply only when some other formula is not agreed. Nor need ships participating in a conference on behalf of one country, necessarily be owned or registered in that country. Hence, the effect the convention will have if it is implemented, is still being studied by the international community. Canada is participating in these international consultations. The focus for this participation is in various working groups established under the Interdepartmental Committee on Marine Transportation. Pending greater clarity as to the likely effect of the convention, and the likelihood of its implementation and acceptance by Canada's major trading partners, interdepartmental working groups have not been assigned to the specific subject areas in question.


Mr. Brisco: What is the total sum the government estimates will be spent in the next ten years in order to maintain Canadian self sufficiency in petroleum and natural gas for (a) the next ten year period (b) the next twenty year period (c) the next thirty year period?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources reports as follows: (a) Up to $50 billion by industry and governments over the next 10 years, (b) and
(c)	The amounts to be spent over the next 20 and 30-year periods will depend on the results of exploration and other programs during the next 10 years.


Mr. Herbert: During each of the past five years, what has been the total amount, by department, of non-recoverable expenses of the Department of National Defence resulting from agreements to provide emergency assistance, when requested, for other departments?


Hon.. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: The records of the department are not kept in a manner that will provide the requested information.


Mr. Herbert: How many directors of each proprietary corporation receive any remuneration from the corporation in addition to their fees and expenses as board members?


Mitchell William Sharp: The Farm Credit Corporation, Two; Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation, One; Nil returns have been submitted by all other proprietary corporations.
March 24, 1975


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): Did Canada import butter during the period from April 1, 1974 to December 31, 1974 and, if so (a) from what countries (b) at what cost (c) what quantity was imported from each country?


Hon. Gaston Clermont (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Statistics Canada reports that imports of butter into Canada in the period April to December, 1974 amounted to 41,716,900 pounds for a value of $24,666,000. The table below shows the amount imported from each country of consignment and the average price in cents per pound.
Imports of Butter (Import Commodity Class 51-09) by Country
From April 1, 1974 to December 31, 1974
			Average
Country	Quantity	Value	Price in cents
	lbs.	(*'000)	
Finland	1,572,200	770	$ 0.49Sweden	6,613,700	3,540	0.54Australia	15,680,000	9,487	0.61New Zealand	17,615,800	10,756	0.61United States	235,200	103	0.44Total	41,716,900	24,666	0.59


Mr. Herbert: What is the estimated cost in the current fiscal year of retirement pay to (a) officers (b) servicemen in the Canadian Armed Forces?


James Armstrong Richardson: The estimated cost in the current fiscal year of retirement pay (severance pay) is as follows: (a) Officers $4,956,847; (b) Servicemen $9,873,872.


Mr. Howie: 1.	Is consideration being given to extend CMHC loans and housing programmes to rural parts of the Atlantic Provinces?
2.	Are there any plans (a) to provide increased financial assistance to the provinces for land assembly programme to lower the cost of lands for new housing projects (b) to provide grants to reduce interest payments for middle and lower income families (c) to take any steps to direct all available low down payment mortgage money toward the purchase of moderately-priced homes?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: I am advised by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows: Loans and housing programs under the National Housing Act are available to rural areas of the Atlantic provinces, and elsewhere in Canada. The Rural and Native Housing Program places emphasis on the application of this assistance in communities of 2,500 population or less, and in rural areas, through the Public Housing provisions of Section 40, Assisted Home Ownership Program of Section 34.15, and Residential Rehabilitation of Section 34.1.
(2)(a) The capital budget for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for 1975 allocates approximately $107
Order Paper Questions
million to federal-provincial land assembly and development programs. These funds are intended to stabilize and, where possible, reduce serviced land prices for new housing projects. The amendments to the National Housing Act, currently being considered include proposals to broaden the assistance available to municipalities under the sewage treatment loan program, (b) Grants to reduce interest payments for middle and lower income families, in the form of a reduction of the mortgage interest rate and of subsidies on mortgage payments, are available under the Assisted Home Ownership program. The proposed amendments to the National Housing Act include provision for extenting these subsidy benefits to low and moderate income housing financed through approved lenders under the National Housing Act; (c) Low downpayment mortgage money is directed toward the purchase of moderately priced homes under the existing Assisted Home Ownership Program, and this direction will be extended under the proposed Assisted Home Ownership Program financed through the approved lenders.


Mr. Friesen: How many bushels or tons of barley and other cereal crops were used by the liquor industry in the years 1972, 1973 and 1974?


Gaston Clermont: Statistics Canada reports that the tons of barley and other cereal crops used by the liquor industry in the years 1972, 1973 and 1974 are as given in the table below.
Quantities of Cereals and Malts Used in the Production of Beer and Liquor in Canada
(1) Cereal flakes, grits and meals:	1972 L	1973 tons	1974Corn, Canadian	325,816	269,143	270,336Corn, imported	121,412	239,403	240,144Barley	5,243	1,768	110Rice	1,528	2,136	2,163Rye	92,600	96,599	80,993Soybean	5	4	2Wheat	3,974	2,820	1,263Other cereals	11,734	5,193	1(2) Malts:1 2	Barley, Canadian	321,731	334,793	338,415Barley, imported	4	1,500	803Other cereal malts	included with barley	2,047
malt
1 Whole grains are not used as such; they must be degermed. In the conversion of whole grains to flakes, grits and meals approximately 24 per cent by weight is converted to other products and waste. 1 bushel of com weighs approximately, 56 pounds; 1 bushel of barley weighs approximately, 48 pounds; 1 bushel of rye weighs approximately, 56 pounds; 1 bushel of wheat weighs
approximately, 60 pounds.

March 24, 1975
Order Paper Questions
2 In the malting process whole grains are used. One ton of grain yields approximately 3/t tons of malt and a considerable amount of by products. The latter are used in the animal feeds industry.


Mr. O'Sullivan: 1.	Has the Department of National Defence any plans for disbanding the Eleventh (Hamilton) Field Battery?
2.	Has the Department budgeted for the continuation of this Battery and, if so, what is the total amount of current budgeting and for what purposes is this amount designated?


James Armstrong Richardson: 1. No.
2.	The Department of National Defence has budgeted for the battery's continuation. The budget for the current fiscal year is estimated at $17,645. These funds are allocated to the Battery's Regimental Headquarters in Guelph for the battery's local headquarters training and pay. In addition, resources are made available by the regimental headquarters for out-of-unit courses and training exercises.


Mr. Reynolds: With reference to the answer to Question No. 1,094, what is Air Canada's cost of the Uniguard baggage security system at the Vancouver International Airport and what percentage is this of the total cost?


Jean Marchand: The management of Air Canada advises as follows: All major airlines serving Vancouver International Airport pay a percentage of the total cost of this baggage security system based on the number of incoming passengers on each carrier, as recorded in Ministry of Transport reports. Introduced in September, 1974, the system cost Air Canada in October $1,369, representing 42 percent of the total cost; in November $1,733 or 43 percent of the total; in December $2,674 or 46 percent of the total.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	(a) What is the number of businesses established by foreign persons or corporations, since April 9, 1974, which would have required approval under the Foreign Investment Review Act had Section 6 and other provisions of the Act insofar as they related to the establishment of new businesses been proclaimed on that date (b) what are the names of the foreign persons or corporations who have established these businesses and the names of the businesses (c) what is the asset value of each such business (d) what is the number of businesses of the same kind established for the same period in preceding years?
2.	How many proposed real estate transactions by non-eligible persons have been reviewed under the Act and, of these, how many were
(a)	rejected (b) approved and, in each case, what were the names and principals involved in such transactions?
3.	What are the criteria of "significant benefit" applied by the Foreign Investment Review Agency in reviewing applications for proposed real estate transactions?


Gaston Clermont: 1. The
requested information is not available to the government.
(Mr. Clermont.]
2.	As of February 24, 1975, applications concerning three acquisitions of control of real estate businesses had been reviewed. Of these, one was allowed, one was deemed to be allowed and one was disallowed. The names of the parties in those three cases were as follows: Applicant, Peru Investments Limited (allowed); Owner of Canadian Business enterprise, R. J. Layton and B. Saskin; Applicant, Memrad Holdings Limited (deemed to be allowed); Owner of Canadian Business enterprise, Curb Enterprises Limited; Applicant, Matignon Properties Limited (disallowed); Owner of Canadian Business enterprise, Manulife Holdings (Quebec) Limited.
3.	The criteria for determining significant benefit to Canada in respect of all acquisitions of control of Canadian business enterprises by non-eligible persons, including real estate businesses, are those five groups of factors set out in subsection 2(2) of the Foreign Investment Review Act. The extent to which each criterion is relevant to individual applications will vary depending on the industry involved, the plans of the applicant and other particulars of the transaction.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	How many retired Armed Forces personnel are receiving pensions, including their basic pensions and any supplement or supplements added thereto, of amounts within each of the following brackets (a) less than $20.00 per month (b) $20.00 to $29.99 per month (c) $30.00 to $39.99 per month (d) $40.00 to $49.99 per month (e) $50.00 to $59.99 per month (f) $60.00 to $69.99 per month (g) $70.00 to $79.99 per month (h) $80.00 to $89.99 per month (i) $90.00 to $99.99 per month (j) $100.00 to $149.99 per month (k) $150.00 to $199.99 per month (1) $200.00 to $249.99 per month (m) $250.00 to $299.99 per month (n) $300.00 per month and over?
2.	How many widows of Armed Forces personnel or of retired Armed Forces personnel are receiving pensions, including their basic pensions and any supplement or supplements added thereto, of amounts within each of the brackets indicated in the above question?
3.	What is the total number of retired Armed Forces personnel and also the number of widows of Armed Forces personnel or of retired Armed Forces personnel presently residing in each province?
4.	In respect of how many orphans of Armed Forces personnel are pensions being paid and what is the average amount thereof?


James Armstrong Richardson: 1. As of January 31, 1975, the number of retired Armed Forces personnel receiving monthly pensions totaled 44,568 as follows: (a) less than $20, 43; (b) $20 to $29.99, 66; (c) $30 to $39.99, 137; (d) $40 to $49.99, 253; (e) $50 to $59.99, 239; (f) $60 to $69.99, 192; (g) $70 to $79.99, 258; (h) $80 to $89.99, 341; (i) $90 to $99, 485; (j) $100 to $149.99, 2,885; (k) $150 to $199.99, 6,193; (1) $200 to $249, 8,068; (m) $250 to $299.99, 6,790; (n) $300 and over, 18,618.
2. The number of widows receiving monthly pensions totaled 4,412 as follows: (a) less than $20, 52; (b) $20 to $29.99, 47; (c) $30 to $39.99, 38; (d) $40 to $49.99, 57; (e) $50 to $59.99, 61; (f) $60 to $69.99, 103; (g) $70 to $79.99, 148; (h) $80 to $89.99, 212; (i) $90 to $99.99, 230; (j) $100 to $149.99, 1,120; (k) $150 to $199.99, 953; (1) $200 to $249.99, 639; (m) $250 to $299.99, 288; (n) $300 and over, 484.
March 24. 1975

3.	The number of retired Armed Forces personnel and widows of Armed Forces personnel presently residing in each province is as follows:
Provinces	Personnel	WidowsNewfoundland	198	15Prince Edouard Island	372	38Nova Scotia	4,125	378New Brunswick	1,559	150Quebec	3,831	458Ontario	17,677	1,903Manitoba	1,883	189Saskatchewan	584	80Alberta	3,712	298British Columbia	9,352	737Territories	80	6Outside Canada	1,195	15444,568	4,4124.	Number of orphans, 119; Average month by amount, $53.84.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	What was the total amount of money on the books of the pension funds of the Canadian National Railways as at (a) December 31, 1972
(b)	December 31,1973 (c) December 31, 1974?
2.	What rate of interest was earned on these funds during (a) 1972
(b)	1973 (c) 1974?
3.	What amount of interest was credited to these funds during the years ending (a) December 31, 1972 (b) December 31, 1973 (c) December 31, 1974?
4.	What amount of money was added to these funds from employee contributions during the years ending (a) December 31, 1972 (b) December 31, 1973 (c) December 31, 1974?
5.	What amount of money was added to these funds as regular or current contributions by the Canadian National Railways during the years ending (a) December 31, 1972 (b) December 31, 1973 (c) December 31,1974?
6.	What amount of money was added to these funds in any other way by the Canadian National Railways during the years ending (a) December 31, 1972 (b) December 31, 1973 (c) December 31, 1974?
7.	Is money owed to the above funds by the Canadian National Railways and, if so, how much and what arrangements are being made to meet such debt?
8.	What was the total amount paid out of the above funds in pensions during the years ending (a) December 31, 1972 (b) December 31, 1973
(c)	December 31,1974?


Jean Marchand: The Management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: 1. As at December 31, 1972, $950,613,245; As at December 31, 1973, $1,049,845,076; As at December 31, 1974, $1,170,070,599.
2.	To calculate the yield we have used the Statistics Canada formula and the information requested in questions (1) and (3). Under this formula, the investment is deemed to be opening investments plus closing investments, less earnings divided by two. On this basis, the yield is: 1972, 7.00 per cent; 1973, 5.20 per cent; 1974, 5.76 per cent.
Order Paper Questions
3.	Year ended December 31, 1972, $60,803,818; Year ended December 31, 1973, $50,010,249; Year ended December 31, 1974, $61,131,731.
4.	Year ended December 31, 1972, $35,746,648; Year ended December 31, 1973, $36,893,626; Year ended December 31, 1974, $47,897,419.
5.	Year ended December 31, 1972, $49,144,802; Year ended December 31, 1973, $77,839,494; Year ended December 31, 1974, $83,838,271.
6.	Year ended December 31, 1972, $4,579,425; Year ended December 31, 1973, $9,847,150; Year ended December 31, 1974, $12,030,905.
7.	At December 31, 1974 Canadian National Railways owed the payment due for December, $7,210,397, which was paid in January, 1975.
8.	Year ended December 31, 1972, $70,419,462; Year ended December 31, 1973, $75,358,688; Year ended December 31, 1974, $84,672,803.


Mr. Marshall: With respect to item 12 of Canada-Newfoundland Subsidiary Agreement "Special Fish Plant Water Systems Program", what list of locations will be included for (a) providing salt water supply systems (b) installing of fresh waterlines from reservoirs (c) the connecting of fishing facility waterlines (d) the drilling of wells?


Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: The
answer for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: (a) Various locations to be determined in consultation with the province, (b) Burnt Island, New-stead-Comfort Cove, Hermitage, Southern Harbour, St. Brides, New Harbour, (c) Port-aux-Basques, Little Bay Islands, Newstead-Comfort Cove, Hermitage, Southern Harbour, St. Brides, Admiral's Beach, Valleyfield, Bay Bulls, (d) Little Bay Islands.


Mr. Jones: 1.	With reference to the federal tax dollars being invested in the Syncrude Development, what steps have been taken to broaden the study and research for other oil sources and other forms of energy?
2.	Is the government prepared to follow a similar formula for development of other oil sources and other forms of energy?


Mr. Maurice Foster (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: 1. The office of Energy Research and Development of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources is examining energy research opportunities and will be making recommendations to the government shortly.
2.	Government participation in nuclear energy research is already very extensive. New opportunities in coal and oil research are being assessed on a continuing basis. Increasing attention is also being given to renewable sources of energy.

March 24, 1975
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Marshall: 1.	What are the names and positions of the members of the Management Committee overseeing the implementation of projects specified in Section 3 of the Canada-Newfoundland Subsidiary Agreement on Highways?
2.	With respect to project description No. 4, "Northern Peninsula Highway classification RCU 50 alignment and RCU cross-section at estimated cost of $2,430,000.00", what is the present status and expected completion date for (a) re-construction and grading from Daniel's Harbour towards Hawke's Bay, 13 miles (b) access road to zinc mine in Daniel's Harbour, 4 miles (c) two bridges at Bowing Brook and Bound Brook?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: The
answer for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is: 1. R. H. McGee (Co-Chairman), Director General, Newfoundland Department of Regional Economic Expansion, St. John's, Newfoundland. J. A. G. MacDonald (Co-Chairman), Deputy Minister, Dept, of Transportation and Communications, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, St. John's, Newfoundland. Cyril Abery, Executive Director, Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, St. John's, Newfoundland.
2.	(a) Reconstruction and grading from Daniel's Harbour towards Hawke's Bay, 13 miles: Complete, (b) Access road to zinc mine in Daniel's Harbour: Complete, (c) Two bridges at Bowing Brook and Bound Brook: not begun yet. The estimated date of completion is September 10, 1975.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: Is the government giving consideration to authorizing additional funds for the Local Initiatives Programme and extending the expiry date to April 30, 1975?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: At the present time such consideration is not being given. There is no fixed expiry date fot the program. The termination date for any given project varies depending upon the project's starting date. A 197475 LIP project may operate for a maximum of 26 weeks, commencing as early as December 1, 1974 and as late as January 31, 1975.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Is the Canadian Government Office of Tourism sending out literature to predominantly English speaking areas in Canada in the French language only and, if so, what are all the reasons for doing this?
2.	(a) For what reason did the Canadian Government Office of Tourism send literature in the French language only to Mrs. Ruth MacLeod of Brockville, Ontario in answer to a request received from her written in the English language (b) did the Office receive a second letter from Mrs. MacLeod drawing this situation to their attention and, if so, on what date and what action has been taken?


Gaston Clermont: 1. The
Canadian Government Office of Tourism services inquiries according to the language of the inquirer.

2.	(a) Mrs. Ruth MacLeod should have been sent English literature. Unfortunately, however, she was sent French publications due to a clerical error in the coding process, (b) The Canadian Government Office of Tourism receives over 2 million inquiries per year. Due to this volume, serviced inquiries are not kept. In a telephone conversation with Mrs. MacLeod, it was determined that she had not received a second package, possibly because of the current mail strike. A back-up package has been prepared and sent.


Mr. Forrestall: Has the government decided whether or not to ratify the proposed Code of Conduct for Liner Conferences flowing from the UNCTAD meetings of 1973 and 1974 and (a) if not, is the matter being studied (b) if so, what decision has been made?


Mr. Herb Breau (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: (a) A Canadian international shipping policy is currently under review and will include a study of the implications of the Code of Conduct for Liner Conferences for Canada, (b) No decision has been made as to whether or not the Canadian government will ratify the code. Canada abstained on the voting on the Convention on the Code of Conduct for Liner Conferences in April 1974 on the grounds that certain provisions of this code would enable national shipping lines to secure pooling or sailing agreements with a conference for other than normal commercial considerations. In addition the conciliation provisions appeared costly and perhaps unworkable while other provisions could well reduce the competitive influences in international shipping.


Mr. Francis: 1.	Have there been any leaks of radio-active pollutants at nuclear facilities and, if so, what was the nature and extent of such leaks?
2.	How much money has been spent by Order in Council or other means to stop such leaks?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Atomic Energy Control Board reports as follows: 1. This inquiry appears to be related to the discovery of leaks in the pressure tubes of unit No. 3 of the Pickering generating station in August, 1974. The leaks in question are best described as internal leaks in that they involved leakage of heavy water from the pressure tubes (in which uranium fuel bundles are located) into a closed annulus formed by the pressure tubes and surrounding calandria tubes. There was no escape of this heavy water outside of reactor systems. Further barriers to the escape of such heavy water exist including the concrete reactor containment building. Extensive investigations by the owner, Ontario Hydro, and by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited have revealed the cause of the leaks and the necessary corrective measures including the replacement of a number of pressure tubes have been completed. It is expected that the unit will be returned to operation shortly.
March 24, 1975

2. Costs associated with the shutdown of unit No. 3 of the Pickering generating station and replacement of the defective pressure tubes have been borne by Ontario Hydro. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited has carried out fundamental investigations of the pressure tube failure mechanism. An ongoing program will utilize the results of these investigations in connection with the design of currently committed and future CANDU nuclear power stations.


Mr. Francis: Was the nuclear facility in Chalk River declared a protected place in June 1974 and, if so, for what reasons?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Atomic Energy Control Board reports as follows: Chalk River Nuclear Laboratories was declared a protected place by Order of the Atomic Energy Control Board dated July 19, 1947 as amended March 27, 1952. A new designating Order was made in June, 1974 to comply with Section 14 of the Atomic Energy Control Regulations which came into effect on June 4, 1974.


Mr. Francis: Has Canada sold plutonium to any foreign buyer and is it continuing to do so?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Atomic Energy Control Board reports as follows: Yes. Canada has sold spent fuel containing plutonium to France under bilateral safeguards implemented by Canadian safeguards inspectors. Any future sale of nuclear material would be under current safeguards policy as announced by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources on December 20, 1974.


Mr. Francis: Is the government convinced that any bilateral agreement with a purchaser of a CANDU reactor will prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons when the controlling international agency, the International Atomic Energy Commission, accepts a difference between "peaceful" and "non-peaceful" explosions and Canada does not accept such a difference?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Atomic Energy Control Board reports as follows: The present policy of the Canadian government is to insist on an international safeguards system implemented by the International Atomic Energy Agency, or other appropriate alternative procedures. The Canadian government will only permit the export of Canadian nuclear material, equipment or technology to countries with whom satisfactory commitments exist to ensure that these exports will not be used for the development or production of any nuclear explosive device.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Francis: Does the oath of secrecy taken by people working in the nuclear field relate only to information related to nuclear weapons or does it now include information relating to public health?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Atomic Energy Control Board reports as follows: The oath of fidelity and secrecy taken by employees of the Atomic Energy Control Board and Atomic Energy of Canada Limited pursuant to Section 18 of the Atomic Energy Control Act is set out in the schedule to that act. The scope of application of this oath has not been the subject of interpretation. Section 26 of the Atomic Energy Control Regulations prohibits the disclosure of proprietary information obtained by the board except as stated therein, and Section 13 prohibits disclosure by any person including board employees of certain information relating to nuclear weapons.


Mr. Francis: Has the Atomic Energy Control Board suspended the licence of any licence holder without giving the holder an opportunity to be heard in the interests of health, safety or security and, if so, what were the circumstances that led to such a decision?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Atomic Energy Control Board reports as follows: Since the coming into effect of the revised Atomic Energy Control Regulations on 4 June 1974, the Atomic Energy Control Board suspended the licences of one licensee after having provided a hearing by the Board.


Mr. Francis: Has any licence issued by the Atomic Energy Control Board been revoked, suspended or amended and, if so, what were the circumstances that led to such a decision?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Atomic Energy Control Board reports as follows: Since the coming into effect of the revised Atomic Energy Control Regulations on June 4, 1974, the Atomic Energy Control Board suspended the licences of one licensee as a result of violations of the Atomic Energy Control Regulations in failing to report an incident involving the malfunction of a radiography camera and the improper shipment of that camera and radioactive source by commercial road transport.


Mr. Francis: Is the solvent used in hospitals to dilute radio-active wastes before pouring them down the sink highly toxic?
Mr. Maurice Foster, (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources): Atomic Energy

March 24, 1975
Order Paper Questions
Control Board reports as follows: No. Tap water is the solvent normally used in hospitals to dilute radioactive wastes.


Mr. Francis: Are the radio-active wastes poured down the sinks of some hospitals (a) accumulating in the local water supply and getting into the life cycle (b) cancer producing and, if so, will the Atomic Energy Control Board consider re-institution of the pick-up of such wastes for a safer method of disposal?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Atomic Energy Control Board reports as follows: (a) As radioactive wastes which are permitted to be poured down the sinks of hospitals generally have short radioactive half-lives, they rapidly decay before they can accumulate to detectable levels in the water supply and the life cycle of humans, (b) While most radioactive materials have the potential of producing cancer if ingested at a high enough concentration for a long enough period, disposal in the sewer and at the required high dilution make the possibility of significant intake very remote. The Atomic Energy Control Board has never had a system of pick-up of such wastes. A commercial service is provided by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited for radioactive wastes which require special waste management.


Mr. Francis: 1.	What procedures are used by hospitals and other licencees of the Atomic Energy Control Board to dispose of their radio-active waste?
2.	Is waste on occasion put into public sewers?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Atomic Energy Control Board reports as follows: 1. The procedures to be used for the disposal of radio-active materials are specified in the Radioisotope Licence and are generally one or more of the Following: (a) return to supplier; (b) dilution with water at the point of disposal to the sewer to a level not greater than the maximum permissible concentration of drinking water;
(c)	storage of short-lived radioisotopes until radioactive decay has occurred; (d) disposal in approved waste management sites after prior arrangements.
2. Aqueous radioactive wastes are put into the sewer after sufficient dilution to meet requirement (b) in the reply to part 1 of this question.


Mr. Francis: How many licences have been issued by the Atomic Energy Control Board to users of radio-active materials?


Maurice Brydon Foster: Atomic Energy Control Board reports as follows: The Atomic Energy Control Board has approximately 3,000 licensees.


Mr. Francis: What is the life expectancy of a CANDU reactor?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Atomic Energy of Canada Limited reports as follows: For amortization purposes the practice of electric power utilities, such as Ontario Hydro, is to assign a 30-year "lifetime", or write-off period, to thermal power stations, both fossil and nuclear (CANDU). The actual lifetime of a CANDU unit is expected to be much longer than 30 years. For so long as it meets the criteria of reliability, safety and economic viability, a nuclear power unit will be kept in operation. If components wear out or become defective, they will be replaced. The technology to do so exists.


Mr. Herbert: In the Department of Manpower and Immigration for the month of April 1975, what is the budgeted number of public servants to work in the continental regions of (a) North America excluding Canada (b) South America (c) Europe (d) Asia (e) Australasia?


Robert Knight Andras: (a) 30; (b) 4; (c) 90; (d) 37; (e) 3.



QUESTIONS PASSED OR ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier): 1.	Since 1968, what was the amount spent by all departments and agencies to allow public servants to improve (a) their proficiency in (i) language (ii) administration (b) post secondary and university education?
2.	By department and agency, what was the number, name and position of public servants who benefitted from sabbatical leave to attend improvement courses since 1968?
Return tabled.



DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS-TRAVEL EXPENSES

Mr. Stevens: 1.	In each fiscal year ending March 31,1972, 1973 and 1974, and for the six month period ending September 30, 1974, what was the aggregate expenditure by the Department of Public Works for travel abroad by (a) the Minister of Public Works and his immediate staff (b) departmental staff (c) the staff of boards, commissions, tribunals, Crown corporations or other similar agencies reporting to the Minister (d) others whose expenses were paid in part or in whole directly or indirectly by the government?
2.	In the case of an expenditure in excess of $200 (a) what was the purpose of the foreign trip (b) what was the furthest destination (c) what is the name of the person(s) who took the trip (d) how long was the person(s) outside the country (e) what was the nature of the expenditure (f) how many others were in the party making the trip?
March 24, 1975

Return tabled.



FEDERAL GRANTS TO UNITED AIRCRAFT OF CANADA

Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	Has United Aircraft of Canada received any grants from the government during the years 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973 and 1974 for (a) research (b) construction or enlarging its plant (c) creating jobs and, if so, what amount was granted and paid by different departments for each of these years?
2.	Has the Company received any loans from Crown corporations?
3.	What are the amounts, the interest rates and reimbursement conditions of these loans?
Return tabled.



LIP-GRANTS IN CONSTITUENCY OF CAPILANO

Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What was the total amount of money allocated under the Local Initiatives Programme for 1972-73 in the constituency of Capilano (a) what are the names of all projects involved along with their addresses and the names and addresses of those signing the applications (b) in each case what is a detailed description of the actual project, specifically including the functions performed under the project?
2.	What are the names and addresses of all persons or organizations who recommended each project in any manner whatsoever to the Department?
Return tabled.



DREE-ARDA PROGRAMME PROJECTS, REGINA, SASKATCHEWAN

Mr. Hnatyshyn: In connection with projects applied for in Saskatchewan under the special ARDA programme of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion from January 1971 to December 1974 (a) what was the name and location of the projects (b) what was the estimated number of jobs to be created and the number of jobs actually created for each (c) what was the total cost of each of the projects?
Return tabled.



AIRPORTS-VACANCIES CREATED BY IN MAINTENANCE GROUP DURING 12 MONTH PERIOD

Mr. Forrestall: 1.	For the most recent 12 month period, how many vacancies have been created at (a) Halifax (b) Toronto (c) Montreal (d) Vancouver (e) Winnipeg airports in the maintenance group by trade and classification?
2.	How many such vacancies (a) have not been filled (b) have been filled (c) were filled after one month or more delay, by trade and classification?
3.	What is the general reason for the delays?
Return tabled.
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister, who indicated to the House that he first learned about possible difficulties connected with Hamilton Harbour following the election of 1972, but that he knew nothing about alleged bribery attempts connected with the Irving Whale salvage operation until recently, perhaps not until after he returned from his recent European trip. Has the Prime Minister inquired why he was not informed about the Irving Whale incident when he discussed the Hamilton Harbour incident with the appropriate minister, particularly as the inquiry into the Irving Whale incident resulted from initiatives taken by Mr. Michael Pitfield.


Mr. Trudeau:: What were the hon. member's last words? By whom were the initiatives taken?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: By Mr. Michael Pitfield, by way of letter to the Deputy Minister of Transport.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it appears that Mr. Pitfield acted on my assumed authority, and quite properly so. There is a standing instruction in my office that if there is some allegation of wrongdoing which can be properly referred to the police, it is to be referred in that way. That is exactly what Mr. Pitfield did. I am pleased with the role the Privy Council office played in that matter.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Prime Minister would direct his attention to the question I asked. Why was he not informed of alleged misconduct to do with the Irving Whale incident when he discussed with the appropriate minister the Hamilton Harbour incident, in view of the similarity of patterns.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, they were two completely unrelated questions. In one case, the proceedings, through the police, had gone very well and some people had been brought to trial. In the other case, as I understand the facts of it, the first allegations made by Mr. Kerr were proceeded upon when they were put in writing and the government of Nova Scotia decided there was no ground for taking the matter to court. I expect that the matter rested there at that point and there was no need to inform me about something that had been resolved.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I wish to remind the Prime Minister that the Irving Whale case was not resolved until many months after the Prime Minister was first informed of the Hamilton Harbour charges. As far as we know, the government of Nova Scotia did not decide not to prosecute until many months after. In other words, the Irving Whale case was still current at that time. Why was the Prime Minister not informed of this investi-

March 24, 1975
Oral Questions
gation and the charges? I also wish to ask the Prime Minister whether it is usual, within his government, for officials to ignore a charge of bribery made by a lawyer of the distinction of Mr. Donald Kerr of Halifax until after a letter is received from someone in the government service at the level of Mr. Pitfield.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it is not fair to say that the matter brought up by Mr. Kerr was ignored. It is quite apparent from the record that he made some allegations verbally, as he said, when he was mad. At that point the officials asked him to put the allegations in writing. Some weeks or a month or so later, I believe he proceeded to put the allegations in writing. The government acted upon those allegations. Investigation was followed through by the RCMP. Whatever evidence they gathered was given to the attorney general of Nova Scotia. At that point it was no longer in the hands of the federal government. There was no need to inform me of something which had been proceeded with routinely and had proceeded well. In Mr. Kerr's own words, his assessment is as follows: "I have no fault to find whatsoever with the higher echelon of the government in the way they handled this case. There was no suggestion of foot dragging or cover up. They reacted in a very smart and fast way. In fact, they reacted admirably."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ALLEGED BID-RIGGING BY SALVAGE AND DREDGING COMPANIES-GOVERNMENT VIEW OF NEED FOR PUBLIC INQUIRY
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Since there seems to be a pattern of delay-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Aloysius McGrath: I am talking about the delay in both investigations. According to the RCMP report, there is an identical pattern of bid-rigging in both the salvaging and dredging industries. Since the Auditor General has reported irregularities in dredging bids since 1963, in light of this evidence does the Prime Minister not agree that the public interest will be best served by a public inquiry?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member if he would not agree that in every case which was brought to the government's attention and knowledge, it acted admirably, to quote the gentleman who made the allegations.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In light of the government's attempts to get the support of organized labour in dealing with the dual problem of inflation and unemployment now facing this country, is the Prime Min-

ister prepared to indicate that the government will demonstrate its good faith toward labour by establishing a set of guidelines for companies in Canada which the government would expect the companies to follow if they are to be eligible for contracts with the federal government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the leader of the New Democratic Party knows the process which is going on now. This has involved consultations between the government and various sectors of the economy. He knows that this matter will be discussed at the federal-provincial conference to be held in a few weeks time. I will tell the hon. member that at this stage the process of seeking consensus would not be advanced by the government unilaterally making any announcement of the kind he suggests.


INDUSTRY
John Edward Broadbent: I would, then, refer to a specific instance and direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. In view of the bad reputation of the United Aircraft Corporation in Longueuil, Quebec, among its employees and having regard to the substantial federal grants made to this company, can the minister explain why in the course of the vicious strike which has been in progress during the last 14 months or so the government has entered into new agreements with that company? I should like the minister in particular to explain to the House the statement he made to representatives of the Canadian Labour Congress this morning to the effect that the government entered into these new contracts by virtue of prior agreements, especially in the light of the fact that the company itself, in explaining the recent contracts, made no such statement.


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: Let me
first correct the hon. gentleman's understanding of what I said this morning. This morning, in response to representations by the President of the Canadian Labour Congress, I explained that payments which had been made to United Aircraft arose from contractual arrangements which had been entered into before the start of the strike. There was no question, in the information I gave, of payments being made to United Aircraft in respect of contracts entered into subsequent to the start of the strike.


John Edward Broadbent: Then I should like to ask the minister if he would explain why the government entered into new contracts, as it has done during the period of the strike, with a company which has transferred a large part of its production from Canada to the United States during the last 14 months in violation of at least the ethics of its agreement, bearing in mind that the same company has refused to accept the Rand formula which has been accepted by the vast majority of good corporate citizens throughout the country?
March 24, 1975


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I would not presume to offer a view as to the principles of the industrial relations which should exist between this corporation and its employees; it is a matter which falls under provincial jurisdiction. The federal government has done its best not to interfere with this process. We have been hopeful, however, almost from week to week, that the parties, with the assistance of the government of Quebec, could come to an agreement and that normal business, if I could put it that way, could be resumed. This hope has not been realized as yet but we are still hopeful that normal operations will be resumed, and resumed shortly. In anticipation, we have been holding discussions looking to the future and to future development work, given the long lead-time which is required in these matters. I am told-and this is not first hand knowledge; this does not concern my department-that the production which for some period was exported to the United States has now been brought back to Canada, and that current output in the Montreal plant has reached its previous level.


HOUSING
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs.
Because the $500 grant to first-time buyers of a house offered from November 1, 1974 on has stirred considerable interest, could the minister tell the House whether the fact that a buyer has borrowed from an individual instead of a credit union, a bank or even the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation makes him ineligible for this grant?


Barnett Jerome Danson: I do not think the fact that a person has acquired a loan should deprive him of an opportunity; it is when he takes possession of the home that matters in terms of whether he is eligible for a grant.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the hon. gentleman again whether he consulted the Minister of Justice about certain aspects of the dredging industry in 1971, not, as he was so quick to assume, in his capacity as Minister of Transport but rather with specific reference to DREE grants at that time such as the one for $193,860 to Marine Industries, some of which, incidentally, is still to be paid. Can the minister tell us whether he was sufficiently concerned as a minister at that time, as the minister responsible for DREE and as a
Oral Questions
member of the cabinet, to consult the Minister of Justice on certain aspects of dredging?


Jean Marchand: those consultations were made by the department at that time. I did not personally inquire.


AGRICULTURE
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Now that Loblaws, the national food chain, has advertized in two full page ads in the last two weeks the fact that Prince Edward Island potatoes are selling at about one quarter the price of last year, reflecting a disastrous situation for the producers in that province, I am wondering when the minister intends to take action, bearing in mind the numerous meetings which have taken place between the hon. gentleman and his officials with regard to this situation in the last few weeks and the desperate need for the provision of interim assistance in order that there may be any kind of viable industry this year.


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: As I said last week, Mr. Speaker, we have made several offers to the provincial ministers of agriculture of both Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. Just this morning I received a call in my office; the ministers are returning to Ottawa late this evening to discuss what action we feel we can work out together to aid these producers and in what manner we shall proceed.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Can the minister tell us, since the nature of the proposal has not been made public, whether there is a proposal for interim assistance, which is urgent now, as well as a proposal that some action be taken with respect to marketing generally? There is a clear indication in the Loblaws advertisements that the price differential as between this year and last year is greater with respect to Prince Edward Island potatoes than for potatoes from anywhere else in the country.


Eugene Whelan: It is safe to say there have been discussions as to what should be done at the present time, to what extent we should aid the potato producers, the degree to which assistance should be retroactive-if it should be retroactive-and the kind of program we should develop, working together with respect to potato marketing in the coming crop year.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Since the House will, presumably, be adjourning this week and will not be resuming until well into April, and since the farmers will have to acquire fertilizers and other necessary materials in preparation for this year's planting, will the minister make a statement before the House adjourns indicating what action the government is prepared to take?


Eugene Whelan: In some manner we shall let these people know what action is to be taken.

March 24, 1975
Oral Questions


POTATOES-POSSIBLE PROVINCIAL CONTRIBUTION TO PROGRAM TO AID PRODUCERS
Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Is it the intention of the government to make the entire payment or will the provinces be asked to contribute a portion of the costs of any program which may be inaugurated?


Eugene Whelan: We have discussed several ways of finding a proper system to aid these people in the plight in which they now find themselves where they are getting less than cost out of their production because they over-produced by approximately 15 per cent. This has affected the sales of all the potatoes marketed, especially in eastern Canada. It is not altogether easy to say we are going to do one thing or another; we have difficulty in working out a proper program, one which will be satisfactory to them all.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Is the minister now in a position to release to the House the report on monitoring of the effect on retail prices of the elimination of the sales tax on clothing and footwear which he has had in his possession for several weeks?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I do not have it officially. I know it is to be translated in order that it may be tabled in the two official languages. I hope to do so, at the latest the day after tomorrow.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In light of Mr. Kissinger's recent failure to secure an agreement between Israel and Egypt, does the minister plan to recommend to his colleague the Minister of National Defence that Canadian troops serving in that area be withdrawn?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, no such recommendation would be undertaken without the full consultation and the advice of the Secretary General of the United Nations.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Donald W. Munro: A supplementary question. I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence whether the Canadian government has contingency plans for withdrawal when circumstances warrant?


James Armstrong Richardson: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


ADEQUACY FOR DEFENCE PURPOSES OF ARMS USED BY CANADIAN CONTINGENT IN UN TRUCE OBSERVANCE FORCE
Donald W. Munro: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I also ask the Minister of National Defence whether Canadian troops in the Middle East are adequately armed to defend themselves in case hostilities do break out, and do their current instructions authorize the use of their arms for this purpose, with or without the specific declaration of an emergency by the UN commander?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, the forces that we have in the Middle East and Cyprus have personal arms, sidearms, but they are not armed to defend themselves against an invading army or armed force. That is not the intention of their being there. They would have to evacuate and leave the area if hostilities broke out.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT
Mr. Jim Balfour (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister responsible for the Wheat Board. In view of the fact that demurrage costs amounting to several million dollars have been imposed on grain producers as a result of strikes in the last two years, will the minister take under serious consideration immediate amendment to the Canadian Wheat Board Act to allow the federal government to underwrite all such demurrage in order to relieve grain producers of the full burden of these costs, incurred through no fault of their own?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, that is by no means a new representation. The government's position, of course, has been that it would be very very difficult indeed to single out one particular person or persons from others who suffer damages as a result of strikes. It is the nature of strikes that it is difficult to tell the extent of the damage, and the government would be in an impossible position if it attempted to assess such damage.
March 24, 1975


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Defence, and I do so in the sense that I should have liked to direct it to the Minister of Supply and Services. It is somewhat further to what I asked earlier last week respecting alleged irregularities and investigations into the DDH-280 contract. Would the minister now indicate to the House whether he or any of his departmental officials in the Department of National Defence were aware of the transmission to the Department of Supply and Services of certain information that would have caused the Department of Supply and Services to carry out further investigations regarding contracts or sub-contracts in connection with the DDH-280 construction project?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I answered that question last week in the negative. Further studies have been undertaken in the department since that time and my answer would still be the same. There was no information passed by the Department of National Defence to the Department of Supply and Services which would have led to further investigative action of the kind suggested by the hon. member.


MERCURY POISONING OF NATIVES AT WHITE DOG AND GRASSY NARROWS RESERVES-DATE OF PUBLICATION OF REPORT-POSSIBLE CONSULTATIONS CONCERNING REED PAPER COMPANY
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It concerns his responsibility for the health of native Indians in Canada. Would the minister advise the House why it is that a report concerning mercury poisoning prepared by his department as related to the Grassy Narrows and White Dog reserves was not to be released for a year and a half until Japanese scientists investigated the situation and forced release of that report?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Once more, the hon. member is at least partially wrong. The information in the report mentioned by the hon. member is contained in the papers already tabled in the House or made public. There has not been any delay in making public the available information.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister. The Reed Paper Company is the owner of the Dryden mill which is alleged to be polluting the English River system and thus affecting the natives in the area. Was the minister's department consulted by the
Oral Questions
Foreign Investment Review Board, which recently approved the Reed Paper Company's takeover, and would he advise whether good corporate citizenship is one of the criteria that is being applied by the Foreign Investment Review Board?


Marc Lalonde: As far as I know, Mr. Speaker, no consultation had taken place.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I have a final supplementary question which I will address to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Would the minister advise the House whether we are to continue to have Swedish and Japanese scientists called in to protect the health of our native Indian population?


NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and arises out of recent action taken by his department which would adversely affect our tourist industry in central and eastern Ontario. Did the minister authorize the recent charges of lock tolls and other fees to be levied on those using the Rideau-Trent canal systems, as recently announced by the bureaucracy, and if so, why?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I did authorize the charges, the reason being to endeavour to get a relatively modest increase in the amount of revenue from the canals. The revenue still represents somewhat less than 15 per cent of the cost of operation.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since 1975-76 estimates for levies on general taxpayers should be duly adjusted downwards, was allowance made for this in those estimates?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, as I explained in reply to a question from the hon. member for Hillsborough the other day, the department has recently announced a five year capital program amounting to approximately $400 million. Part of the undertaking was that we would endeavour to secure some additional revenue from the operation of historical sites and national parks.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. How much revenue has the minister estimated for 1976 from users of the systems?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, in 1975-76 $11.6 million from the total operation.

March 24, 1975
Oral Questions TRANSPORT


POSSIBILITY OF REMOVING THE SUNKEN &quot;IRVING WHALE&quot;- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In the light-or perhaps I should say the darkness- of doubts and anxieties concerning the tenders for the raising of the Irving Whale and the possibility of inflated bids, can the minister advise whether he plans to make a serious reassessment of the situation with a view to seeking new and hopefully more realistic estimates, if necessary from abroad, for removing this continued threat to the Atlantic environment, and thereby achieve a real clean-up?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think the Prime Minister gave a very clear answer a few minutes ago.

I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think I misunderstood the question put to me. The problem of lifting the Irving Whale is still a technical problem and we are not sure that this is the solution. There is a real danger if we tried it that a spill would take place. This is the only reason we are not doing it.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister whether he has any assurance that if he leaves the ship there there will not be a spill take place that would endanger our environment.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, we have on that matter made all the inquiries that could be made by a government. We asked all the experts and were told everywhere that it would be much more dangerous to try to surface the ship than to leave her there. I think if the hon. member has better technical advice I would be ready to take it but I am not ready to take the risk. This is the only problem. We even sent experts to Europe to find out what kind of danger this constituted and they were told it was very very dangerous and probably the safest thing to do would be to leave her lie.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. Can the minister confirm that the capacity of the CBC to report important Canadian news and public affairs during the rest of this fiscal year will be substantially hampered because the news and public affairs division has already overspent its annual operating budget by following priorities, which included spending $20,000 last fall to send a free-lance reporter to Cambodia to search, without any success, for the son of Errol Flynn?


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to take that question as notice.


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Cecil Smith (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works. Since there has been an announcement that the demolition of the buildings at Churchill at a cost of some $600,000 will not take place this year can the minister advise whether the $600,000 will be spent to further upgrade the facilities at Churchill?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I cannot give any assurance.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State which is supplementary to my earlier question. I should like to ask the minister whether, in order that Parliament may have some confidence that there will be better regulation of spending within the CBC, he is now prepared to accept my suggestion that the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts, have the opportunity to question Mr. A. W. Johnson prior to the government's confirmation of his appointment as the new executive vicepresident of the CBC?


James Hugh Faulkner: No,
Mr. Speaker. I suggest that the hon. member question the present president before the committee.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Could the minister explain why he and the Canadian ambassador to Washington feel so strongly compelled to protest the report that in recent actions Canada was antiAmerican, especially in view of the minister's speech in Winnipeg in which he suggested that no special relationship now exists between the two countries.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Well, Mr. Speaker, I did not feel I had protested anything that was contradictory to or in clarification of the Winnipeg speech.
March 24, 1975


CONSULTATION WITH QUEBEC ON ESTABLISHMENT OF ENRICHED URANIUM PLANT
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Would the minister say to the House whether the Quebec government has officially requested the co-operation of the federal government to develop an operational plan for an enriched uranium plant in the province and, if so, what has been his answer or his terms?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we had some talks with Quebec officials concerning the studies on the establishment of such a plant, but there is no request for the support of the federal government on that aspect of research on uranium in Quebec. We are expecting the results of such a study to consider the opportunity of complying with such a request, but for the moment, there is none.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that there is now a surplus of beef, eggs and potatoes in Canada, and in view of the fact that it was just two years ago the minister was asking all producers "to produce to beat the band", I wonder whether the minister intends to follow the policy of two years ago or to bring in a new one?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would check what I said he will find that when I was talking about producing to beat the band, I was talking about cereal grains and similar crops. When the hon. member talks about beef, he knows we are not in a surplus position in Canada, but are still affected by the world supply and world trade agreements which we have. In respect of potatoes, we are talking about perishable crops and I have never told any producer of perishable products to produce to beat the band, but rather to produce for the markets so they would have some hope of selling their products.


Thomas Gordon Towers: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the minister stated there must be compliance with the reduction proposed by CEMA, is it the intention of the minister to penalize these people if they do not comply?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, it was agreed by the vast majority of the provincial premiers who were here last week that if producers did not adhere to the new suggestions a penalty program would be initiated.
Oral Questions ENERGY


COAL-CONSULTATION WITH BRITISH COLUMBIA ON PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF DEPOSITS ON FEDERAL LAND IN SOUTHEAST KOOTENAY
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Has the minister arranged to meet with the Minister of Mines from British Columbia in order to discuss questions arising out of proposals to develop coal deposits on federally-owned blocks of land in the southeast Kootenay area of British Columbia?
Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines
and Resources): Mr. Speaker, I do not have a date at the moment, although there have been exchanges between my officials and the officials of the British Columbia minister with regard to development of the federal property.


COAL-POSSIBILITY OF COMMENCEMENT OF WORK IN SOUTHEAST KOOTENAY PREPARATORY TO ESTABLISHING INVENTORY OF RESOURCE
Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Speaker, has the federal government commenced work in the area preparatory to establishing an inventory of coal resources in Canada?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, work has not commenced. There has been a financial appropriation for this purpose. Naturally any development we do in there we seek to do in co-operation with the neighbouring land holders and of course the government of British Columbia.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to return to my question to the Minister of Agriculture which I started last week. At that time the minister gave me a very flippant answer. I want to know whether or not the minister intends to announce the new subsidy for milk prior to the deadline date a week from tomorrow. Will he announce it when the House is in session.


Eugene Whelan: If at all
possible, Mr. Speaker.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Last Thursday the minister took as notice a question I asked regarding the activities

March 24, 1975
Oral Questions
of an American, Ted Patrick, who was in Canada, particularly as it relates to the case of Miss Debbie Dudgeon of Orangeville, Ontario. I understand the minister has an answer to the question now.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I do not have full details of his entry into Canada, but I can assure the hon. member and the House that my information is that he is no longer in Canada and has returned to Los Angeles. Furthermore, our ports of entry people have been alerted to any possibility of his re-entry and if he should attempt to do so appropriate action will be taken.


CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question either to the Minister of Transport or to the Minister of Labour. In view of substantial lay-offs of railway shop employees announced by CP Rail affecting Winnipeg, Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver and a number of other centres, is the government taking any steps to try to prevent these lay-offs or to find alternative employment for those affected?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, there have been no suggested alternatives that I am aware of so far as any initiative on the part of the Department of Labour is concerned, but I would think that action along this line would more appropriately fall within the jurisdiction of my colleague the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister of Manpower and Immigration have anything to add?


Robert Knight Andras: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I should like the hon. member to repeat the question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister gets marks for his honesty. My question had to do with announced layoffs of railway shop workers by CP Rail. In case these layoffs cannot be prevented, is the government taking any steps to help these employees find alternative employment?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the manpower adjustment service officials of the department will be discussing these matters with the railway and the unions involved to offer them all possible services exactly along the lines suggested by the hon. member.


MANPOWER
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Given the fact that the consideration and granting of OFY grants through the use of management area advisory groups is suffering from a lack of information, advice, control, and any indication of managerial competence on the part of his department, is the minister giving consideration to allotment and control of OFY grants on a local constituency basis where the advisory group would at least have some knowledge of the projects being considered?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I think that the informal comments and the reception given the hon. member's suggestion indicate some of the difficulties we face in administering this program.
The basic problem, as I have told many hon. members, is that we do not have the sound statistical base in such detail as to be usable for OFY allocations at the constituency level because we are dealing with a much smaller and special segment of the population and of the unemployed as compared with the broad sector with which we deal in connection with Local Initiatives Program. From that stems the problem of having to make allocations in a broader geographical area, such as labour management areas where the consultation process takes place. Also, it was a choice between giving hon. members the opportunity to name people with whom we would consult or to arbitrarily, as in the past, have the people with whom to consult in the community selected by the departmental staff. This was the compromise that had to be made, but we will do our best to satisfy the local communities.


NATIONAL HARBOURS BOARD
Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Could he advise the House when he will be tabling and making available the Scott report on the National Harbours Board organization?


Jean Marchand: As soon as the cabinet has taken a decision on the report.


HISTORIC SITES
Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: My question is for the
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It relates to the matter brought up by my friend, the hon.
March 24, 1975

Canadian Business Corporations Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
member for Winnipeg North Centre, regarding fees to be charged at the entrance to lower Fort Garry set at $2 per person and a maximum of $5 per family. Can the minister inform the House as to the causes and reasons for the imposition of such a fee structure at lower Fort Garry?

Thomas Charles Cossitt: My question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. Considering that the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism recommended that the Royal Military College continue as an English speaking institution, could the minister tell the House the reason the government has decided to spend $5 million and hire 54 teachers to teach in the French language and to convert this into a bilingual institution?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, it is the government's policy that our military colleges should be bilingual. Our college at Saint Jean is fully bilingual and RMC is in the process of adopting a bilingual program.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, in view of the Minister's comments on the subject of bilingualism as reported in Maclean's magazine, would he advise the House whether he is reviewing this decision?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


HOUSING
Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: My question is for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Is there any regulation to eliminate the discrimination whereby a housing grant of $500 is granted to purchasers of urban and rural houses, the discrimination arising as a result of the fact that purchasers of rural houses have to consider additional costs of installation of sewers, water wells, electricity and so forth, thereby raising the cost of their houses by about $10,000 in comparison with urban houses. Has that matter been reconsidered?


Barnett Jerome Danson: I believe that is taken into consideration in the valuation. There is a difference, but the urban homes are usually much more expensive for other reasons. In balance, we try to reach a valuation that applies practically in the area where that ceiling limit is in place.


CANADA BUSINESS CORPORATIONS ACT
Mr. Speaker:: The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) moves that amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-29, respecting Canadian business corporations, be now read the second time and concurred in. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, it may have been decided that there is agreement with the proposal that has been put, but may I point out, with the greatest respect, that there was such a hubbub in the House that Your Honour's voice was completely drowned out and there was no way of hearing what you were saying unless one had the earpiece on. I regret that I did not have mine on. My colleagues tell me that they also could not hear Your Honour, and we do not know what you actually said.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion that was read was as follows: The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) moves that amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-29, respecting Canadian business corporations, be now read the second time and concurred in. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: No, Mr. Speaker. The reason I want to make some comments on this matter is that the House is faced with 27 amendments as they appear in Votes and Proceedings and in my view one should note that they were made and accepted in the other place. Bill C-29 was debated at some length on second reading in the House. It had extensive hearings and discussions in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs and was reported back to the House.
Unfortunately, the report stage and third reading were galloped through the House as the result of a last minute change in the order of business. As I recall, this business had been scheduled for a Monday afternoon in the latter part of January. The committee, of which I am a member, was making a trip to Washington at the time so the business of the House was changed. Bill C-29 was then hurriedly brought in on a Monday afternoon, on which day my colleague the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) was not present-he had piloted the bill through committee-so the bill was passed in a great hurry, without any debate. The penalty comes now, and I must say to those who feel the Senate has no place that this is a clear indication that there is nothing quite so foolish or tyrannical as an intemperate majority, and any highly technical and voluminous bill of this kind requires a second look. Thank goodness our colleagues in the other place gave it that second look, because the bill is now much more workable.

March 24, 1975
Canadian Business Corporations Act
Hon. members opposite, frankly, may not have even cracked the covers of this bill. They do not know about the absolute liabilities which are imposed, with absolute penalties for even innocent acts on the part of directors of corporations. Where the act imposed absolute liability, certainly events took, place. Of course, it was readily apparent to anyone who had any idea of corporate law that the penalties were far too strigent, so the appropriate amendments have been put in. I think they are amendments which all reasonable men would accept. Now the penalties will come into play if a person commits an act without reasonable cause. I invite hon. members to look at the series of amendments wherein time and time again the phrase "without reasonable cause" is repeated. We will have an act which is much more flexible. After all, corporate law is the framework within which a great deal of the economic activity in the country must be carried on. It cannot be made so stringent, so rigid and so bureaucratically hounded that corporations will not come to register and operate under the federal act.
This act is in competition with ten provincial acts, and it need not be said that a corporation has to incorporate under the federal Corporations Act in order to carry on business in any or all parts of Canada. Many provincial acts are very eminent and sensible pieces of legislation; they impose the appropriate degree of control to ensure that there is no dishonesty and that there is the required disclosure where necessary but not unnecessary disclosure.
There are many things required under this act in respect of which, as I told the predecessor of the present minister some years ago, neither the director of corporate affairs nor the minister himself were competent to collate the information obtained or even to interpret it. I remember the hosannas of some starry-eyed new members of this House who thought the bill was going to be the salvation of Canadian business and that this was to be a new charter. I am going back a few years. The funniest thing was that they did not know what they were trying to do, and when they tried to get the information they did not know how to interpret it.
There were a few woolly-minded academics who thought they might be able to get the information, but the act did not provide any means for collecting it; no one had the authority to collate it. Certainly the returns were there, as they are under the act as now amended. They may be examined for a fee, but who will go through the register of all the corporate files to collate this information? The director has not the authority, nor has the minister.
I would say that a good deal of what is alleged to be done under this act-that is, the justification for the reporting and the filing of returns-is empty windowdressing because it is done for no useful purpose. If I am interested in a competitor, I can send my solicitor or his clerk to have a look at the file and bring me the information. I can do that with regard to a number of competitors, whether federal or provincial, by having the appropriate searches made; but I cannot review the industry. I suppose I can, if I want to pay the money and if I know what to do with the information I obtain.
Years ago this was just empty window-dressing, and it still is, but the more rigid the requirements under the Canada Corporations Act, the fewer registrations there will be. This act is not a replacement for a national securities commission act. Somehow, in the bureaucracy of the minister's department, there is the idea that under this act the director of corporations can somehow carry out the role, in some unknown fashion, of the chairman of the Securities Commission of the province of Ontario or its counterparts in the other provinces of Canada. Somehow that idea has gotten abroad, but it is patent nonsense. There is no way this can be done, and I warn the minister or his parliamentary secretary who may be piloting this legislation that the more difficult this act is made, the fewer registrations will take place under it.
One does not have to register under the Canada Corporations Act in any way. I suppose it might be said that for some companies this would have to be done. I suppose if we wanted to start a new bank we would proceed under the letters patent provisions of this act rather than go through the gethsemane of having a private bill passed through parliament, the same as with a pipeline company-that is, an interprovincial pipeline company. Those are the only companies which perforce must come under this act, but an ordinary trading or manufacturing corporation can, frankly, cock a snoot at the director of Canadian corporations or the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: They do now.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: As my colleague from Nova Scotia says, they do now, because provincial acts are more flexible and better for corporate activities: all that is required under the corporate act of a province is registration of incorporation, then an application for registry as a foreign company or extraprovincial company in another jurisdiction and one is in business without the nuisance of the Canada Corporations Act. I suggest-I have suggested this time and time again to the minister-that if he had wanted to do something really worth while for the benefit of the Canadian economy and the benefit of Canadian business, he should have those changes in the Canada Corporations Act which would have allowed corporations effectively to work and desire to be incorporated.
I do not know the percentage of Canadian companies operating under the federal act, but I venture to say that it is much less than 20 per cent of the total. It used to be something less. If it is more, it might be 21 per cent. That is wrong, Mr. Speaker; the reverse should apply. It seems to me that the nature of business in Canada today is that 50 per cent or 60 per cent of corporations and businesses could operate under a federal charter. It is easy to put "Ltd." behind a name. That can mean two truck drivers with two or three trucks, or a couple of plasterers. It does not have to be a huge multinational that operates as a corporation, yet an awful lot of nonsense is written about corporations and a good deal more is said about them.
I say to the government House leader that we will agree to these amendments having second reading as they are an improvement to the bill. I find it strange, however, that

March 24, 1975

the minister would schedule the bill for debate today when the record of proceedings in the other place, where these amendments were discussed, has not been published: the good and valuable work that was done by the hon. Senators who proposed the amendments, and the replies of the minister and his officers, are not available to us. For the government House leader to bring in the bill under these circumstances is sloppy practice. My colleagues and I would have appreciated the courtesy of a few hours to peruse the reasons for the amendments and the contribution of the minister. I do not want to carp on this, but it is part of what we should consider to be the intelligent operation of this House. I think the government House leader and his colleagues have blotted their copybook this afternoon.
Notwithstanding that, Mr. Speaker, having studied these amendments in detail I must say they are acceptable to the official opposition and I hope we can give them second reading. They are an improvement to the bill.


Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I only want to make a couple of brief comments in response to the statements of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) with respect to rushing Bill C-29 through report stage and third reading in this chamber. I know the hon. member realizes that report stage is not subject to debate unless an amendment has been filed, which was not the case here. It is not the responsibility of the government to file amendments to its own legislation at report stage. As far as third reading is concerned, there was the opportunity for members to debate the bill at that time. Some hon. members may feel aggrieved by the length of notice given, but the action was completely in accordance with the rules and I believe was taken after discussion among all House leaders. I think the hon. member was not in the chamber at that time, for good and legitimate reasons, but his point is valid.
The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that the amendments put forward in the other place are good, useful and worth-while. I believe they are a further indication of the kind of concern that the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has brought to the consideration of Bill C-29 in response to representations made in this House and in the committee of the other place. As the hon. member for Edmonton West pointed out, this clearly proves that the Senate has a valuable role to play in terms of having a second look at legislation. The government has no objection whatsoever to the amendments put forward by that body.
In response to the more substantive point made by the hon. member for Edmonton West regarding these specific amendments, I should like to deal with that as quickly as I can. Knowing that the bill has been in the public domain for a long time, the Senate committee worked hard and diligently to consider it in as short a time as possible. There was an extremely broad basis of agreement in the business community, and I think in this House, that it was fundamentally a good bill. The Senate analysed the bill very thoroughly and scrutinized the central issues carefully. They asked good questions and suggested amendments only in respect of provisions they felt strongly about, and they gave full reasons for the amendments they put for-
Canadian Business Corporations Act ward. On the whole, the appearance before them was a pleasant and rewarding experience.
The Senate committee clearly approved the central goals of the bill, that is, to rid the law of useless formalities, to simplify administration, to clarify the substantive rules of corporation law and, in general, to achieve a fair balance between management and shareholders that gives managers broad powers but that, at the same time, furnishes remedies to shareholders in order to enable them to check any management abuses.
The specific amendments made by the Senate fall into three broad categories: first, changes of wording to clarify a technical error or ambiguity; second, substantive changes concerning close corporations, resident Canadian directors and investigations; third, amendments to the strict liability penal provisions to permit a defence of reasonable excuse for failure to comply with the law.
The first of the wording changes, which concerns item 6 of the schedule of the bill, is unanimously agreed by all concerned to be an essential technical amendment to clarify a drafting error in the present bill which would limit the National Energy Board's licensing powers to the granting of a licence only to a corporation already holding a licence, precluding a new corporation from obtaining a licence to operate a pipeline.
The other significant wording changes concern clause 4 which is amended to clarify a constitutional uncertainty implied by the present draft, and also clauses 180, 181 and 182 which are amended to make certain that in case of amalgamation or continuance an individual who first becomes a director or officer of a corporation after an amalgamation or continuance is not personally liable for acts of directors and officers of a pertinent corporation before the amalgamation or continuance.
In its second group of amendments, the Senate modified clause 21 to increase the privacy of shareholders in closely-held corporations and amended clauses 110 and 116 to clarify the liability of directors in connection with the delegation of their functions to committees of directors and to officers. The Senate also amended clause 222 to ensure that an ex parte application for an investigation of a corporation must be conducted in private, to preclude any person from using this remedy as a device to secure groundless publicity.
Similarly, the Senate amended clauses 106(1) and 109(3) to empower the remaining directors of a corporation, even without the required Canadian majority, to fill a vacancy caused by the death or resignation of a Canadian director. The stated goal of the amendment is not to change existing policy or to water down the effectiveness of the Canadian director provisions but, rather, to make them work better by simplifying the process of maintaining a majority of Canadian directors on the board.
In the third group, the Senate amended several strict liability penal sanctions to permit an accused to establish that he has reasonable cause for not complying with the law. The department officials and I did not object strongly to these amendments, pointing out that the corporation law is not based on the criminal power, and therefore that the criminal sanctions serve only as a veiled threat to

March 24, 1975
Canadian Business Corporations Act
secure compliance, and that the bill relies mainly for its enforcement not on criminal sanctions but, instead, on effective civil and administrative remedies which make the corporation law as self-enforcing as possible.
The Senate committee studied the bill professionally, objectively and fairly, limiting their amendments to what they strongly felt were substantive improvements. We therefore agreed and I agreed on behalf of the government, to the changes recommended by the Senate committee that I have already outlined.
As I mentioned during the second reading debate in this chamber, the development process that has led up to today's debate on the Canada business corporations bill has lasted eight years. Changes were made at the proposals stage, the first bill stage, during House committee hearings and during the Senate committee hearings. I believe all who are familiar with the bill acknowledge that it is a very good bill. We have no illusions about developing a perfect bill that will please everyone and will resolve all problems. We think, therefore, parliament should consider the corporation law revision not as a secular process but, rather, as an annual process, to ensure that federal corporation law will not once again become as outdated as the present Canada Corporations Act.
Indeed, having already given the House committee an undertaking to crystallize at least one regulation as statute law within the next year, and knowing that further technical difficulties will arise as we acquire experience working with the bill, we will introduce a bill next year to deal with those issues. Through this process we compel the department to remain responsive to suggestions and also ensure that the law will be better adapted to changing economic and social conditions. As I said, the Senate committee in making its recommendations acted objectively, fairly and reasonably, arguing clearly and forcefully for each proposed amendment. I found it impossible not to be responsive to their suggestions, which I thought were consistent with the over-all development of this bill.
In conclusion, I repeat that this bill has been a long time in preparation. It is well structured, clearly drafted, comprehensive, imaginative and, above all, practical. I therefore urge all members of this House to support its passage.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I fully agree with one complaint made by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). I think it is unfair to ask us on such short notice to deal with one motion making 27 amendments to this massive bill. These are amendments made by Their Honours in the other place. I was assured through the usual channels that they were just administrative amendments and that we did not need to concern ourselves about them. I confess that I have not done the homework on them that I ought to have done.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Tut, tut!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hear my hon. friend from Halifax making little remarks which suggest that it is bad to make that kind of confession.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: But it is good for the soul.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is good for the soul. By referring to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) as the hon. member from Halifax, I was not downgrading him: to me, anybody who comes Nova Scotia is an important person. It was a friendly reference.
I looked at the amendments while the hon. member for Edmonton West and the parliamentary secretary were speaking, and I found that six are so annoying that I must decline the parliamentary secretary's request to support the motion approving them. It strikes me that these are amendments we might expect from the other place. Frankly, I do not like them. I object to six amendments; two on page 136, two on page 137, one on page 139 and one on page 140. In all six cases the Senate wants to change the law so that action, if necessary, can be taken only against a corporation and not against its directors or officers. In every one of the six amendments to which I have referred, the original words "or its directors or officers" have been deleted.
Having listened to the soothing words of the parliamentary secretary, I was puzzled to discover that in two instances those words were actually written in the bill by the committee of this House which considered it. In other words, the inclusion of those words was not accidental; the bill which this House sent to the other place included the provision that in certain instances a conviction could be sought against a corporation or against its officers or directors. Considering the number of officers and directors sitting in the other place, I am not surprised by what has been done. They object to this provision in the law.
I have in mind the fact that in some countries in recent years it has been recognized that when companies break the law, the companies should suffer but so should some of the executives who are responsible for their decisions. Likewise, in this country we face what has been called the dredging scandal. I suggest that perhaps that scandal is not really within the confines of the government; it is a scandal within the confines of certain corporations. I suggest that when bad decisions are made by corporations, they are actually made by officers or directors of the corporations, and those officers or directors should be subject to the penalties of the law. Therefore, I do not like what the Senate did in deleting the references to directors or officers of companies in the six places to which I have referred.
Perhaps I shall find still other of the 27 amendments offensive. I must now say that the assurance I was given earlier, namely, that these amendments are administrative and need not cause us any concern, does not wash as far as I am concerned. So even if all I can do is shout "On division" when the question is put, that is what I shall do to register my opposition to the changes which the Senate made to the bill which the House of Commons sent to it.


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the previous speaker's remarks and note that he has finally learned the facts about the amendments proposed by the Senate. These amendments are significant and I am pleased that the Senate has proposed them, because it appears that the other place has greater insight, if you like, or perhaps is more persuasive than the government, the minister or backbenchers were on the committee which dealt with this bill. The fact is, a proper
March 24, 1975

Environmental Contaminants Act ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINANTS ACT
study was not made of this bill before it was passed by the committee: the entire emphasis was one of rush. When questioning was attempted, time and again the Liberal members of the committee interrupted and said, "Let's get on with passing the bill."
[DOT]
It is true the bill is not one with which we can make headlines. At the same time, however, as responsible members it is unfortunate that the Liberal caucus did not see fit to give this bill adequate study before referring it back at report stage to this House. That is why I am pleased the other place at least caught some of the amendments that were very urgently required when the bill was before the committee.
I was pleased to hear the parliamentary secretary say today that a new bill is being proposed to amend the one we are passing, and that the new bill will be introduced within a year. I am hopeful that some of the amendments that should be made in this bill will be made in the new bill. It is a ridiculous way to deal with legislation by introducing a bill, proposing amendments both in the House and in committee, then the bill is finally reported back to this House, receives third reading, goes to the other place and still more amendments are made to it. As the hon. member who spoke before me indicated, the amendments in the other place reverse some of the amendments proposed by the minister when the bill was at the committee stage. Is this any way to give those who would incorporate companies in this country a feeling of confidence in the administration of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs?
I am surprised the minister is not here today to explain some of these amendments and to point out that in spite of the fact he did not propose them in committee, he is willing to live with them. I say I am surprised; however, on reflection I am not very surprised. I believe that if the minister were here today he would be genuinely humiliated by having to face this House and explain amendments made in the other place as opposed to the bill being properly dealt with in his own caucus. Speaking about clout, this is obviously one minister who has very little clout, certainly on the Senate side of the Liberal caucus.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No. On
division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, amendments read the second time and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, March 21, 1975, consideration of the motion of Mr. Sharp (for the Minister of the Environment) That Bill C-25, to protect human health and the environment from substances that contaminate the environment; be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry; and the amendment thereto of Mr. Fairweather (p. 2251).
Jeanne Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank hon. members opposite for their very construction criticisms of this bill. I gladly accept these criticisms and I am certain that they will be very useful to me in administering the act when it is passed by the House.
I would have liked to reply point by point to some suggestions and the criticisms that have been made, but instead, I shall take advantage of the study of the bill by the committee on fisheries and forestry to do so. Today, I would simply like to say that when hon. members made suggestions about Bill C-25, they omitted to consider the other acts under which we may act to protect human health or the environment, which include the Hazardous Products Act, the Pest Control Products Act and the Clean Air Act, under which, I might mention, we must prove a real health hazard; all these acts enable us to take measures. However, we needed a new bill in which, as you will note, we ask only for residual powers to fill the gaps of certain federal and provincial acts.
As I have already explained, Bill C-25 concerns suspicious substances of which there might be traces in eco-systems. These are substances which are not biodegradable, and their accumulation may eventually have damaging effects on the environment or create health hazards. Mr. Speaker, we needed this new bill to deal with suspicious substances, which sometimes have minimal or indirect effects on health or the environment.
We had to obtain the authority to make additional studies on these substances which might be traced in the food chain, the life cycle or the atmosphere.
Some of those substances have already been identified. We mentioned freon, S02, cadmium and recently we discussed at length the indirect effects of asbestos fibres inhalation on the health of workers.
This measure is not of the same generation as those aimed at eradicating pollution, but it is a preventive measure. We shall identify suspicious substances and then analyze them. We want to check the presence of those substances in all kinds of manufactured products. This is why we are seeking this new authority.
The hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark) feels that under this bill I should request information on every manufactured product. I am not sure whether the hon. member realizes the volume of paperwork that would be involved if I were to request information on each and every manufactured product. I believe their number totals 30,000 a year.

Environmental Contaminants Act
It is absolutely impossible to examine each one of these products within reasonable time. The processing of data would require a very large staff, because I would have to tell manufacturers within a reasonable time frame: You may now go ahead with the manufacturing of such or such a product, because close scrutiny showed that the manufactured products involved contain no suspicious substance that would affect the environment.
Therefore, I am seeking authority to request complete information on substances that we feel may constitute a danger. The hon. member for Rocky Mountain wonders how I will go about identifying such substances, and proposes, or rather he feels that I will rely on messages carried by birds.
Mr. Speaker, I love birds, and if by any chance they perched on my shoulder, as the hon. member suggested, I wish it were only to bring good news. I therefore will not trust birds to bring me information on suspicious substances. He knows very well I would not trust them. At any rate, I wish they kept on carrying good news about the environment.
I will know substances are suspicious from research work carried around the world. I named some of these substances: freon, cadmium, S02 and certain other products we feel may indirectly affect the environment or human health. As soon as we suspect one substance may be dangerous, we will endeavour to analyze it and find out which manufactured product uses it in order to know what quantity of this suspicious substance would thus be present in the environment, in eco-systems, in the food chain or in the atmosphere.
Therefore I must limit myself to such suspicious substances. I cannot examine all the chemicals that are manufactured in this country. Therefore, following such scientific research work, following the observations of scientists or medical doctors, we will decide whether the study of a certain substance or of a certain product should be advisable. Then, after we have gathered sufficient information, we will be able to enact regulations to limit their use and prohibit them if they are dangerous. We may also prohibit their export or regulate their use one way or the other.
The hon. member, in the same spirit, would also like me to give in the bill a list of these suspicious substances. I might be able to do it and I will consider his proposal. But here again, I should like to warn him about the danger of claiming without sufficient proof that such a substance is suspicious. After all, one should proceed with some caution in regulating the use of certain products because considerable damage could obviously be caused to industry that could not be justified afterwards. Therefore, I am only asking to be able to proceed with the caution normally shown by governments.
The hon. member says that all I am asking for is a complaints office. If I were, for instance, responsible for the police, I would only have a complaints office, and then, I would be unable to take action. I put this question to him: should I, as a result of complaints, put everyone in jail? That is precisely what I want to avoid. If I get complaints, I want to be able to look into them and then, request the authority to take action.

I should also like to deal with another aspect of the question. The hon. member claimed to be very concerned about the authority of the Environment Department. He objects to my consulting other departments, other government agencies, at the various stages of the studies I shall have to make of some of those substances. He sees weakness in the obligation I want to assume of consulting departments, agencies and provincial governments. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, that is no indication of weakness. Might I remind the hon. member that the department and the Minister of the Environment hold their authority from the cabinet itself which, on December 20th, 1973, promulgated the policy whereby all government departments and agencies must seek the advice of the Department of the Environment on matters falling within its jurisdiction. Moreover, they must seek the advice of the Department of the Environment before undertaking any major project which might affect or have any bearing whatesoever on the environment.
Mr. Speaker, I believe I have answered briefly and, I am sure, completely the objections of the hon. members on the other side of the House to this bill being given second reading. I believe my explanations should suffice at this point in the study of the bill. Consequently, I suggest and request of the House that it pass the motion and refer Bill C-25 to the standing committee on fisheries and forestry for consideration. May I assure my hon. colleagues that at other stages of this bill I shall welcome any and all amendments or suggestions that conform with the spirit of the bill and can improve it.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Fairweather) negatived.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is now on the main motion. Shall the main motion carry?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.

John Carr Munro: that Bill C-56, to provide for the resumption and continuation of longshoring and related operations at ports on the west coast of Canada, be read the second time and referred to committee of the whole.
He said: Mr. Speaker, hon. members will be aware that the bill just introduced for second reading contains the government's legislative proposals respecting longshoring and related operations at ports on the west coast. I shall refer to these proposals in some detail a little later, but first it would be helpful and appropriate to recall some of
March 24, 1975

the pertinent background facts and events which have led to the introduction of these proposals.
The West Coast Ports Operations Act, 1975, has as its principal subject some 4,000 non-supervisory and supervisory longshoremen, represented by the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, and the British Columbia Maritime Employers Association, representing some 61 companies. As hon. members realize, we are contending here with two distinctly separate yet related dispute situations. With respect to the non-supervisory longshoremen, who are represented by seven locals of the ILWU, a legal strike began on March 2 after unsuccessful attempts to negotiate a revision of their collective agreement which expired on December 31, 1974.
It should be pointed out that during negotiations both the union and the employer made firm recommendations that no conciliation board or conciliation commissioner should be appointed in these disputes. In fact, it was suggested by the parties that possibly conciliation board reports were partially to blame for past strikes in the port of Vancouver, as such reports were invariably rejected by one side or the other and a strike ensued. The parties felt confident that, if left to their own devices, settlement could be reached in direct negotiations without resort to strike or lockout. To give the parties full opportunity to work out a mutually arrived at settlement, the conciliation procedures were waived and the parties so notified on December 31, 1974.
The parties resumed direct negotiations early in the new year which reached an impasse, and on January 23 the union membership voted heavily in favour of strike action. Negotiations resumed following the taking of a strike vote on January 23, carried on for some time, and after a final week of very intensive negotiations an impasse was reached on March 1; on March 2 the union called a legal strike affecting dock operations at 11 ports: Vancouver, Victoria, New Westminster, Prince Rupert, Nanaimo, Port Alberni, Chemainus, Harmac, Crofton, Cowichan Bay and Squamish.
Five days later, William Kelly, my department's assistant deputy minister for industrial relations, was appointed as mediator in the dispute and on March 16, following an intensive mediation session, succeeded in bringing the parties to a settlement-a settlement subject to ratification by the union membership. So at this stage there was reason for optimism, and particularly so when a union caucus of 55 delegates subsequently voted 67 per cent in favour of endorsing the terms of the settlement. However, as we now know, this was not the attitude of the union membership, of whom some 55 per cent voted to reject the mediated settlement. Thus, the strike continued and so, too, continued the disruption and damage not only to many sectors of the Canadian economy but also to those foreign countries suffering unfulfilled contracts, particularly grain contracts.
Talking of economic damage, as we know the Canadian Wheat Board has undertaken substantial commitments to many overseas customers, of whom Japan has already had to make alternative arrangements. Not only have our shipments fallen seriously behind-by some 60 million bushels
Longshoremen's Strike
during the current grain year-but our grain transportation facilities, the farmers and other sectors are now facing severe strains which cannot be permitted to continue.
In my opinion, the mediated settlement was a most reasonable settlement and I find it impossible to convince myself of the validity of its final rejection by the union membership. This rejected package provided for a wage increase of $1.95 an hour over two years, $1.15 in the first year and 80 cents in the second.
Members will agree that it is a most difficult decision for a Minister of Labour to conclude that collective bargaining has run its full course, that other measures must be taken to terminate a dispute having a serious effect on the economy of a nation, and in this instance having worldwide effects when starving people are asking for aid.


Mr. Woolliams:: That is what I said last week.


John Carr Munro: We are stealing your line and find it very applicable in this particular case.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carr Munro: One might ask, would a further mediation attempt be successful? On past experience I could not offer hope of early resolution of this dispute if this course of action were followed. In the 1969-70 dispute between the same parties, mediated settlements, with the participation of Mr. Kelly, were obtained three times and rejected by the union before a fourth mediated settlement was subsequently ratified. In terms of economic damage already sustained in this particular dispute, we cannot afford the time to go through that type of procedure if only to suffer the same result.
While it is personally repugnant to me to introduce legislation curtailing the collective bargaining process, I am sure hon. members will agree we have reached the stage in this dispute where there is no alternative.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carr Munro: I would now refer to the second dispute situation involving 13 west coast stevedoring companies and the ship and dock foremen of local 514 of the ILWU. This case surrounds, in part, the application of local 514 for certification by the Canada Labour Relations Board and the parties' attempts to negotiate a first contract. Some eight months ago the union was certified by the board as bargaining agent for units of foremen of 12 or 13 companies. The exception at that time involved Pacific Coast Terminals Limited which was subsequently certified in January of this year.
However, these certifications shortly became the subject of proceedings instituted in the Federal Court by the employers against the decisions of the Canada Labour Relations Board. Nonetheless, the parties held separate and joint meetings in direct negotiations which were unsuccessful to the extent that a conciliation officer was appointed to deal with the 13 collective bargaining disputes. Again-and I am still talking about the foremen-a settlement was not to be forthcoming and the union had the right to strike as of January 8. No further conciliation efforts were advanced. Further inability to reach an agree-
4424

Longshoremen's Strike
ment culminated March 22 in the foremen setting up picket lines at all 13 company locations involved.
I have already briefly referred to the damaging situation which now exists as a result of the first mentioned strike. That this situation cannot be allowed to continue is selfevident. Therefore, the West Coast Ports Operations Act, 1975, orders the immediate resumption of both non-supervisory and supervisory longshoring and related operations.
With respect to the strike of non-supervisory employees, their strike will cease immediately on the coming into force of this legislation and they will return to work under the terms of their collective agreement which expired December 31, 1974. This extended collective agreement will expire on December 31, 1976, or whenever a new agreement or an amended agreement comes into force before that date. No strike or lockout is to be permitted during the entire term of this extended agreement. An arbitrator is to be appointed to whom will be referred all matters relating to the amendment and revision of the collective agreement that are in dispute. The arbitrator's decisions, together with other amendments previously agreed to by the parties, will constitute a new collective agreement that will be in effect from January 1, 1975.
With respect to the dispute involving the supervisory employees of local 514, their right to strike will cease immediately on the coming into force of this legislation and they will also return to work on the same terms and conditions that applied before the work stoppage. No company may alter any term or condition without union agreement. No strike or lockout is to be permitted prior to the establishment of a collective agreement. An arbitrator is to be appointed to whom will be referred all matters that are in dispute between the companies and the union.
That, Mr. Speaker, is in essence my remarks and I would ask for the approval of this House.


Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, in beginning may I say as clearly as I can that it is a matter of deep regret that once again parliament is called upon to legislate back to work workers who are legally on strike. I am sure all hon. members would wish it were otherwise, but the fact remains that in the absence of effective procedures to resolve disputes between management and labour that affect the national interest, legislation of this nature is not only necessary, it is inevitable. It is inevitable because there comes a point when the rights of the parties to a dispute-I refer especially to the right of lockout and the right to strike-can no longer be permitted to trespass on that greater right shared by all of the public, that irreparable damage to the national interest cannot be permitted to continue.
I recognize that it is not always easy to resolve the ever present conflict between the two positions. This is a free country and Canadians have recognized that a part of that freedom is the right to strike in furtherance of the demands of working people in this country. But no right is absolute in a civil society. I know this is recognized by the majority of labour leaders. I believe it is recognized by the vast majority of the millions of Canadians who make up the work force of this nation.
What has not been recognized by this government is that it has an obligation to establish a coherent procedure which will result in a fair wage and fair conditions of work without recourse to crippling strikes that deny essential services and drive destructively at the very substance of the national interest. As all members know, a public interest disputes commission has long been advocated by this party. The government response is that it will not work; but to date the government has offered nothing in its place. If the past few years have shown anything, it has been that in the absence of some agreement between management, labour and government whereby all three accept the responsibility to avoid the intolerable effects of certain strikes on the national interest, parliament will be recalled again and again to resolve the difficulty on an ad hoc basis.
This self-evident truth is, in fact, shared by all political parties. The Liberal government has either invoked existing legislation or introduced special legislation four times since August, 1972, to restore grain movements, shipping and transportation. During the debate in 1973 to restore rail movement, the then leader of the New Democratic Party said:
We, of course, agree that parliament has a duty to the people of Canada and to the public interest, and that there comes a point in a strike such as a national railway strike at which members of parliament must take the responsibility of making certain that rail operations are resumed so that the harm, the difficulties, the hardship caused by the strike are ended.
Recently, in British Columbia, the NDP premier of that province tossed all his former rhetoric to the winds and swiftly introduced legislation ending a strike of municipal firemen. He knew, and everyone knew, that an essential service cannot be withdrawn. It is easy to say it is difficult to determine what is an essential service or what is destructive of the national interest, but this argument is nonsense and is refuted by the practice of all governments, of whatever political stripe, acting by legislation in such cases. The tragedy is that so often so much damage is done when it could be averted before the event. But this will not happen until all of us in Canada face the facts of life and adjust our bargaining procedures accordingly. Real freedom is only enjoyed within civil society. Chaos is not freedom; it is the breakdown of a civil society and it creates a climate where, in desperation, people will cry for order even at the expense of their liberties.
Clearly, in the case before us, the national interest is gravely affected. It is in the national interest that Canada deliver its grain shipments, and on time. It is also in the national interest that the grain producers of Canada obtain the best price for that grain. As hon. members know, the inability to meet our delivery commitments has resulted in the grain producers being caught in a falling price situation, and this loss is borne not by the nation at large but by one segment of the nation.
The demurrage charges, mounting in the millions, are paid for by the grain producers. The hon. member for Skeena (Mrs. Campagnolo) chided us for speaking of grain last Wednesday last. The fact is that last Wednesday we had every expectation that the longshoremen's strike would be settled satisfactorily, and there was no need to talk about the great damage to other sectors of the economy if the ports were closed. That is now the unhappy

March 24, 1975

result; but it was proper that hon. members made cleai how unfair it is to allow one group in Canada to suffer the largest portion of economic loss.
I remind all hon. members that no grain has moved since February 17. For several weeks the ports have been closed to all shipping. Ninety-three ships are now waiting for cargoes on the west coast. Since August 1, 1974, over 40 per cent of all ordinary grain loading days have been lost because of work stoppages. Increasingly, other workers- not involved in the dispute are being laid off as a direct result of the strikes. It is not just that there is now a national emergency; the national interest has been disastrously affected for many weeks, and during this long time the government has stood by, mouthing platitudes about the right to strike while the damage to the national interest mounted day by day.
Apart completely from the government's long inability to devise better procedures for settling industrial disputes, the effect of inflation is directly affecting the entire climate of negotiations. As the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) knows, because he has said it often enough, inflation threatens the very fabric of our society. It is not difficult to understand why workers, especially those at the lower end of the pay scale, are demanding what seem to be absolutely incredible percentage increases. But the reason is plain: they have no confidence in the future.
It is not hard to understand why usually quiescent unions are now militant, and it ought not to be wondered at that a concomitant of lack of confidence is a rank and file refusal to abide by the recommendations of their own negotiating teams. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) said in September:
Whether we succeed in realizing our great potential depends mainly on ourselves. One way or another a balance is going to be struck in the allocation of shares of the national income between the various sectors of the economy. We can come together and seek to strike a fair and reasonable balance between such elements as wages, prices and profits through a process of consensus which will make possible continued strong growth of national income to the benefit of us all. Alternatively, we can allow the balance to be determined by the process of prolonged and bitter industrial strife, which could leave everyone considerably worse off by substantially reducing the size of the pie that is available to be shared between us.
It ought to be obvious that we are now, in fact, experiencing just what the Minister of Finance predicted. But he made that speech in September. The months have passed. The search for the elusive consensus continues; but incredibly those who are being consulted have no idea whatsoever what the government believes is a "fair and reasonable balance". We have no idea what the government's objectives are. But one thing is so terribly clear: seven months after the Minister of Finance's speech the government is still refusing to show any leadership. Perhaps this is borne from a sense of impotence or an inability to take the tough decisions that are needed. I suggest it is also due to a sense of unwarranted pessimism on the part of the government which reveals a certain lack of faith in Canadians to meet a challenge.
Last year the Prime Minister responded to the crisis of inflation with the warning: You cannot ask for common restraint because people will not co-operate. Certainly some people will cheat on their neighbours, but we have
Longshoremen's Strike
not been, and are not now, a nation of cheaters; and we are not a nation of cowards unable to brace ourselves to accept our responsibilities.
Recently, responding to the deepening crisis in the economy, the Prime Minister complained that it is difficult to do anything because nobody trusts the government any more. Certainly the government has to have the trust of the public, to lead effectively. But its own determined action must be the basis of the trust. This government recently received a majority mandate. The Prime Minister has been treated very generously by the people of Canada and instead of complaining about some undefined meanness in our national spirit he should start employing the good will his government still enjoys before it is wasted on the barren ground of timidity.
Mr. Speaker, there is no question that we are faced with a national emergency. What is required is a national response. Every Canadian is involved in that response. The measure of the civility of our society is very much at stake now and will be in the coming months. Leadership is called for, not just from the government but from the leaders of all parts of our society.
My party supports this bill today because it is necessary to do so. But we also say to the Prime Minister, show us what you wish to accomplish; give us some idea of how you wish us to respond; make it clear to all Canadians that the best is being demanded of us, not the worst. I say to the right hon. gentleman, through you, Mr. Speaker, that we will not be found wanting.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, it is no surprise to anyone in our country to learn that the NDP, whether at the federal level or at the provincial level, has a profound disposition to oppose legislation that forces working men and women back to work under any circumstances. We believe that one of the essential aspects of a free society is the right of men and women to withdraw their services if they feel that the circumstances under which they are working are unsatisfactory to them. It is the basic right of any free society, and it must only be with the greatest degree of reluctance that any person or party committed to this idea would support legislation involving the abridgement of this basic right, because that is exactly what is involved and we in parliament have to face the situation if that course of action is taken.
The only possible circumstance under which, in our view, there would be justification for taking away this fundamental right would be something that would come under the rubric of the national interest. The national interest, like nationalism and a number of other concepts, is used frequently to disguise quite perfidious kinds of actions, so that when you say you are acting in the national interest it seems to me there is a basic obligation to spell out in some detail at least what you have in mind.
I am now saying, on behalf of our party, that we will support this legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Therefore, it seems to me that we have an important obligation to say why we are supporting it. The reason, I think, has been outlined by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) and it is a plausible and acceptable
29557-5%

March 24, 1975
Longshoremen's Strike
case in the immediate circumstance; I say that to the minister.
Tied up on the west coast of Canada are some 93 ships representing various interests of a variety of exporters and affecting many parts of the country, affecting people who are exporting from the heartland of Canada as well as the west coast, but particularly affecting the people responsible for the growing of grain in our prairie provinces. The grain shipments above all-this is not to say the others are not of some importance-affect a major region of Canada in terms of our being able to keep our trading commitments and in terms of other countries' perceptions of our nation as a trader, our sense of reliability in trade matters in general. Therefore, because of the importance of shipping in general, and of grain shipments in particular to people with whom we have entered into important contractual arrangements, we are going to accept this legislation although with great reluctance.
I want to make some comments on the issue of strikes because the spokesman for the Conservative Party who preceded me, as well as the minister and many members in the House and people outside, are rightly concerned about strikes in Canada at this time and there is an increasing number of contracts, particularly this year,' with which the federal government will have to deal. This applies also in the private sector.
I would like to make the point, with regard to strikes that we should keep in mind the fact that a strike is not necessarily an evil or a bad thing. A strike is entered into, on the part of people who are in our work force, as a last resort; it is an expression of profound dissatisfaction with their working circumstances. If it leads ultimately to a settlement that has not been reached on the basis of some kind of negotiation-and most settlements are reached independently of the strike-and if the strike is used as a weapon to bring about a settlement, the result in the long run may be much more acceptable to both parties, and therefore the strike is not necessarily a bad thing.


An hon. Member:: Both parties?


John Edward Broadbent: Indeed, to both parties. If a strike comes to an end at some time because the two parties decide finally, in the last process of the negotiations, to come to a settlement-


An hon. Member:: One side gives in.


John Edward Broadbent: Of course one side gives in, as the hon. member says. That is one of the inevitable results of a successful strike. The point I am making is that this happens as opposed to settlements in some societies.
If I understand part of the proposal advocated by the Conservative Party, if we are going to take away the right to strike of certain sectors we will take away their weapon of last resort. I say to them in all seriousness that one of the consequences of that will most likely be, not a greater sense of harmony in work relationships, not greater acceptance of contractual arrangements, but it will in fact lead to more conflict, more illegal work stoppages and more illegal strikes.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


John Edward Broadbent: That is what it will mean, not less disharmony in society. I want to make that point as clearly and unequivocally as I can because many people both inside and outside the House tend to regard strikes as an intrinsic evil. I repeat that it is not necessarily an evil. A strike is an aspect of a free society and it has an important social function which, when it leads to an agreement which is ultimately acceptable to the workers involved, could produce more harmony in the long run in our work force than an alternative proposal which would prohibit strikes, which in my judgment could lead to a larger number of outbreaks and a larger number of cessations of work.
In saying that we are accepting this bill at second reading, I want to make it clear that we reserve final judgment on it precisely because we find one major flaw in it, and I want at this point to appeal directly to the Minister of Labour on this issue. It seems to us that while it is in the national interest, for reasons I have already given, to bring this strike to an end, it is equally the case that it is unfair to force the longshoremen on the west coast back to work for wages which they are now receiving and which refer to their previous contract. The minister, I think, agrees with what I am saying.


John Carr Munro: What is the answer?


John Edward Broadbent: I would like to suggest an answer. When we get to the committee stage I will urge the government to embody, if it agrees with my answer, my proposal in the form of an amendment. We in the New Democratic Party believe that the floor from which the arbitrators should work should be that reached in agreement by the negotiators in the most recently negotiated settlement rejected by the majority of the workers. That should be the floor beyond which an arbitrated settlement should not go.


An hon. Member:: They turned it down.


John Edward Broadbent: The minister indicates that he does not agree with that. We think that if we take away the right to strike and send workers back, the very least we can do is make sure that the wages they will receive under the new settlement are not lower than those which their negotiators most recently found to be acceptable. The minister shakes his head to our proposal. Perhaps at committee stage he will explain why, because earlier he agreed in principle, as I understand it, that there should be some provision in the bill which would make it possible for the workers to go back to work under conditions somewhat improved from those they currently experience in terms of their old contract.
I shall conclude my remarks on precisely that point. We support the bill, reluctantly, on second reading because we must get the ships moving again on the west coast. We will suggest, and we suggest now, that the government act at committee stage to amend the bill to improve the conditions under which the workers will go back, and we reserve our final judgment on the bill depending on the course of action taken at that time.
March 24, 1975


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) wishes to ask a question of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broad-bent). Will the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby accept a question at this time?


John Edward Broadbent: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am very pleased that the parliamentary leader of the New Democratic Party takes such a reasonable position. In regard to those unique industries where the national interest is at stake, does he believe, or does his party believe that there is any formula other than the right to strike which would be fair to management and fair to labour? Does he believe there could be devised any other formula?


John Edward Broadbent: Not wanting to enter into a prolonged debate with the hon. member, I will try to answer very briefly, with my present knowledge and from experience gained in Canada and abroad, my quick answer is no. I will make a supplementary point and then conclude. My reason for answering "No" is that the right to strike is a basic right of freedom to work or not to work. If a strike occurs in a sector of the economy where at any time, either at the provincial level or the federal level, it is decided that the national interest is being infringed upon, then we come together as we are here, reluctantly, this afternoon and effect a legislated settlement. I think that is the ultimate solution and it is preferable to the removal of the right to strike.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I should like to state very briefly my position and that of my party on Bill C-26, which deals again with problems in western ports.
Mr. Speaker, a special piece of legislation was adopted by this Parliament in October 1974 to deal with a labour dispute, namely to force striking grain handlers in western ports back to work and extend the term of their collective agreement to November 1975.
At that time, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) made practically the same statement as today. He introduced a measure to deal with a somewhat unusual situation and force workers back to work, claiming that he was acting in the best interests of Canada.
I remember taking part in the debate and supporting the legislation in the interest of all Canadians, while deploring the fact that Parliament had to intervene again in a labour dispute.
Last week, we had a special debate on a labour dispute on the west coast. During this debate, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) stated most emphatically that Parliament had no intention whatever of depriving workers of the right to strike which Parliament itself had granted to them. Speaking about workers he said, for instance, as one can read on page 4276 of Hansard:
Me. Chretien: Parliament gave them that right, and I believe in collective bargaining. What has happened in respect of this strike is another example of the fact that if you are patient enough you can resolve problems.
Longshoremen's Strike
I am also satisfied that it is a good principle. There comes a time when patience fails. Emergencies need remedies and measures have to be taken. I keep on with the quotation:
In addition to that, even if I had settled that strike last week, or at the beginning of this week, it would have done absolutely nothing to change the situation in respect of wheat movement out of the port of Vancouver, because the longshoremen were on strike and I have no responsibility for them.
And he added the following:
In any event, the pressure was not yet that great. Had I waited for the pressure I might have waited until next week.
... the minister was speaking about this week. I resume the quotation:
There would certainly be more pressure next week if the longshoremen were no longer on strike.
Therefore "next week" is now and we still have this strike which still goes on, as the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) predicted.
Now it is not out of sheer wantonness, I know, that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) introduces a measure to force the workers, who go on strike legally and are using a right which was granted to them, to go back to work, even if negotiations go on, if they continue to try to find an agreement so that the Vancouver port and western ports may be kept busy, and that our international trade may not suffer too many losses.
Now there is once more evidence of the existence of conflicts throughout Canada. We feel as though we were on a volcano. As soon as a strike is settled in one area, others flare up and the fight goes on, which shows again the uneaseness that exists between the rights recognized by government authorities as to labour capital and money capital. I have the clear impression that the government is braver when it has to pass legislation concerning labour capital than when it deals with financial interests.
For once I would like to go at the bottom of things instead of laying all the blames on workers. As for the indexation formula, we hear little else these days. Driving from my home to Ottawa earlier today, I heard a 90-minute radio program during which reference was made to indexation. I do not at all believe in that formula as an effective solution to our problems. We do not yet have any proof. When salary increases are granted to a group of workers, because prices are continuing to rise, the industries or companies which pay higher salaries boost their prices. It is not the sole cause of price increases, there are also other causes which will have to be analyzed. Salaries are not the only cause of the cost of living increase, of inflation, but it is one of them.
Under the circumstances, workers who are not guaranteed better wages or are not assured that their income tax will be reduced, exert some pressures and use the strike to try and have their rights acknowledged. And you have to do it again after some time. It is always the same story, you have to do it again. Therefore indexing is not an appropriate system.
Now, I ask the Minister of Labour to have his officials make a close examination of the relations between labour capital and money capital in this industry, and to ensure that there be a fair share, so that companies do not grow

March 24, 1975
Longshoremen's Strike
wealthy at the expense of labour. We should make sure that companies be entitled to a reasonable profit and that the difference to given to labour. We should associate them in some way to the development of their firms. I believe that this would be the best system to ensure peace between labour capital and money capital, because both would work in harmony. Both would have some assurance, because they would find a lot of interest in working together instead of ever being at variance.
Given the circumstances, I think it is necessary that this legislation should pass as soon as possible, so that work and operations may start again. As it has been said before, we should not stop at that. After operations have resumed we should continue to concern ourselves with all these problems, so as to stop the rising of new conflicts within three, six months or a year.
Mr. Speaker, I support and my party will support this bill for the reasons I have just explained. But I do not give any assurance for the future, if nothing is done to create a greater understanding between the two forms of capital which are necessary for Canada. Then, we shall have to take the necessary measures to force the government into facing money capital, if it goes on taking unfair advantage of labour in this country.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, recognizing that this measure has to be dealt with quickly I was not going to take part in the debate, but the interjection by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) when the House leader of this party, the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), was speaking makes me feel that the government probably has not realized the full implication of the suggestion the hon. member was putting forth.
Let me try very simply to put the situation as we see it. In a democratic society we always walk the tight-rope between two very basic democratic principles. The first is that those who earn their living by selling their labour have a right to bargain collectively regarding the price that they will get for the work they do. Ever since Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves on this continent, no person has been compelled to work against his or her will. People have the right to band themselves together in associations for the purpose of negotiating regarding the wages they will receive, the hours they will work and the conditions under which they will labour. This has been recognized by all parties in this House and by the majority of Canadian people as a basic right of a free people.
Against that we always have to balance the harm which it does to society as a whole if a labour dispute ends in a strike which carries on for a considerable period of time. There seems to have been a mistaken idea in some quarters that workers enjoy going on strike. I walked the picket lines when I was a young printer. Mr. Speaker, it is no fun being on strike. Not only does the employer lose business, not only is society inconvenienced, but the worker is going without wages; he suffers because of the strike. Men and women do not easily go on strike. They do not go on strike because it is a lot of fun; they go on strike because they are convinced that the wages they are receiving and the terms and conditions under which they work are not fair and just.

It is true, as the House leader of this party has said, that there comes a time when a long industrial dispute harms the community as a whole to the point where it must be brought to an end. We agree that this is a situation where a strike has to be ended. We support the idea, under these circumstances, of having legislation passed by this parliament which will bring this strike to an end. But the point which I think the government has not become sufficiently seized of is that when you take from a group of workers in this country the basic right to withhold their services, then you must put in its place the basis for fair and just settlement.
Compulsory arbitration is the court of last resort. Compulsory arbitration means that a group of workers will allow another individual whom they did not select, but who is appointed by the government, to decide what price they will get for their labour for the next two years. That is tremendous authority to place in the hands of an individual. If you take from these workers their right to withhold their labour; if you say, as this legislation does, they must go back to work, surely you must give them some guarantees: you must guarantee that you are not using the excuse of the national interest to deprive them of a fair and just settlement.
In the process of this strike, which has lasted several weeks, the workers made demands and the employers made offers. Finally a partial settlement was reached. The employers made an offer which the bargaining committee for the union accepted but which the union membership repudiated. This legislation says to the workers, "You must go back to work." But on what terms are they to go back? The terms are those of a bargaining agreement 2'A years old which expired on December 31 last. The workers could not get an agreement from their employers which, in the opinion of the workers, offered satisfactory wages and conditions.
I think the least parliament can do is say to the workers, "We are ordering you back to work, but we guarantee that the minimum you will receive is what the employer was willing to pay." According to figures I saw in newspapers-I have no inside information-the employers are willing to pay an additional $1.85 an hour more over a two-year period. If they are willing to pay that, what right have we to order men back to work on the basis of an agreement signed 2Vi years ago? An arbitrator could decide that the employees will receive less wages than the employers offered.


Walter David Baker: That is highly
unlikely.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: How
will these workers react? Let no one misunderstand me. I say that the law of this country must be obeyed, and I hope-I will do everything to make that hope reality-that the workers on strike will go back to work once this legislation is passed. Remember, you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink. You can send men back to the job but you cannot always make them work. The best way of ensuring that workers accept this legislation and go back to work is by guaranteeing that they will
March 24, 1975

not get less wages than the employer already agreed would be fair.
I think the Minister of Labour interjected and ruled out this proposal. I remind hon. members that there are precedents for it. When the government of the day introduced a bill in 1966-I do not know the exact date-ordering striking railwaymen back to work, the bill, if my memory is right, guaranteed them a 6 per cent increase and provided for the balance of their demands to be submitted to an arbitrator; but the railways had already offered the workers 18 per cent. We debated the bill for several days and Prime Minister Pearson finally accepted our argument as fair and the bill was amended. The government guaranteed the men a floor of the 18 per cent the railway companies had already offered and ordered the arbitrator to consider any additional amounts to which the employees might be entitled.
I remind the House that not long ago we passed the bill ending the grain handlers' strike. If hon. members look at clause 4(2) of that bill, they will see that we sent the grain handlers back to work, guaranteeing them that no matter what the arbitrator might decide, they would not get less than the amount recommended by the conciliation board. That guarantee assured the workers that they would get something, that there was no prospect of the arbitrator saying, "You must go back to work but you will get practically nothing extra."
When we consider this bill in committee of the whole the government will make a great mistake if it does not amend it, so that when we order these men back to work they will be assured the final settlement will not be smaller than the one already offered. That, it seems to me, is the essence of fairness. If the companies had not made an offer, it would be different. Hon. members may be sure that the additional $1.85 an hour for two years which the companies offered is, in the opinion of the employers, what they can afford to pay.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, may I interrupt the hon. member for a second or two and ask the House if it is willing to suspend private members' hour so that we can continue the present discussion?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The minister's suggestion needs the unanimous consent of the House. Apparently there is not unanimous consent. As it is five o'clock, the House will proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions and public bills.


John Mercer Reid: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think the House is prepared to consider notice of motion No. 23 standing in the name of the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The previous four notices of motions stand at the request of the government. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Longshoremen's Strike



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of introducing a measure allowing the spouse of a person receiving a pension by virtue of the Old Age Security Act to be entitled at the same time as his partner to the pension even if his age is lower than the present Act demands.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I take great pleasure in introducing this motion once again, although I should have quite willingly agreed to proceed with the debate already in progress. I had actually given my consent earlier today to the government House leader to the study of an issue which is also very important and which we have been considering since four o'clock. Since there has been no unanimous consent, however, I take great pleasure in launching again the debate this afternoon on the notice of motion under study. Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to introduce this notice of motion as early as 1966. I had the opportunity to discuss it in 1967 and 1971.
I am all the happier to discuss this matter once again because some results have come into view, since in the speech from the throne the government announced its intention to adopt in part the motion before us this evening. Besides, I had tabled that motion a few days before the opening of the session.
Mr. Speaker, the motion I moved would allow the spouse of a person of retirement age, that is 65 years, to receive the pension also. The Social Credit party claims that the old age pension should be paid at 60 and that the spouse should be eligible at the same time.
The speech from the throne said that the government would introduce in the fall, that is in October, a bill whereby the spouse of a retired person of 65 would also be entitled to the old age security pension at 60.
However, we have approved that part of the Speech from the Throne, but after questioning the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) himself, we have had some disappointment, and were rather deceived I would say, because we have found that in the mind of the government, bringing forward such a legislation means that only a few spouses 60 to 65 years old could be qualified, since the government has set some conditions. Among those conditions, there is one dealing with the revenues of one or both spouses.
Now, Mr. Speaker, that will limit considerably the effect of the law. As recently as January, I have seen inspectors visiting old age retirement homes to question pensioners and inform them about the government's plans to this effect. They were told then that those getting revenues would not be entitled to a pension.
Mr. Speaker, I recommend in the motion that every spouse of persons having reached the pension age under the Old Age Security Act be entitled to one without any

March 24, 1975
Longshoremen's Strike
investigation. Under the government's present proposal which would become effective in October, only about 10 per cent of the people between 60 and 65 could benefit from such legislation.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it would still be a sham law which we refuse. We want comprehensive legislation applicable to everybody between 60 and 65. When the government will agree to lower the pension age to 60, we will also have to look after the spouses still under the pension age.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in the government's mind this legislation will be applied only to spouses but when one will die, the other will no longer be entitled to the old age pension because he or she will no longer be a spouse.
In most cases, women will be involved and lose the old age security pension they obtained at the age of 60. Because of her husband's death, the woman will lose her rights to that old age security pension.
Now the Minister of National Health and Welfare answers that the provinces have a public assistance act providing for those difficulties.
Mr. Speaker, we know how the province of Quebec, in particular, administers the public assistance act. It dispenses it with a dropper. After numerous inquiries, it forces people who seek help from the Social Affairs Ministry to cringe to get a few dollars to be able to survive. That satisfaction the minister finds in the implementation of provincial public assistance acts makes me laugh and should rather make cry when we see how these acts are implemented by the provinces.
Mr. Speaker, I will perhaps be answered as I have been when I presented those bills in 1971 and 1967: "It will be too expensive, of course!" If the calculations are always done in terms of dollar signs, obviously, that will cost a lot. But if every time the government undertakes to do something it always works in terms of dollar signs it would never do anything, and that goes for any government. Mr. Speaker, it is rather a matter of knowing whether an old age security pension can be paid to spouses of pensioners. I feel women 50, 55 or 60 years of age should no longer have to crawl in offices, businesses, at night or early in the morning doing cleaning jobs to earn a few dollars to make both ends meet. Mr. Speaker, I think we can do without that and give those people a decent retirement.
I remember when the leader of the Social Credit Party of Canada and hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) was asking for a pension of $200 a month for the aged he was ridiculed, called a nut, an idiot. That is nonsense. Yet, now it will be up to $209 effective April- $123.42 in basic pension, and $86.57 in guaranteed income supplement. And a married couple will get $400.42.
Mr. Speaker, that is the way it is. Yet, during the last election campaign, specially within the platform of the Social Credit Party of Canada we asked for pensions for elder citizens from age 60-$3,000, that is $250 a month, and for the spouse under 60, $2,500, that is $5,500 a year for both, for a total of $468 a month.
Mr. Speaker, I think that request was warranted and still is. Today when a person reaches the age of retirement at 65 and the spouse has not yet reached that age one finds

that it is practically impossible to live decently on only one pension. That is why the payment of pensions to both spouses is an immediate need. Waiting until October to implement the legislation, to pass that amendment to the Old Age Security Act, will still be much too late. The government could have acted much more quickly and brought a bill forward as soon as the House reconvened last fall.
Mr. Speaker, we know how difficult it is for couples to get along on one pension. Each spouse should get the pension to enable them to live decently. Those people raised a family and worked for a long time, sometimes for as many as 40 or 45 years. We should make it possible for them to retire, not in poverty, but comfortably. That is what the Social Credit Party has been asking for since its inception. We have always been among the first to call for just social legislation, not only for senior citizens, but also for all classes of society, and we shall keep on doing so until the government agrees to do them justice.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that tonight I shall get more attention especially from the government. When the matter was considered on previous occasions, the opposition was much attentive to what I said, but such was not the attitude of the government.
Last fall, on December 3 to be exact, I moved in the House a supply motion seeking to lower the retirement age at 60. The representative of the Liberal party, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Campbell) then answered and I quote: "I speak on behalf of the government against the motion proposed by the hon. member for Abitibi who has advocated that the old age security pension be given to any person who has reached the age of 60, as well as to the spouse even if the spouse has not reached pensionable age."
Mr. Speaker, I hope the Liberal party is now more favourably disposed towards the matter and that it will lend an attentive ear to my motion. I also hope that the government will introduce a bill to meet the wishes of all the aged in Canada by setting retirement age at 60, and entitling the spouse to the pension as soon as either one has reached retirement age.


Mr. Frank Maine (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, the intent of the motion is clear. The proposal before us calls upon the government to consider the advisability of amending the Old Age Security Act in order to provide benefits to all spouses of old age security pensioners who have not reached the age of 65. The implications of this proposition are evident. Under the terms of the motion, such non-pensioner spouses would become eligible for the basic pension which currently is $123.42 per month. In addition, eligible married couples would become entitled to the guaranteed income supplement if their joint income required support. The present maximum supplement level for a married couple comes to $76.88 each a month.
The ultimate purpose of the motion can be interpreted as the provision of additional income support to a substantial number of Canadians. I might point out that this very end is one which the federal government has actively pursued: the Government of Canada has been firmly com-
March 24, 1975

mitted to the principle of ensuring that all Canadians can live in dignity. Various social security plans have been enacted to support the incomes of those least able to provide for themselves. In some cases, benefits have been granted to everyone in a designated group, on a universal basis. The old age security pension is the best example of this sort of program. In other instances, allowances have been given only to those in need. The Canada Assistance Plan constitutes the major scheme of this type in Canada today.
Despite varied modalities of operation, the objective of these programs has been the alleviation of economic distress across the country. Unfortunately, this situation has tended to be pronounced among the elderly as a group in Canadian society. Therefore, the welfare of senior citizens has been of special concern to the government.
Over the years, the federal government has endeavoured constantly to come to terms with the problems confronting our senior citizens. I need only refer hon. members to the establishment of the old age pension plan in 1927, with the co-operation of the provinces, and the creation of the old age security pension program in 1952. These measures are indicative of the resolute action taken by the Government of Canada to resolve difficulties faced by the elderly at different points in our history.
Today, the old age security pension, the universal entitlement, is the base upon which senior citizens rely for their financial support. This program is the focal point of government effort to assist Canadians in their old age. Aware of the role of this scheme in the lives of our senior citizens, the government has striven to adapt the plan to meet the changing requirements of the elderly.
Undoubtedly, the most important changes in the Old Age Security Act have dealt with eligibility and benefit levels. Originally, the requirement was 20 years of residence in Canada immediately preceding the approval of an application for the pension. It was recognized, however, that there would be people who might have lived in this country for a good many years earlier in their lives and who would return to Canada to spend their remaining years after being away for some time. It was felt that the contributions made to this country by such persons should not be overlooked, and that they should not be deprived of pension rights.
A second method of qualifying was therefore devised, permitting persons who had been present in Canada prior to those 20 years for at least twice the length of their period of absence during the basic 20 years to qualify for the pension, provided they had resided in Canada for one full year immediately preceding the day on which their application was approved. In 1957, the basic period of residence was reduced from 20 to 10 years. It followed that the period of make-up time required was correspondingly reduced. In 1965, a third method of qualifying, on the basis of 40 years of residence after the age of 18, was added.
Residence requirements now enable pensions to be paid to applicants who fulfil one of the following criteria: first, having resided in Canada, after attaining the age of 18, for periods which total at least 40 years; second, having resided in Canada for the ten years immediately preceding the approval of an application; third, having been present in Canada, after reaching age 18 and prior to the ten years
Longshoremen's Strike
mentioned above, for periods which equal, when totalled, at least three times the length of absence during the ten-year period and having resided in Canada for at least one year immediately preceding the approval of an application.
In addition, provision was made to permit the payment of benefits outside of Canada to pensioners who have resided in Canada for a total of 20 years after the age of 18.
I should add that pensioners who are absent from Canada for a period of up to six months and do not meet this requirement may still receive their old age security. This provision was introduced to permit pensioners without long histories of residence here to take vacations and to avoid the severe Canadian winters.
Another important change was the reduction of the age of eligibility from 70 to 65. The 1965 amendment to the Old Age Security Act provided for the progressive lowering of the age of entitlement one year at a time. In January, 1970, the age requirement reached 65. Nevertheless, perhaps the most noteworthy innovation regarding the Old Age Security Act in the 1960s was the establishment of the guaranteed income supplement to the old age security pension in 1967. This measure can be attributed to the awareness by the government of the unfavourable financial state in which many of our senior citizens have found themselves in recent years. Because of the harsh realities of the depression and the wars, a substantial proportion of Canadians lacked the opportunity to make adequate provision for their old age. In addition, a large number of pensioners were employed in occupations or businesses not covered by private pension plans or superannuation schemes.
The guaranteed income supplement has been paid to pensioners with no income, or only a limited amount of income, for over eight years. This income support has been based solely on an income test; all that is required is a declaration of income somewhat similar to that required for a tax return. I should emphasize that an incentive plan was built into this scheme to avoid causing prejudice to individuals who have made some financial provision for their old age. Supplements have been paid to pensioners to bring their income to a guaranteed minimum. This level currently comes to $209.99 per month for single pensioners, and $200.30 a month each for a married couple. Total supplements have been reduced by only $1 for each $2 of additional income received. With this method of calculating guaranteed income supplement benefits, Canadians have been encouraged to plan financially for their retirement years.
The government has continued to improve income security programs for the elderly. I need only refer to measures enacted within the past few years. As members of this House no doubt remember, the basic old age security pension was increased from $82.88 to $100 effective April, 1973. Moreover, parliament approved legislation in September, 1973, to make benefits under the Old Age Security Act more responsive to the cost of living by adjusting payments quarterly rather than annually. As a result, pensions are now protected against the effects of inflation. Five increases have brought the basic monthly old age security pension from $100 in October, 1973, to $123.42
4432

March 24, 1975
Longshoremen's Strike
effective April, 1975. I should stress that guaranteed income supplement benefits have progressed in a similar proportion.
As far as the future is concerned, I draw the attention of the House to the Speech from the Throne that opened this session of parliament. The government intends to introduce legislation to provide for the payment of allowances, on an income tested basis, to spouses aged 60 to 65 of recipients of the old age security pension. This proposal represents an extension of the government's effort to meet the ever evolving needs of senior citizens. With the cooperation of the House, this proposal will become effective later this year.
In this context, therefore, the motion being deliberated should be examined critically. The most obvious shortcoming of this proposal is the fact that the government has already announced its intention to introduce a spouse's allowance. The intended amendment to the Old Age Security Act is ample proof of the due consideration given by the government to this question.
In proposing this amendment to the Old Age Security Act, the government is aware that not all spouses of old age security pensioners who are under the age of 65 will be covered. However, while appreciating the desire of the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise) to make the old age security pension more comprehensive, I feel obligated to make the following observations. When considering any extension of social security benefits, the government must take into account its financial resources in relation to its priorities. In addition to the difficulties of pensioners and their spouses, the problems of the disabled, the one-parent families, the working poor and other disadvantaged groups also have to be considered. This is the crux of the matter: because the government must look after the interests of all Canadians, it is required to take a global view in dealing with questions relating to social security. While the old age security program is one of the important ingredients in Canada's social security framework, it must be considered in perspective with other essential elements.
Moreover, the rights of the provinces in the area of social security must also be taken into account. I should remind hon. members that a joint federal-provincial review of the entire social security structure is under way at the present time. The federal government has made its position on this crucial issue clear in its "Working paper on social security in Canada", released in April, 1973. As some hon. members may recall, this orange paper represented a framework of 5 strategies and 14 propositions set out within these categories as the federal government's contribution to the present appraisal of social security. The outcome of this federal-provincial review will influence the future of all social security measures. However, as the needs of the elderly change in response to shifting economic and social forces, the federal government will continue to develop measures to meet the evolving requirements of our senior citizens.
Nevertheless, for the short term at least the Government of Canada has reserved the right to introduce interim adjustments to social security programs to come to terms with the more pressing needs of Canadians. It is in this context that the federal government intends to amend the Old Age Security Act to provide allowances to spouses

aged 60 to 65 of old age security pensioners. With concrete action such as this, it is indeed evident that this government is ever mindful of the requirements of the aged.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, in my intervention at this time in this debate I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise) for bringing forward this matter. It is not surprising in these days of increasing inflation that we should turn our attention to the problems of the elderly who are obliged to subsist on marginal income. It therefore is not surprising that this motion should come forward within the restraints imposed on opposition parties.
We may recommend that the government consider the advisability of spending money, but on this side of the House we cannot bring forward a motion which would involve the spending of money. All we can do is urge the government to look into a matter which would involve an expenditure.
In the inflationary spirals in which we are caught up it is important that we should not forget those who have built this country and who have handed it to us. I must say that when the hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Maine) stood up I had hoped he would make a contribution to this debate. However, I found that for the most part he devoted his remarks to a long history of the government's action in this and other things, thus killing the clock.
I do not deny that the government has taken action. It has taken action in certain fields concerning social services. It should take action. Any government worth its salt must take action in this area. But the government did not take sufficient action. The promise of action was-perhaps this is the right word-entombed in the speech from the Throne. This is how one might describe promises made in the Speech from the Throne or at election time. They are forgotten in the House. The hon. member eventually got around to that, and spoke about the concrete action of the government. It is set in concrete; it is absolutely immoveable. This is the reason why the hon. member for Abitibi had to come forward with this motion. It is also the reason why many of us must come forward with similar resolutions in order to get the government off its stump and working for those who are in dire need, particularly now in this inflationary period. Let us get on with the job.
This is not a new motion that has been brought forward by the hon. member for Abitibi. I do not think he claims any novelty in respect of it. It is a worthy device and one which should be examined very carefully by the government. It is one I have no hesitation in supporting. I have stood on my feet here and have spoken on behalf of those who are less favoured, those who are older than I, who no longer are in the work force and who have found their income eroded, carried away and washed out due to the reaction of the government and its attitude concerning inflation. We are talking about this matter because the government has done nothing about it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Shame!
March 24, 1975


Donald W. Munro: Carry on. I wish to mention certain elements of this particular subject. I believe a new element should be introduced into this consideration the government is being asked to undertake. I recall that when we were debating the income tax bill I made certain rather sweeping suggestions about eliminating income tax for those who were recipients of the old age pension benefits. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Cullen) at that time kindly put the record straight and I shall put it straight again.
Obviously I was thinking in terms of those in need and not of a general broad sweeping elmination of income tax for all people in this situation. I do suggest here that there should be an age limit in respect of the spouse. This consideration is not directed at the 18-year old, the 19-year old, or the 20-year old who might happen to marry an old age pensioner. It is not the intention that she should benefit from the old age pension. I think there must be a reasonable limitation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You mentioned "she". It could be a young man.


Donald W. Munro: I said "spouse". I think the word spouse unfortunately is one of the less phonetic words in English. I wish there were something you could replace it with, Mr. Speaker. I feel there should be a limit below which this particular extention of the pension benefit should not be accorded.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If you have two spouses, that would be spice!


Donald W. Munro: It could very well be spice, nice spice.
I think there is another limiting factor that should be introduced here. I refer to the length of the marriage. It should not relate to a marriage concluded one year before the old age recipient dies. One should not be permitted to enter such a relationship purely for the purpose of obtaining the pension benefit. I think it should involve a marriage of some duration and one which indicates that the couple planned to live together for a number of years. Then we would have a feature which I believe should commend itself to the government.
I have mentioned the need factor. It should not be too difficult to define the subsistence income level. There must be a means of determining the level below which subsistence is difficult. If there is, then we should be able to define it. It might be $4,000 a year, or $6,000 a year for a couple. I am not sure what it should be, but there must be a limit. Family income also should be taken into account. If the wife should be working and is willing to continue, this should be taken into account. In other words, family income should be taken into account in a determination of subsistence income below which this benefit should be accorded to the spouse.
As was also mentioned by the hon. member for Abitibi, one of the great advantages of according the pension to a younger partner in a marriage is that it would be carried on automatically upon the death of the older partner and the problem of reverting to the welfare rolls, as was mentioned, would not be involved. Those people who are
Longshoremen's Strike
now eligible for the old age pension benefits are those who went through the 1930's. They know, as few others can possibly know, what it means to be on welfare. They do not want to be on welfare. There is a distinction. There is a psychological distinction between being on welfare and being a recipient of the old age pension. People earn the old age pension due to maturity. Being on the welfare rolls is quite another matter, particularly for this generation of our society.
There is another matter that we must always bear in mind, and that is the automatic reduction to 50 per cent of the pension benefits. I am thinking particularly of superannuation benefits, but the reduction to 50 per cent applies generally if the husband-and in this case it does apply when the wife is the succeeding partner-as the recipient of the pension should die.
Somehow or other it has been worked out that 50 per cent of the pension benefit will suffice for the surviving spouse. This is hardly fair. It would apply in the reverse if the recipient of the pension happened to be the wife. If she were to die, presumably the pension of the husband would be cut back to 50 per cent. I have mentioned this on earlier occasions, suggesting that somewhere between 66% per cent and 75 per cent should be the proportion of the pension for people on continued pension benefits of this sort. I earnestly commend this notion again to the government for consideration.
As to the expenditures involved, I think the hon. member who proposed this resolution-and I do not wish to speak for him-should at least be ready to consider the notion that some of the wasteful programs in which the government indulges might be cut back for the benefit of those who have built our society and given it to us in its present form. Those of us who are still in the work force will be able to manage. It is those who are no longer able to make their contribution economically to our society for whom we should have the greater concern. Those who are entering the work force can look after themselves, and they will, I have every confidence. It is those who are beyond the strength and the age to make that contribution whom we must consider in this context.
Therefore I suggest that there are many areas within present government expenditures where funds could be found and administered by the Department of National Health and Welfare much more to the benefit of our society than is being done now in other areas.
There is one final matter that I would like to mention and it has to do with the member of the household who, it has been admitted, generally spends most of her time in the household without receiving much recognition. There is no recognition of the contribution of that partner in a marriage to the gross national product, for example. Yet, so help us, that contribution is huge. One should not think in terms of one person working in the work force-it is a family contribution to the product of whichever person happens to be the breadwinner, because the breadwinner is as nothing in a family arrangement if he comes back to find that there is no one helping him and making it worthwhile to win his bread. Therefore I speak for those who do not have the voice to speak for themselves, and it
29557 - 6 Vz

March 24, 1975
Longshoremen's Strike
is to those people in particular that this resolution is directed.


Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to add a few words of support for the resolution put forward by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise), as do my colleagues in the NDP. It is about time that such a resolution was brought before the House, and we heartily support it. I believe that we are somewhat late in bringing forward such an important topic for debate in the House. The subject of the debate is our grandfathers and grandmothers who are no longer in the work force, and who have made many contributions to this wonderful country of ours.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter (Wally) Firth: I use the terms grandfather and grandmother in the context in which my people, the Indian people in this country, use them. All the people in the Indian, Eskimo and Metis societies after reaching a certain age look at all children as grandchildren, and all the younger generation look to the old people as grandfathers and grandmothers. This is our tradition. We want to make sure that the old people are well looked after. They continue to make their contributions to the community and to the villages in their old age through their teaching of their grandchildren. They are recognized for this, and their grandchildren look up to them and respect them for their wisdom and their knowledge after having lived a long useful life. Therefore I think it is commendable to hear hon. members today speak in support of the resolution of the hon. member for Abitibi.
I will not say much more, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that all hon. members present in the House are aware of the views of my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), on this matter. He has expressed his views in favour of this idea many times before. Not as many of my constituents proportionately are on old age pension as people in other parts of Canada because of the fact that we have a higher death rate in the north. Also my constituents in that age group are having more difficult times than others as a result of the extremely high cost of living in the north.
Therefore I think it is most important that we consider this resolution very seriously, and do what can be done to give these people a certain dignity by showing our appreciation to them for their contribution to all of us. I think this is one area in which we can take some credit for helping these people to enjoy their last years. Certainly there is much that can be done, but I was pleased to hear the good words that have been uttered so far. With that, I thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. C. Douglas (Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to echo some of the statements that we have heard and to point out that much of what is contained in the resolution before us has already been proposed by the government for the start of 1975-76.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Crawford Douglas: This matter has been considered by the federal government, and promises in this area have been made in the Speech from the throne.
I should like to add one further comment to what the previous speaker has just said. He mentioned our older people, our senior citizens, our grandmothers and our grandfathers. I think it is only fair to say of them that throughout this country we find in them some of the finest teachers that are available to the young people of Canada today. I hope other schemes can be considered that will put a vast amount of knowledge that has been stored by our senior citizens to a more creative use. I am referring to knowledge about finance, about business, about engineering, and many other aspects of knowledge that we of the younger generation, as well as our children, can use to greatest advantage in the future.
To ensure a balanced debate on the motion under consideration I believe it is necessary to discuss the various measures already developed by the federal government which benefit the elderly. While these programs and policies are by themselves different, they form part of the comprehensive strategy evolved by the government which meets the changing needs of senior citizens.
Perhaps the most important programs relate to ensuring the physical and mental well-being of the aged. Because of the excellent degree of co-operation between the federal government and the provinces in the area of health care, Canada's system of health insurance provides a high level of medical care to senior citizens. Since the establishment of medicare in 1968 with the joint intervention of the federal and provincial levels of government, the elderly in Canada have enjoyed the advantages of comprehensive coverage at little or no cost to them. No longer do senior citizens have to wait to seek care because they cannot afford it. No longer should a serious illness or accident pose a financial catastrophe for either an individual or a family as a whole.
As a consequence of medicare the elderly in Canada have peace of mind which comes from knowing that they enjoy virtually unlimited access to competent medical assistance in times of illness or infirmity. Because senior citizens have a greater tendency than other age groups of Canadians to become afflicted with long-term ailments, they have benefited enormously under medicare.
There are no limits to the number of days of necessary hospital care. There are no ceilings on the frequency of visits to physicians. In addition, no individual Canadian is subject to a personal dollar quota of entitlement to health
care.
Another feature of particular concern to the elderly is the involvement of the federal government in the provision of residential care for senior citizens who are ill or infirm. It is a very important type of program being set up by the government in this respect. Under the terms of the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act of 1957, the government of Canada has entered into cost-sharing arrangements with the provinces to establish specialized nursing homes, infirmaries, or similar institutions geared to the requirements of the elderly. This scheme has proved
March 24, 1975

of inestimable value to the chronically ill and infirm across Canada.
In the area of housing great strides have been made to provide decent accommodation for the aged. Under the National Housing Act the federal government has actively promoted the construction of new dwellings and the repair and modernization of existing housing. This is of great importance to many areas of our country, including some areas in my riding, and areas in the far north where housing can now be brought closer to some form of a decent living standard.
Assistance for the construction of subsidized public housing has constituted an essential element of this program as well. On a shared-cost basis with the provinces and municipalities the federal government has financed the construction of public housing units and hostel accommodation which has given proper shelter to disadvantaged senior citizens.
In addition, with the co-operation of provincial and municipal governments as well as private entrepreneurs, the Government of Canada has made accommodation available to Canadians on a rent-to-income basis. Senior citizens who cannot afford open market rentals and who are ineligible for public housing have benefited greatly from this scheme as well.
Moreover, the National Housing Act has provided direct subsidies to low-income homeowners for the rehabilitation of private sub-standard dwellings in areas selected for neighbourhood improvement, which takes in the large cities. Eligible senior citizens have found this provision of value to them as well.
The Canada Assistance Plan represents another essential element in Canada's social security framework of benefit to the aged. This scheme complements aspects of social security measures which are currently not covered by specific federal legislation.
The Canada Assistance Plan is the vehicle by which the federal government shares with the provinces the cost of specified assistance to economically disadvantaged Canadians on a 50-50 basis. The granting of aid is determined by a needs or budget deficit test which takes into consideration a person's requirements in relation to his or her available resources. Through the establishment of national norms the Canada Assistance Plan has enabled recipients to maintain a decent standard of living with the help of programs administered directly by the provinces. As a result of its single administrative infrastructure the Canada Assistance Plan has been able to respond with flexibility to the changing requirements of Canadians.
An important facet of the Canada Assistance Plan relates to supplementary medical benefits. The provinces may provide medical aid excluded under the terms of medicare to eligible Canadians in order to ensure their physical and mental well-being. As we grow older our physical well-being is of prime importance, but our mental well-being is of the utmost importance. Prescription drugs, eyeglasses, hearing aids, and even transportation to and from treatment centres are many of the items relating to medical care covered on a shared-cost basis between the Government of Canada and the provinces.
Longshoremen's Strike
Moreover, certain forms of residential care which are excluded under the terms of the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act are also subsidized by the Canada Assistance Plan. This is for persons who are deemed by the provincial governments to be in need. The establishments, maintenance and operation of nursing homes and residences for the aged, sponsored by the federal government on a 50 per cent basis, has benefited senior citizens enormously. As a result the elderly have been provided with the means with which to live in dignity.
It should be added that the Canada Assistance Plan permits the provinces to provide income support to senior citizens in addition to benefits available under the current income security programs. With such supplementation the elderly can meet minimum personal budgetary requirements essential to a decent level of living. Perhaps I should call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business has expired, and I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Munro (Hamilton East) that Bill C-56, to provide for the resumption and continuation of longshoring and related operations at ports on the west coast of Canada, be read the second time and referred to committee of the whole.
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, when the debate was adjourned at five o'clock I was pointing out that the legislation before us asked parliament to give to the government very extraordinary powers-powers to send men back to work and place in the hands of a government appointed arbitrator the whole question of what their income will be for themselves, their wives and their families, for the next two years. Those are very extensive powers. They are powers which we do not exercise with respect to any other group in our society.
We do not tell manufacturers that they have to sell their commodity at a certain price and that they cannot withhold it from the market if they do not get the price they want. We do not tell farmers or any other group in our society that they cannot withhold their product but must sell it at a price set by someone else.

March 24, 1975
Longshoremen's Strike
In the case of workers in an emergency situation such as the one we have here, parliament takes upon itself the power to send workers back to the job and asks them to leave to someone appointed by the government the right to determine the wages and conditions under which they will work. I say that that is a very extraordinary power. And yet in this particular circumstance, and there have been other similar circumstances, the effect of a strike is so harmful to the nation as a whole, so detrimental to the national interest that parliament has been justified in taking such a step. In the particular instance before us we in the New Democratic Party feel that parliament is justified in bringing this strike to an end in order that the people who have been adversely affected by it may get some amelioration of their condition.
The plea I have been making is that in wielding this extraordinary power we ought to do it with all the justice and all the fairness of which we are capable. During the supper hour I listened to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) on a television clip saying he was most reluctant to introduce legislation like this. I suppose he is reluctant; I am sure we are all reluctant about having to resort to legislation which imposes compulsory arbitration.
All I am pleading for with the minister is that he accompany his reluctance with a measure which will at least give to the workers who are being sent back to their jobs a feeling that we recognize that they have a measure of justice on their side and that, as a result of this legislation, they will not get less income during the next two years than they would have received if they had stayed out on strike and forced a settlement.
I do not suppose any arbitrator appointed by the government would be so insensitive to the situation that he would bring down a settlement which would give to the workers less than was offered last week by the employers. But we have no guarantee of that, Mr. Speaker. The government has no guarantee of it. Once the government appoints an arbitrator under this legislation the matter is entirely out of its hands. That arbitrator will be able to set wages and conditions of labour that, under this bill, automatically become the collective bargaining agreement for the two years 1975 and 1976.
I cannot imagine any arbitrator being so stupid as to bring down legislation which would give these workers less than they have already been offered and less than they have rejected. But the Minister of Labour has no guarantee of that, I have no guarantee of that, and no other member of the House has any guarantee of it. What we are urging is that when we get into committee of the whole the government should give very serious consideration to stipulating some minimum figure which the workers will get irrespective of the decisions of the government arbitrator.
I want to point out, Mr. Speaker, that when employers and employees begin to bargain on any collective agreement they usually start out with the employees asking for a fairly high increase and the employers offering a very low increase. During the process of negotiation they come closer and closer together. In hundreds upon hundreds of cases throughout this country every year they keep coming closer together, until they get a settlement without any strike.

We make a great deal of fuss about strikes. Certainly they are unsettling and none of us like to see them, but we forget that there are hundreds upon hundreds of agreements settled by peaceful negotiation between employer and employee. However, there are times when they get fairly close together but are not able to close the gap. When they cannot close the gap, then we have a strike.
When we force compulsory arbitration it seems to me that what ought to be submitted for arbitration is the gap between what the workers have asked for in their final submission and what the employer has offered in his final submission. It is much easier for an arbitrator to arbitrate the gap between the two competing parties than it is to do what this legislation does, send them back to square one and let them start all over again.
If the government were to accept our proposal and put in this legislation a provision that the arbitrator would start with what the companies offer as a floor, the arbitrator might well decide that the companies have offered all that is fair and reasonable. He may decide the union's bargaining committee were wise in accepting that offer and, therefore, that there is no additional money coming as a result of arbitration. Surely, if he is to decide they are entitled to more, he will decide after an exhaustive examination of the situation. Only then will he decide that workers are entitled to more than was offered. If our proposal is accepted, the workers being forced back to work will know they will not be deprived of gains they made in negotiations.


An hon. Member:: But they don't want to go back to work.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: An
hon. member opposite me says the workers don't want to go back to work. That is the sort of claptrap you hear from Liberal backbenchers, most of whom never worked, never were on strike, and know nothing about the problems of workers. Only they want to work. They are the only people who want to work.


An hon. Member:: Tell us about the strikes you were involved in.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The
remarks of members who think workers love to stay off their job and leave wives and children without income show, more clearly than anything that has been said, the anti-labour attitude of the Liberal party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Condon:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I suggest to the hon. member that many members of parliament have worked in factories, have been union men, and have gone through hard times. I resent his statement. It is obvious he knows little about the backbenchers on my side of this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
March 24, 1975


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is right he had better talk to some Liberal backbenchers who sit opposite my party and who interrupted my remarks by suggesting workers don't want to go back to work. He had better talk to them and ask them whether workers in this country are staying out on strike because-


Mr. Stollery:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Joseph Lawrence (Larry) Condon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a further point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I do not wish to stop hon. members raising points of order; I know that the hon. member who has the floor is perhaps inviting them. I think it would be better if hon. members would argue their case when they make their own speeches, after the hon. member who has the floor finishes his remarks. Now I shall hear the hon. member's point of order.


Joseph Lawrence (Larry) Condon: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would like me to move my seat to my right in this House, that would be all right with me if he could arrange it with the Whip.


Crawford Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I think the Liberal party has moved to the right far enough, and should not be invited to move any farther to the right.
If hon. members who interrupted me by saying workers don't want to work want to demonstrate the truth of their statement, let them take part in this debate. I doubt if they can demonstrate the correctness of their statement.
The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) a while ago asked if it is possible to devise a technique for eliminating strikes. I am sure everyone would be glad if a technique for eliminating strikes could be devised, particularly strikes in key industries. We, in my party, have never believed that imposing compulsory arbitration on workers is a satisfactory way of preventing strikes. In the final analysis, you can pass laws but you cannot make men and women work unless they feel they are working under fair conditions for fair and reasonable wages.
Many countries have tried to find the solution to industrial disputes, and Sweden has probably come closer to success than any other country. Sweden has not experienced a major strike since the 1930's. I do not suggest we can transplant the Swedish System to Canada; conditions are different. But we can learn important lessons from the Swedes. They have restructured their society, set up labour courts which are acceptable both to employer and employee and, most important, introduced a system of income distribution under which workers know they are getting a fair share of increased productivity and increased national wealth. If this government, this country, makes sure that workers and farmers get a fair share of our wealth production, we will see fewer industrial strikes.
But when workers read in the newspapers about the astronomical increases in profits which have taken place in this country in the last two or three years and then see their real incomes shrinking-the Canadian Labour Congress delegation to the government this morning pointed
Longshoremen's Strike
out that the incomes of many workers in real dollars have actually shrunk in the last three years-it is not surprising they go on strike. We will get rid of strikes only when we improve our system of social justice and bring about more equity in this country.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the minister rising to close the debate?


John Carr Munro: No, Mr. Speaker.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, the House has not dealt with two aspects of this legislation. There are two parts to this bill. The first part deals with longshoremen and the second with supervisory longshoremen, the members of the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, Ship and Dock Foremen, Local 514. I do not suppose hon. members know that the members of the latter union have been on strike for only two or three days. For 14 years the members of that union attempted to obtain collective bargaining rights on the coast; they were within 20 minutes of concluding their first contract when, suddenly, negotiations blew up. The employers decided there was no point in continuing bargaining because of what the other longshoremen had decided. I point out that these foremen were operating under voluntary conditions; they were not working under any collective agreement.


An hon. Member:: How much are they getting?


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: An hon. member asks how high are their wages. I think they are getting one third more than ordinary longshormen, but less than members of parliament. We must look at one aspect of this bill carefully. My party has never ruled out the necessity for legislation in the proper circumstances.
Please bear in mind that this union has been on strike for only two or three days. It has tried for 12 or 14 years to gain recognition. It settled with its employers all except two minor points in collective bargaining. I hope the government is aware of this, and knows what it is doing to that particular union. The union complained that two foremen who had been fired were not rehired. It felt those two individuals had been fired unjustly. Because this bill has been introduced the chances for having those two people rehired have been completely destroyed.
Before this legislation came in, Alex Cregan, president of the B.C. Maritime Employers Association, said:
If the government intervenes, it should do so in a sensible way that doesn't leave lasting scars.
That was said by the representative of the employers, not a representative of the longshoremen and not a representative of the foremen. I ask the government to consider whether this kind of legislation will leave lasting scars. Will it make conditions on the docks worse? Will it be more difficult to achieve a settlement on the docks? To ask these men to return without anything in the pot, and without improving their contract one iota, is doing exactly

March 24, 1975
Longshoremen's Strike
that about which the employer's representative is frightened.
The situation is now being scarred with what is really a brutal bill rather than one that at least goes part way to sweeten the pot. Therefore I hope we will not be faced with difficulties in terms of having these men return to work. They have nothing except the hope that an arbitrator will deal fairly with them. After all of the negotiating that has gone on, there is nothing here to give the men a great deal of confidence that they will be dealt with properly.


An hon. Member:: What are they earning now?


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Someone has asked what they are now earning. I suggest that in our society everybody's grass looks a little greener. Therefore we should not be worrying about what they are now earning. That is not the point. The point is that we in this House should be careful to bring forward legislation which will make conditions better, not worse. Therefore I have some reservation about the effect this bill will have in terms of the relationship between the longshoremen and their employers.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before I recognize the hon. minister I must inform hon. members that if the minister speaks at this time he will close the debate.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all hon. members, particularly those who spoke in this debate, for the speed at which they dealt with this legislation and the general support it has received. I will not prolong the debate by stretching out my remarks. I intend only to comment on some of the observations made by some members of the New Democratic Party.
It is our hope that an arbitrator will be appointed very soon and that he will deal with the matter very quickly. The way the bill is drafted it ensures that any award of the arbitrator will be retroactive to the termination of the last agreement, December 31. Therefore, if retroactivity is assured and if the House is prepared to accept our assurance that a competent arbitrator will be appointed and will render a decision quickly-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: How
quickly?


John Carr Munro: As I understand it there may be an amendment coming that will ensure this will be done within a very short period of time. If this is done I do not think we can justify the fear that has been expressed by some in the NDP that the men will not get a fair and reasonable increment as a result of the process, or that they somehow run a real risk of getting less than they could have arrived at by way of agreement a few days ago.
No one can give guarantees in this area. I do not think the system was meant to provide guarantees. Indeed, if it were, parliament would be merely another step in the process. It would be a step that would be constantly referred to by all the parties, and why not, if they can get a guarantee from parliament? The role of the union negotiator as well as that of the negotiator for the employer would be totally undermined. There would be no incen-

tive or inducement toward any settlement the negotiator might be able to work out with an employer, even under the most favourable circumstances. There is no reason why that should be acceptable. Therefore we should consider very carefully what is being suggested by the NDP.
The NDP's suggestion emanates from a fear that an injustice will be created. It emanates from the feeling that the men are being ordered back to work and a right to which they are entitled is being denied them, namely, to withhold their work. For those two reasons they feel a guarantee would be proper.
If we accept their argument, a guarantee would be self-defeating to the whole process of collective bargaining. It would be self-defeating in the future to the role of the union as well in future negotiations. I ask them to accept the assurance that a competent arbitrator will be appointed and he will render a decision quickly. As I say, the bill does provide that any award will be retroactive to the termination of the last agreement.


Mr. Alexander:: Mr. Speaker, I know the debate is finished, but I wonder if I could be permitted to ask the minister a question. I am concerned about the retroactivity portion of the bill. I want the minister to show me where it is in the bill. I think it is clause 5(2). Is that the-retroactivity part?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I would advise the hon. member that is correct. The January 1, 1975 date in clause 5(1) by virtue of clause 5(2) does bind the arbitrator to make his award retroactive to that date.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Laniel in the chair.
Clauses 2 to 4 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 5-Term of collective agreement extended.
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Chairman, I wish to be certain as to the answer given by the Minister of Labour with regard to the possible retroactivity of an award by the arbitrator. I took a quick look through the bill this afternoon. Clause 5 doesn't seem to do that unless there is something in Part V of the Canada Labour Code which has that effect. Clause 5(1) simply provides that the existing collective agreement shall continue until the new collective agreement comes into operation. Unless modified by some other part of the bill the award of the arbitrator would not be retroactive, because under 5(1) the existing collective agreement is extended.
I am not suggesting that the Minister of Labour is not right. I assume he is, since there have been a number of similar bills and the government draftsmen presumably know what they are doing this time. But before the bill is passed I should like to be certain that the arbitrator can in fact make his award retroactive to the expiration of the old agreement, which was December 31, 1974, or at least to
March 24, 1975

January 1, 1975. We would look foolish if, having passed the bill, we were to find that what the minister intended was not set out in the legislation.


John Carr Munro: I would direct the hon. gentleman's attention to subclause 2 of clause 5, and further to clause 8, where he will find the words "the collective agreements as so amended constitutes a new collective agreement which will have effect on and from January 1, 1975." He will find those words in clause 8(1).


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I have a point to raise, Mr. Chairman, in connection with clause 4.


An hon. Member:: We are on clause 5.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I just wanted to make one point. I notice that in clause 4(1) the phrase used is "Forthwith upon the coming into force of this Part, each company shall resume longshoring .. ." On the other hand, subclause (4) contains no such construction. It does not say "Forthwith upon the coming into force of this Part..." on. I am wondering why the word "Forthwith" and the rest of the phrase is not used in the latter subclause which applies to the employees.


John Carr Munro: The explanation, I understand, is that the first act which must be undertaken is the act of the companies in summoning the employees. Once this is done, the rest follows.


Gérald Laniel: Order. I think we should proceed in an orderly way. The committee has already considered clause
4.	The Chair will seek the unanimous consent of the committee to allow the hon. member to ask questions on clause 4. If we do not proceed in this way other hon. members may well ask to go back to clauses 2 or 3, in which case we would get nowhere at all.
Has the hon. member consent to ask questions on clause 4?	.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I want to thank the committee. I am seeking information. I am not impressed with the minister's answer although I know he gave it in all sincerity. The words "Forthwith" and so on apply to the company, and I do not agree it carries an implication that the employees will forthwith return.


John Carr Munro: Let me put it this way. The only explanation we have, and I think it is a reasonable one, is that, immediately the bill passes, the employees cannot all turn up for work until the employer calls them. The employer has to be required to call them as the first step in the process. Thus, we have said that forthwith upon the coming into force of this part each company shall resume longshoring and related operations. The "forthwith" applies to the company. To show that the next step is consequent upon the action of the companies I would refer the hon. member to subclause (4) where it is stated, referring to employees, that they shall, "when so required", return to the duties of their employment.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I did notice those words in there, too, but in my view the word "forthwith" equally applies. It
Longshoremen's Strike
would read that the employee "shall, when so required, forthwith return to the duties of his employment."


Mr. Fairweather:: There is a fairly easy solution. If the draftsmen will allow the enumeration (1) to follow the "part", then "forthwith" will clearly apply to each of the succeeding subclauses. In other words move the (1) from where it is and say: "Forthwith upon the coming into force of this part (1) of each of ... (2) each person ... (3) each officer... In this way we are not differentiating between the company and the employees. It is a simple way out. Why does the minister not adopt it?


John Carr Munro: I have no objection, except that it would mean making certain other alterations. The word "forthwith" already appears in subclause (2). It is in the fourth line from the bottom.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: It would mean tidier drafting.


John Carr Munro: If it makes for tidier drafting, let us do it in the way the hon. member has suggested and leave it to us to make the necessary corrections.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gérald Laniel: While the minister is examining this belated correction to clause 4 perhaps we should proceed to consider clause 5. I will recognize the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby.


John Edward Broadbent: I have an amendment to move to clause 5.1 shall explain it later. I move:
That clause 5 be amended, by the addition after line 5 on page 4, of the following subclause:
5(3) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this act, the collective
agreement is hereby modified by an increase of $1.15 on the existing
base rate for the 12-month period beginning January 1, 1975.
I should like to explain the amendment in the hope that I can persuade the Minister of Labour and his colleagues to accept it. As I said on behalf of my party at the outset of the debate, we feel that if we are to compel workers to go back to work and lose the right to strike in the interests of the country as a whole, some form of immediate compensation should be paid to them. We agree, as our vote just indicated, with the principle involved, that of bringing the strike to an end. That is not in dispute. What makes us unhappy about the bill is that there is no guarantee that the minimum wage settlement agreed to by the negotiating parties will result from the award of the arbitrator. The minister's argument in reply to our general suggestion was that if parliament legislated a base, this would undermine the collective bargaining process. I say that the minister's argument would have force if parliament were legislating a total package.
If the whole range of issues in dispute and negotiated by the two parties were used as a base, then of course it follows that none of the workers in any collective bargaining unit would be willing to accept any agreement negotiated by their own negotiators, because they would rely on the final stamp of parliament which would establish a base rate-this is the logic used by the minister-and

March 24, 1975
Longshoremen's Strike
therefore the workers would always hope for a better settlement from an arbitration appointed by parliament. The argument is that they could not lose.
The specific proposal which I will be making on behalf of our party does not undermine the collective bargaining process. By referring to the 1975 period only, three months of which have already gone, what it does is provide the assurance to the workers that their wages, which are now related to the cost of living in 1972, will be increased by the rate agreed to by the parties involved. The amendment I propose, of a $1.15 increase for the 12-month period beginning January 1 of this year and ending December 31, 1975, is the sum agreed to by the two parties to the negotiations.
One category of workers the implementation of whose right to strike we are now taking away has been on strike for only two days, as has already been pointed out. Therefore, the very least we can do, since we are going to have a two-year package in the final arbitrated settlement, is to say that for one of these two years we will guarantee the workers a base below which the arbitrator cannot fall. As I say, that is surely the least we can do for these workers who, like everybody else, have been trying to cope with inflation.
We do not know how long it will be before the arbitrator makes his award. It could take a number of months, though I shall be proposing an amendment shortly to another clause-which the minister has indicated he will agree to-restricting the period to three months. As I say, three months of this year have already passed, so we could be six months into 1975 before the arbitrator finishes work, and during this time the families of these men will still be living on wage rates that were negotiated in 1972.
I appeal to the minister to consider the logic of his own argument. If we were proposing a total package which had been accepted by the two negotiating groups but turned down by the workers, then I am with the minister: it would undermine the collective bargaining process. But the proposal I make on behalf of our party does not do that. It is making a recommendation in order to meet the immediate needs of these workers and to provide them with some reasonable compensation for our taking away their right to strike. I hope that the minister and the Conservative Party will see their way clear to accepting what I think is a reasonable proposal.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Chairman, it is my desire, as well as the desire of all hon. members on this side, in discussing this particular issue to be as co-operative as possible, and second, to minimize any confrontation on a question of this kind. We are as conscious as the House leader of the New Democratic Party that it is necessary that there be compliance with this legislation once it passes. We are aware that this compliance has to take place after the implementation of a right has been denied, so we will endeavour to try to be as reasonable as possible in the circumstances.
Having said that, there is still an honest difference of opinion between the hon. member and those of us on this side. That honest difference of opinion centres upon the implementation of the first year's agreement in terms of the wage package. If a floor of $1.15 were established for

the first year, I say that a good deal of the logic I expressed earlier, and which the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby identified, still applies: it remains to a very large degree unimpaired. If I am correct about that, then I do not think we would want to run the risk of undermining the collective bargaining system, which I still feel is a successful one and the only one we want in a democratic society. If we should impair that system by amendments of this kind to the point where even further resort to parliament might be had in the future, then I cannot think of anything that the enemies of free collective bargaining would resort to more quickly in terms of trying to find a substitute method of resolving disputes. I still feel this is the best way, and I am sure hon. members opposite agree with that.
Having said that, let me indicate that although we cannot agree with this particular amendment of the NDP regarding $1.15 for the first year, this is not to say that we are not concerned that the men and women employees should be treated fairly in the circumstances. In all sincerity, let me tell the leader of the NDP that the forthcoming amendment that he has indicated he will move, setting a time limit for the arbitrator to render a decision, is still the most satisfactory way of accomplishing this.
I think the leader of the New Democratic Party suggested a period of three months. In view of the fact that we cannot agree to the amendment that the leader of the New Democratic Party has just advanced, in a spirit of co-operation, since we can see the fairness that will be assured by imposing a time limit, let me suggest that we shorten the period. Perhaps it is unreasonable to force these workers back to work at their old rate of pay prior to December 31 and then ask them to wait another three months before the arbitrator brings in his award, so perhaps the hon. member would think in terms of making his amendment two months instead of three. If that were the case, I think we would find that agreeable. Most competent arbitrators who are appointed in a situation such as this like to get underway with their job and deal with it with dispatch, and this is what we want in this particular case.


Gérald Laniel: Before I recognize the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands I did not put the amendment moved by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby since he invited the minister to comment upon it. I would invite the hon. member to make his comments, but perhaps the hon. member would wish me to put the amendment to the committee at this time. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby moved:
That clause 5 be amended by the addition, after line 5 on page 4, of the following subclause.
"5(3) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this act, the collective
agreement is hereby modified by an increase of $1.15 on the existing
base rate for the 12-month period beginning January 1, 1975."


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, the minister has based his rejection of the amendment on the case that this would interfere with the principle of collective bargaining. I wish to point out to him, however, that this is not a new procedure in so far as the government is concerned. I have before me Bill C-12 which was introduced to deal with the grain handlers'
March 24, 1975

strike. At that time the government, in sending the grain handlers back to work-and we supported the government because we thought it was necessary to bring that strike to an end-introduced legislation which in clause 4 subclause (2) provided:
(2) Upon the coming into force of this act, the terms and conditions of each collective agreement to which this act applies are amended by
(a)	increasing each hourly basic rate of wages in effect on November 30, 1973, as established by or pursuant to such agreement, by 87 cents an hour effective December 1, 1973, as recommended in the report of the conciliation commissioner that was received by the Minister of Labour on April 29, 1974; and
(b)	incorporating therein, in addition to the increase in each hourly basic rate of wages referred to in paragraph (a), the other amendments recommended thereto and contained in that report.
It is true that the minister will say that in that case there was a conciliation board. Of course there was; but the conciliation board report in that respect had been accepted by the employees and had been rejected by the employers. In the case now before us, the longshoremen's strike, the tentative agreement which was reached had been accepted by the employers but in the case of the union, while the bargaining committee had accepted it, it was rejected by the membership. I can see no reason why the minister should argue in respect of the case made by my colleague the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby that we would be interfering with the process of collective bargaining.
Mr. Munro (Hamilton East) I should like to point out to the hon. member that to make his analogy pure he would have to be suggesting that in this particular case $1.15 and, I believe, 80 cents in the second year, be the settlement, not the floor, because in the grain handlers' situation we made the commissioner's report the final settlement; it was not the floor.


Mr. Brewin:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say just a sentence or two in support of the amendment. It seems to me that if these employees are sent back to work now by parliament, without any immediate improvement at all of wages negotiated by the parties and an agreement arrived at, there is a very grave danger of the whole purpose of this legislation being defeated.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Chairman, I wish to comment on the minister's concern about this amendment being destructive of the collective bargaining process. In fact, the amendment is not an attempt to impose the rejected package. That is why I submit to the minister it is a reasoned amendment in that it is not destructive but merely attempts to move in a significant direction toward the position of the employees in order to make effective the legislation the minister has placed before us. What we are concerned about is that the legislation, since it does not move in that direction, may not accomplish the purpose. I would point out; by the way, that this was accepted by the employers.


Gérald Laniel: Is the House ready for the question? Some hon. Members; Question.
Amendment (Mr. Broadbent) negatived: Yeas, 11; Nays, 84.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Longshoremen's Strike Clause 6 agreed to.
On clause 7-Arbitration.
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Chairman, I hope the vote on this one is a little different. I should like to move:
That clause 7 be amended by adding the following subclause (3) after line 35 on page 4.
"(3) Notwithstanding any other provision of this act or of the Canada Labour Code, the arbitrator shall be required to decide all matters referred to him under this part within 60 days of his appointment."
The reason, very briefly-because we covered the ground in the general debate and on the other amendment-is that a 60-day period is the maximum amount of time we could allow an arbitrator to do the work required on the containerization issue. It should be adequate to deal with that, and adequate for the purpose of coming up with an equitable proposal in terms of a wage settlement, particularly so that workers can get a retroactive settlement quickly instead of having to wait an indefinite period into the future. Notwithstanding the minister's assurances that the arbitrator would be requested to act with haste, I think it is better to have it embodied in the bill so that we know that will be done.


John Carr Munro: The only comment I have to make on that is that we too-and I understand that this is agreeable to the official opposition-feel that this will ensure a rapid decision from the arbitrator. We also feel, as I indicated earlier, that this is the answer rather than the previous amendment because we feel that the men will be assured, not only of a rapid settlement but of a fair and equitable one, and we are concerned about that. We hope that the NDP will accept our assurance that this will be ensured, also because of the concern that we want compliance in this respect. If it is any consolation, let me say it is not our intention to appoint either a stupid or an insensitive arbitrator in this case.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It
should be pointed out in the committee that while this amendment will, it is true, ensure a fairly speedy decision, there is nothing in it which the government is prepared to accept that will guarantee a fair and equitable settlement, as the minister just said.
Amendment (Mr. Broadbent) agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended agreed to.
Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to.
On clause 10-Longshoring operations to be resumed.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Chairman, you will notice that in clause 10(1) the word "forthwith", as in clause 4(1), is used with respect to the company, whereas in clause 10(3) the same word is used with respect to those who are ordinarily employed in supervisory longshoring or related operations. Perhaps there was a mistake in the drafting.


Gérald Laniel: The point made by the hon. member is well taken, but I do not think that an exchange between the minister and the hon. member will correct the situation, unless the Chair received a copy of the modification to which he is referring.

March 24, 1975
Longshoremen's Strike


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I understand that the minister has an amendment to clause 4(4) which he will propose a little later. We will be returning to that clause later in order to make clauses 4 and 10 consistent.


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we will come back to that at the end.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 11-Terms of employment.
Donald W. Munro: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of clarification. Perhaps there is something to be said for having my comment on the record. In clause 11(2) there is an understanding that "except with the agreement of the union, no company shall. .." In working arrangements there are reciprocal rights and obligations. Can the minister assure us that the obligations upon the union not to alter conditions are as binding as those upon the company?


John Carr Munro: Yes, because in fact if there is no collective agreement the union has no rights at all. That is why this applies only to the company.


Donald W. Munro: This does not quite clarify the matter. There is something, for instance, in clause 6(b) with relation to the definition. I think it is there all right, but I want to be absolutely sure.


John Carr Munro: There never was a collective agreement with the foremen, so they had no rights. With the longshoremen there was an existing collective agreement, so they had rights. Earlier on in the bill we refer to longshoremen. In clause 11(2) we refer to foremen. They became certified a few months ago.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 12 Agreed to.
On clause 13-Arbitration.
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of clarification. I am sure that the minister or his assistants can explain it to me. The clause states that "An arbitrator appointed under subsection (1) has, with such modifications as the circumstances require ..." I do not know what that part of the clause means, particularly when reference is made to "all the powers and duties of an arbitrator under section 157 of the Canada Labour Code". What kind of modifications are they and what type of circumstances will allow an arbitrator to bring in the modifications envisaged by the minister?


John Carr Munro: I can double check this and we could come back to it later, Mr. Chairman, but I think the answer lies somewhere along the following lines. Section 157 gives the arbitrator the power to summon witnesses, and so on, if he decides he wants to resort to those powers, but most arbitrators prefer a much more informal procedure and do not resort to the powers under section 157. Usually those more informal procedures meet the agreement of the parties concerned. So that is what "with such modifications as the circumstances require" means. It means that he can resort to more informal procedures than those set out in section 157.
[The Chairman.]


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I take it that the minister has indicated that the arbitrator would have no further powers or no extension of powers as is referred to in Section 157, but he would have, in any event, less powers in case he wanted to modify. He has no further powers but he could have less. Is that what the minister is stating?


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I rise to move an amendment the need for which must be obvious. Clause 13 of this bill is the clause in Part II which corresponds to Clause 7 in Part I. In view of the fact that we moved an amendment to Clause 7 providing for a 60-day limit on the work of the arbitrator in the case of the longshoremen, I suggest that we should also apply the same 60-day limit in the case of the arbitrator dealing with the foremen. I therefore move.
That Clause 13 be amended by adding the following subclause (3) after line 2 on page 8:
(3) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act or of the Canada
Labour Code, the arbitrator shall be required to decide all matters
referred to him under this Part within 60 days of his appointment.
That is precisely the same wording we put into Clause 7. I assume that it will be accepted.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 14 and 15 agreed to.
On Clause 16-Order to comply.
Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Chairman, there is a drafting improvement I should like to suggest in relation to clause 16(2). I
move:
That clause 16(2) of Bill C-56 be amended by striking out the word "person" where it appears therein and substituting therefor the expression "employer or employee organization".


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Why is that an improvement?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Chairman, the previous subclause refers to "employer or employee organization", and in subclause (2) the word "person" is used. It would be more exact to refer once again to employee or employer organization.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
On Clause 17-Order against employer.
Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest an amendment to improve the drafting in clause 17(2) as follows:
That Clause 17(2) of Bill C-56 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(2) For the purposes of Clause 16 an employee organization shall be
deemed to be a person."
It is simply a simplification in the drafting of that clause, and I so move.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Minister of Justice might clarify this for us. In the definition in Clause 15 employer means a member of the employers association, which, I take it, means an individual. "Employee organization" are the only words used in
March 24, 1975

Clause 16(1), and I am wondering if that is a situation where an individual employer can be punished under the enforcement section, but that no individual employee could be punished. Is that the effect of this clause?


Otto Emil Lang: I think that it is an exact parallel in that the unions which might be involved or the various employers associations which might be involved are referred to, so that I think it is an exact parallel.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Chairman, I would like the Minister of Justice to consider whether he has not cancelled himself out in these two amendments he has put before us.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not a bad idea.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: If I thought he was really cancelling himself out I would encourage him, but I think he may just be creating some confusion. As I understand it, he has changed Clause 16(2) to eliminate the word "person". In Clause 16 there was a reference to the word "person", but he has taken it out. The purpose of Clause 17(2) is to define what "person" means under Clause 16. There does not seem any longer to be any reference to "person" in Clause 16.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Chairman, I can understand the apparent confusion. The difficulty with the word "person" in clause 16 was that it might have referred to individuals in that particular context, and there was no intention to have it refer to individuals. Therefore clause 16 is now left referring to the organization as far as the employees are concerned, the employee organization. There is, however, a technical problem which courts might face in dealing with the employee organizations in determining whether they are persons for quite a different purpose, persons known to the law, and the purpose of clause 17(2) is to avoid any technical argument about that matter should it later arise, so it is not in their individual capacities.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the Minister of Justice for his help, but it seems to me that if one considers clause 15-and I don't want to dwell on this point beyond what is the responsible thing to do- "employer" is defined as a member of the employers association. That must surely refer to an individual. Then under the enforcement section nowhere is the word "employee" used except in the context of an employee organization. Are we in a position where an individual person belonging to an employer organization could be prosecuted in his individual capacity but that no individual employee could be prosecuted at all? Is that what we are getting ourselves into? That does not seem to make sense.


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Chairman. The point is that within the employers association all of the members themselves are companies. The individual companies are involved there as members of the employers' association, just as within the definition of employee organization, all of the organizations are unions within that definition.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I know that the minister gave an answer, but to remove the fears of the hon. member for Vancouver South would it not help if we stated that "employer" means a member association of the employers'
Longshoremen's Strike
association? Or is that confusing the situation rather than clarifying it?


Otto Emil Lang: I think those fears are removed by the explanation, and I am not sure the additional word "association" would have any definite meaning.


Gérald Laniel: Shall the amendment carry?


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Chairman, to go back to clause 15 and the question that has been raised, surely there is need for an apostrophe somewhere near that "s"-"employers association" in the second and third lines from the end of that clause.


Otto Emil Lang: I think that is probably right, Mr. Speaker.


Gérald Laniel: Shall the amendment carry?
Amendment (Mr. Lang) agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 18 agreed to.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Chairman, I thought we might agree at this point to revert to clause 4 (4), in which case I would move that subclause (4) of clause 4 of Bill C-56 be amended by adding immediately after the word "return" in the fifth line thereof the word "forthwith". That amendment is designed to take the point of the hon. member for Hamilton West.


Gérald Laniel: Is there unanimous consent to revert to clause 4?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
On clause 4-Longshoring operations to be resumed.


Gérald Laniel: Mr. Lang moves:
That subclause (4) of clause 4 of Bill C-56 be amended by adding immediately after the word "return" in the fifth line thereof, the word "forthwith".


Gérald Laniel: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Lang) agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule I agreed to.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, did you call clause 18?


Gérald Laniel: I did, unless the hon. member did not hear me. In my mind it was called and adopted, and that is the time when I recognized the hon. Minister of Justice for the purpose of reverting to clause 4.
Schedule II agreed to.
Schedule III agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
[Stage Direction]
March 24, 1975
Longshoremen's Strike
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: When shall the bill be read the third time? Now?


Some hon. Members:: By leave.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: By leave, now.


John Carr Munro: the third reading of the bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, this may be the first of a number of bills of a similar nature that will have to be moved, and I think we should look closely at some of the problems which were outlined earlier in the day. The question has been asked, with some justification, whether this type of legislation sending people back to work is required because of the commodity involved, the national interest, or the predominance of a particular area? I think the problem is much larger, Mr. Speaker, and I believe if this legislation is successful tonight members will ask the question, why? I do not think that most of the unions or most of the companies in this country want to negotiate by legislation. That, of course, would be an easy way to settle labour disputes.
A number of things are wrong with the legislation we now have, and with the system as well. People in the street are probably saying what a great thing it is that the Post Office strike is over but, Mr. Speaker, the Post Office strike has not started yet, although it probably will in the near future. But the public is so poorly informed that people do not know whether a strike is taking place in one area or another.
I have been concerned, as everyone else has, with Canada's reputation in regard to moving wheat. Problems in this area over the years have been solved by the establishment of a controller. When things have been really bad a controller has been able to settle problems in a matter of a few months because he has had jurisdiction over the whole transportation system as it affects wheat from the country elevator to loading the ship. That has worked in the past.
I think we should look at the whole structure of moving commodities in this country. It is likely that the present grouping is not the correct one. In the last two or three weeks the longshoremen have been on strike, and the government has said, "Let's not settle the public service strike". As long as the longshoremen were negotiating there was no point in settling the strike of the weighers and graders of grain because the grain was not going to move anyway. But there is a relationship between these two fields, Mr. Speaker. I think we should take all steps to prevent having to solve these problems by legislation.
Certainly parliament can force parties to accept the terms of an agreement. But should parliament do that? Should parliament assume the role of an arbitrator in a compulsory arbitration? We have put unions under trusteeship and said we will dissolve the trusteeship when certain conditions are corrected. We can do all these things. But unless our labour laws are changed parliament
(The Chairman.]
will continue to be involved in labour settlements. Frankly, I do not think those kinds of settlements satisfy employers, employees, or the requirements of the nation. We need something better. If we ask workers-and this applies equally to Post Office workers and others in the public sector who are now negotiating-to give up certain rights, should we not bend over backwards to see that they are fairly treated? Is that not how we should treat workers whose work is essential for the national economy and public good?
Without question, the worst employer in Canada is the government. It has never learned how to negotiate with employees. For example, consider the recent public utterances of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien). Given what he said, how can government negotiators negotiate in good faith? Before they can offer an extra cent an hour they must consult the minister or a government representative. Or the cabinet may meet and then it instructs the negotiator to offer an extra one or two cents. Such procedure is totally unreasonable. Negotiators ought to deal eyeball to eyeball; one of them should not need to run to the minister for instructions. Such procedure is unsatisfactory. It hampers government negotiators. If we are to see quick settlement we must change the system.
I remember negotiating with the gold mining industry years ago. You negotiated with a manager and he would say, "Yes, I think we can go so far; will you excuse me." He would leave the room and telephone the board of directors in New York or elsewhere and ask if he could raise the company offer by a certain amount. You negotiated with the man on the other side of the table. In the public service, you do not. You do not negotiate with the man sitting across the table; actually you are negotiating, however indirectly, with the cabinet.


An hon. Member:: How relevant is all this?


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, the settlement made in the public service the other day was made on the strength of the longshoremen's settlement. I think my remarks are relevant, as they highlight the need for a new negotiating
system.
Passing this bill will not solve anything. We need to negotiate a new way, a better way. I expect that the negotiator will consider the memorandum of agreement already submitted and then make an award. I hope the men will accept it and go back to work. Nevertheless, if we are to avoid future trouble we must change the law, change the way we handle labour relations in this country, especially in areas where the public interest is paramount. We should introduce a new system which will satisfy better both the employer and employee.
The federal government does not employ competent negotiators. True, one or two are competent, but the majority, particularly in the Department of Labour, are not. We need better arbitrators and conciliators to work in areas which involve the public interest. We should not allow negotiations to deteriorate to the point at which men go on strike. If ordinary negotiations break down the government should supply competent mediation services. At present it employs people in this role who have not been able to do anything else. Most of them are in that
March 24, 1975

category. I admit that one or two public service mediators are competent but the majority are not.
Government mediators need proper training and exposure in various mediation fields. Some provincial mediation and negotiation services are better than federal services. I suggest that passage of this bill will not resolve the problem. If hon. members think it will, they will be disillusioned. For the sake of members of parliament and the general well-being of the country, I hope both the workers and employers will come to terms. That, really, is the purpose of this bill. Nevertheless, we must do things differently in future. When necessary we must give the parties competent help, particularly when the public interest is involved. Let us provide assistance which will lead to mutually acceptable agreements. Nothing less will do. After all we are asking both sides to make sacrifices for the sake of the public good and national reputation.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I want to take a few minutes to make a couple of points which I do not believe have been made today, but have been made on several occasions in the last decade. They concern the matter of ports and, more particularly, grain movement.
It has been brought to the attention of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) and two of his predecessors that the longshoremen have offered to have grain excluded in the handling of cargo during labour disputes in the port of Vancouver. I believe this could apply to a number of other ports as well. Grain could be excluded in a similar way as coal at Robert's Bank is excluded. I am sure the Minister of Labour knows the longshoremen have made this offer several times. They are prepared to work for one employer, whether it be the Canadian Wheat Board, the Board of Grain Commissioners, or the National Harbours Board, although maybe I should not dredge that up.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: They are prepared to accept fundamental changes in the system under which they have been working. How many lessons does the government have to learn? We have been through tie-ups caused by grainhan-dlers, weighers and samplers, as well as railroad strikes and walkouts. I do not know how many times these have occurred over the past eight or ten years.
A proposal has been put forward by the longshoremen on at least three or four occasions. The difficulty we have been faced with on each of these occasions could have been dealt with more adequately and more satisfactorily for the farmers, the general public, and those who work handling grain.
Far be it from me or the Minister of Labour to interfere in the internal workings of the different unions. However, I would not be surprised if there was a willingness on the part of the grainhandlers, weighers, samplers and longshoremen to join forces, if not in one union at least in one bargaining unit. This is an area where the Minister of Labour could provide some leadership and encouragement. The Minister of Labour and the government could assist the parties in putting an end to at least this part of the
Longshoremen's Strike
difficulties we are faced with in connection with the movement of grain.
We have been having difficulties in industrial peace in Vancouver harbour, let alone other harbours, which occur in different ways and to different degrees. The leadership has come from some of the workers on several occasions. It has never been followed up by the government or the employers. I want to know why. To be completely cynical, the union has its little group, the employers have their little group, and whenever there is a strike situation the government moves in with ad hoc legislation. If we have to do this six or eight times a decade, obviously that is not good enough.
After our six or seven experiences in the past ten years, I hope the Minister of Labour will sit down with the longshoremen, the grainhandlers, weighers, railroaders and employers' association. The longshoremen have repeatedly said that grain should be removed from general cargo. The issues of automation, and who will handle, fill, unload and load what containers are entirely separate from bulk cargo. They are not even related except for the fact that they occur in the same geographical location.
I do not understand why the government did not get the message years ago. The longshoremen faced up to this a long time ago. They made a proposal that was never taken up. I cannot understand why. If it had been followed up, we would not be in this mess today. I wish to advise the minister and his colleagues that they will get assistance from members on all sides of the House if they do follow it up.
There is a willingness on all sides in Vancouver harbour, and in most other places in the country, to make some fundamental changes with regard to the way the work is performed, who performs it, under what jurisdiction, and who is the employer. Members of parliament might deal with this once every year or so when there happens to be a strike, but these people are on the job every day. They know whereof they speak. Why has this not been grasped by the minister, or by his predecessor who was supposed to be a big wheel in the labour ranks? He never acted on it.
The Saskatchewan Wheat Pool and the Farmers Union looked at this offer made by the longshoremen. Nothing happened. Now we meet again to legislate people back to work, denying them a fundamental right.
The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) pointed out this afternoon that nobody likes to strike. The first person to get hurt by a strike is the one who goes out on one. This parliament and this government have not yet looked at what causes strikes. Proposals have been made by those who handle grain. There is a willingness to make some fundamental changes, but these have not been followed up. If they are not considered after this fracas, I will lose what little faith I have in the abilities and intentions of the Minister of Labour.
I wanted to make these remarks on third reading of this legislation so that I will not have to do this in a year from now when we are dealing with the grainhandlers, weighers, samplers, railroaders or longshoremen. If the minister wants an independent inquiry, a joint group of employees, employers in government or any other mechanism, the

March 24, 1975
Longshoremen's Strike
avenues are there. They have been there for years, but they have not been followed up.
An inquiry into grainhandling has been set up. Are we always going to have ad hoc legislation that flies in the face of what members from all parties in this House desire? These pieces of legislation deal with the matter with great reluctance. They do not get at the root causes of these disputes and strikes. Unless this or any other government deals with the root causes of strikes, people will continue to do things they do not want to do. They will feel they have no other choice. They will feel that no one is listening, and no one is trying to bring them together.
The people on both sides of the quarrel are decent, yet we keep compounding the felony. We let it proceed year in and year out. We still use outmoded concepts and methods. This government always attacks in the wrong way, at the wrong time, and for the wrong reasons. Liberals have a majority; they have an opportunity; they have had it before, but they will not use it.
The Minister of Labour and his officials in his department should sit down with those concerned in Vancouver Harbour, Prince Rupert, Thunder Bay or anywhere else. It makes for good sense and for industrial peace to treat those involved in the movement of bulk commodities differently from those involved in the movement of containers or passenger ships in and out of our seaports. People who work there have been suggesting this for years. I repeat the question: why has nothing happened? Surely some assistance could come in this area from the Minister of Labour and his colleagues.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I intend to make one brief comment, Mr. Speaker. I would draw attention to the fact that Bill C-12, which disposed of the grain handling strike and lock-out, contained no provisions for enforcement procedures, whereas the bill now before us does. It seems to me that a precedent has been set-a departure from the practice followed in the other bills, and it has been duly noted. Here, for the first time, to the best of my knowledge, we are being asked to approve of an enforcement procedure. Perhaps the minister, in the course of any statement he might make, would tell the House what has happened in this regard.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 6(5), I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton East (Mr. Munro):
That the provisions of paragraph (3) of Standing Order 6 be suspended in relation to the daily adjournment to permit the completion of the consideration of Bill C-56, and to provide for Royal Assent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion (Mr. Sharp) agreed to.
Motion (Mr. Munro (Hamilton East)) agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


John Mercer Reid: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the other place is ready to consider this bill, and I wonder if it would be possible for the House to agree to suspend its sitting until the call of the bell, at which time the other place will have completed its con-

sideration of this legislation and we shall then proceed to royal assent.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: The House has heard the suggestion of the parliamentary secretary. Is it agreed?


Stanley Howard Knowles: We will agree to that, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Stanley Howard Knowles: Since we have a minute or two, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the House leader could tell us the order of business for tomorrow.


Mitchell William Sharp: The first order of business tomorrow will be the completion of the housing bill, Bill C-46, followed by Bill C-13, and perhaps some other bills which I have indicated previously are at report or third reading stage.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What about Bill C-8?


Mitchell William Sharp: After we have disposed of some of the less important bills, the bills which the House leaders have agreed should be dealt with so as to clear up the order paper, it is our intention to consider Bill C-8. I am doubtful, however, whether we would get to that bill until late tomorrow or until Wednesday.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: In accordance with the order made earlier the House will rise until the call of the bell.
SITTING SUSPENDED At 10 p.m. the sitting was suspended.


SITTING RESUMED The House resumed at 11.30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received which is as follows:
Government House Ottawa, March 24, 1975
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable R. G. B. Dickson, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber

March 24, 1975

today, the 24th March, at 11.30 p.m. for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain bills.
Royal Assent

And being returned:
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant Andre Garneau Brigadier General Administrative Secretary to the Governor General
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
Mr. Speaker informed the House that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
Bill C-56, An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of longshoring and related operations at ports on the west coast of Canada.-Chapter No. 32.
Bill C-29, An Act respecting Canadian business corporations.-Chapter No. 33.
Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act.-Chapter No. 34.
Bill C-373, An Act to provide for the recognition of the Beaver (Castor canadensis) as a symbol of the sovereignty of Canada.-Chapter No. 35.


Mr. Speaker:: It being after ten o'clock this House stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
At 11.51 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put.

Tuesday, March 25, 1975