1975-05-27

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of evidence that has recently come to light that thousands of pounds of tainted meat from Quebec have been sold in Ontario over the past three years, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin):
That this House call upon the Minister of National Health and Welfare to institute an immediate and efficient inspection and information program throughout Canada to protect Canadians from diseased meat.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The motion is proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43 and cannot be presented without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


MANPOWER
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a motion under the terms of Standing Order 43, having to do with the lack of checks or precautions taken by student manpower offices before listing a prospective student employer. This can result in students working for fraudulent businesses, getting paid no wages, and missing their opportunity for legitimate summer employment, as was the case recently in Winnipeg. I move, therefore, seconded by the hon. member for Portage (Mr. Masniuk):
That the House direct the Minister of Manpower and Immigration to investigate the circumstances that allowed Mr. Paul Evans of Florida to register a non-existent company as a prospective employer and to be sent 12 innocent students by Manpower to inadvertently assist him in perpetrating a fraud.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The motion is proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43 and cannot be debated
without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to bring forward an extremely urgent motion requiring immediate attention.
Mr. Robert A. McNair, chairman of the Canadian Association of Food Product Manufacturers, has stated that Canadian workers are now receiving better wages than those in the USA for the same type of work, even if our productivity is lower, and that if such a trend persists, the prices of our products will rapidly be higher than those of our competitors. Considering that wage increases are automatically reflected in the prices of products and that such an escalation settles nothing, considering also that it is important to increase the purchasing power of individuals so that they may buy part of our abundant production, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Dionne):
That this House study as early as possible means to establish a universal system of guaranteed annual income that would be paid each and everyone so as to increase individual purchasing power without increasing the prices of products. Such action would put an end to the devastating effects of inflation.


Mr. Speaker:: Under Standing Order 43, such a motion requires unanimous consent of the House. Is such consent granted?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no unanimous consent, so the motion cannot be put.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

['Order, please. The right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) on a question of privilege.', 'May 27, 1975\nPrivilege-Mr. Diefenbaker']
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of

May 27, 1975
Oral Questions
National Health and Welfare who was here, but has disappeared. Perhaps I could ask it when he comes back.



Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of Finance? It concerns the budget and the availability of certain documents before the budget date, documents which would allow members of this House to evaluate that budget. On May 14 my colleague, the hon. member for Yorkton-Mel-ville, asked the Minister of Finance to account for the four and a half month delay in the tabling of the final report on tax concessions to manufacturing and processing industries and to give the House some idea when the report will finally be tabled. The Minister replied in part, as recorded on page 5,779 of Hansard:
The report is now in its final stages and I am advised the committee expects the report to be ready for tabling within a month.
As the minister recently postponed another important statement to this House, can he tell us when the report will be tabled and assure members that it will be available before the date of the budget?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I must obtain up-to-date information on the status of the report before I can give any undertaking.


Max Saltsman: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister table the document or report to which he referred and about which I questioned him yesterday, the report or studies showing those industries in which excessive wage increases are threatening Canada's competitive position? In the alternative, by what other means does he propose providing that information to the House. Further, is he prepared to assure the House that this information will be available prior to the budget?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, as I said to the hon. gentleman yesterday, I will review whatever commitment I may or may not have made and be in touch with him and the House.


Max Saltsman: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Are we to take it from the minister's statement that not one of the studies and documents which are the basis of the budget proposals is available; because, certainly, our ability to consider intelligently what is in the budget will depend on what is in those reports? Is the minister suggesting they will not be available to us before budget time?


Mr. Baldwin:: The minister does not know what is in the budget yet.


John Napier Turner: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not suggesting that.


GOVERNMENT ACTION TO PREVENT SALE OF MEAT UNFIT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
The minister has stated that he was aware of the situation with respect to meat unfit for human consumption in Quebec as early as October 1973. I would like to ask him why he did not act under the Food and Drugs Act as the minister responsible for the health of the Canadian people and thus prevent the sale of contaminated meat in Quebec?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I will merely repeat the answers given in that connection last week. In October 1973, an inspector of my Department undertook an investigation only from hearsay because there was no actual fact enabling to go any further. However, as soon as there were enough indications to notify the police force concerned, this was done.


ACTION OF MINISTER TO COMMUNICATE WITH QUEBEC
Robert Lorne Stanfield: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Last week, in the House, the minister said there has not been any correspondence on this subject with any minister in Quebec. When the minister first learned about putrid meat in Quebec what, if anything, did he communicate to the Quebec minister of agriculture or the officials of his department about this shocking situation; and, why did he not issue some statement to notify Quebeckers that after they have gone shopping they might be eating tainted meat?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, as I said, the officials of my department have undertaken an inquiry. An extremely complex and difficult police investigation was in progress; it was important that this investigation should follow its course. Police authorities were responsible for this. There was no evidence enabling us to make specific allegations at any time, before the police investigation was concluded. And there has been, in fact, no oral or written communication between myself and Quebec ministers in this regard. However, the Quebec police force and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police were involved in this investigation and, as a matter of fact, they have carried it out completely following the request made by one of the officials of my department.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Did the minister seek any assurance from the province of Quebec that it would immediately institute proper inspection proceedings where there is not federal inspection? In view of what is now public knowl-

edge, as a result of the crime investigation in Quebec, that large volumes of tainted meet have been sold, how can the minister by any stretch of the imagination feel that he has discharged his duties as Minister of National Health and Welfare?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, in this respect, I have no hesitation in answering yes to the hon. Leader of the Opposition.


POSSIBILITY OF OBTAINING MEAT SAMPLES FROM ESTABLISHMENTS UNDER PROVINCIAL JURISDICTION-GOVERNMENT POSITION
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the revelation by the minister that he first became acquainted with this situation in October 1973 as a result of rumours, may I ask whether at that time samples were taken from packing houses and abattoirs in the province of Quebec that were then operating outside the jurisdiction of the Minister of Agriculture and, if not, why not?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the hon. member is once again distorting my previous statements in the House. I consistently said that in the fall of 1973 an inspector of my department started an investigation of the matter and later referred it to the police, but I never said that in October 1973, I personally was aware of the situation.


REASON FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE QUEBEC MERCHANTS SELLING MEAT UNFIT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION
James Aloysius McGrath: The minister stated he was informed of this situation in October 1973. He told the committee this morning he did not contact the RCM Police until February, 1974. My first question is, why the delay? Second, why did the minister himself not proceed under the jurisdiction of the Food and Drugs Act and lay charges through the Attorney General for Canada?


Marc Lalonde: Once again, Mr. Speaker, those are exactly the same questions as last week and which I answered several times. I repeat that I was not the one who asked for the intervention of the police. The reference was made in the normal and daily course of my department's operations by an inspector of my department in Montreal who started an investigation and asked for the intervention of the Mounted Police only in February because the investigation started in October had difficulty in getting under way, which shows how complex the matter is. Things are much less simple than the hon. member seems to think. There is nothing magical, nothing sinister either in all this in the sense that officials of my department co-operated normally with police authorities to bring the investigation to a
Oral Questions
successful end, which fortunately seems to be the present result.


REQUEST FOR STATEMENT BY MINISTER ON SALE OF MEAT UNFIT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION
James Aloysius McGrath: In view of the substantial public unrest being created by virtue of the revelations being made in Quebec and the evidence that this tainted, contaminated, putrid, diseased meat has been sold outside the province of Quebec, in the interest of putting the minds of the public at rest, will the minister now follow the course he followed last fall when he was confronted with the situation of contaminated hamburger and make a statement in the House?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I have already replied very clearly to that question. A Royal Commission has been set up, the investigation must follow its course normally, and I do not think it would be proper at this time to make statements right and left, as apparently suggested by the hon. member, either to facilitate the investigation or reassure Canadian consumers.


AVAILABILITY OF REPORTS ON SAMPLES OF MEAT UNFIT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Health and Welfare indicated that in February 1974 the RCMP were asked to investigate some evidence of tainted meat being sold. Can the minister tell us whether any samples were taken from the packing houses in Quebec at that time for examination to determine whether, indeed, this was meat from animals improperly slaughtered and, if so, are there reports available?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question is based again on erroneous information. As of February 1974, there was no evidence, only rumours, that such meat was being sold in Quebec. That is why police forces were called upon to carry out a full investigation, using all the means police forces have at their disposal and which my own department does not have.


REASON FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE QUEBEC MERCHANTS SELLING MEAT UNFIT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION
Paul Yewchuk: A final supplementary. There now certainly appears to be evidence of tainted meat being sold on a massive scale. I do not think anyone questions this. I want to know why the minister is not laying charges and why he feels that, because an investigation is going on, charges cannot be laid.

May 27, 1975
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think all hon. members will agree that I have allowed on several occasions a repetition of questions which have been answered by the minister. I was reluctant to interfere because of the importance of the subject matter, but it seems to me that the minister has answered this question several times and that I ought now to insist that if there are no fresh questions on this topic we should pass on to another subject.


An hon. Member:: The questions are fresher than the meat, anyway!


Paul Yewchuk: I should like to rephrase my question, then. The minister has stated that no charges were laid because a study by a royal commission is in progress. I am not clear as to why he thinks this prevents him from laying charges.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is much I could add to what I said last week on that matter. If the hon. member cannot understand why it would be improper at this time to institute proceedings, now that a Royal Commission has been set up, I do not think there is anything I can say to convince him or help him understand.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. As the Minister of Finance is trying to obtain widespread acceptance of his consensus program he no doubt intends that it should apply to all sectors of the economy. In view of the fact that in a written reply to a question asked on May 9 concerning the federal public service and the proposed general wage increase limit of 12 per cent, the President of the Treasury Board stated, as I quote, "The government, as employer, is not subscribing to arbitrary wage increase ceilings in its negotiation of collective agreements", will the Acting Prime Minister tell us whether that statement by the President of the Treasury Board reflects government policy and, if so, whether it is intended that wage increase limits under a consensus program are to apply only to the private sector and not to the federal government?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Considering that in the same reply the President of the Treasury Board stated that public service wage rates must conform to comparable rates of remuneration in the private sector, and that if they increase by 18 per cent he would endeavour to negotiate an 18 per cent increase, will the Acting Prime Minister inform us whether such a statement means that the government does not intend to set an example in wage increase restraint but will only follow the private sector?


Mitchell William Sharp: I could answer with a simple "No" to that question but perhaps I should add that the purpose of seeking a consensus is to achieve some measure of general restraint. If this applied, it would of course apply to the public sector. If not, I would have to support my colleague the President of the Treasury Board because I do not believe it would be fair to the public service to treat them as being different from the public at large.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A supplementary to the Minister of Finance. The minister has expressed concern about the deterioration in Canada's competitive position resulting from a higher rate of increase in labour costs per unit of output in Canada than in the United States. Considering that the President of the Treasury Board states that in setting Canadian public service wage increases it is the higher Canadian wage scales which are relevant, not the more restrained U.S. levels, would the hon. gentleman tell us whether he, too, is concerned about our competitive international position only in the private sector, not the public sector?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, within the context in which the President of the Treasury Board was speaking, that more than bears the truth and I have nothing to add to it.


FINANCE
Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance a question.
Could the minister tell the House if he is aware of a statement made by Quebec Premier Robert Bourassa that his government is prepared to commit itself to introduce legislation allowing employees to share corporate profits and, if so, could he advise the House whether he intends to table federal legislation aimed at encouraging employers to allow their employees to share the corporation's profits through, for example, tax exemptions for corporations which implement a profit sharing program?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I should first consider the statement of the Quebec premier, but I suppose the question should rather be directed to my colleague the Minister of Labour.


OIL-PRESENT OR PROPOSED INCREASED PRICE FACTOR IN SETTING DOMESTIC PRICE
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. In the ongoing discussions over the establishment of a domestic price for crude oil for Canada, is the federal government taking as one of its parameters the current price of oil in
May 27, 1975

the world market, or is it also including the 15 per cent increase in the price of oil that is now being talked about?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I was listening carefully to the hon. gentleman but I missed his first few words. I wonder if he would mind repeating the question.


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, in the discussion that is going on now for setting a domestic price for crude oil, to the extent that the international price is being considered in this discussion is the current international price a factor in which the government is interested, or is it including the anticipated 15 per cent increase that the OPEC countries have been talking about?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, perhaps it is certain in the hon. gentleman's mind that international oil prices are going up, but we have some doubts about that.


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister. Given the fact that the Minister of Finance presumably needs a set domestic price for oil before bringing down his budget, am I to understand from the answer of the Acting Prime Minister that even if the world price of oil should be adjusted upwards in September by 15 per cent there would be no change in the domestic price of Canadian crude oil?


Mitchell William Sharp: Well, Mr. Speaker, that is a very hypothetical question. I think the hon. gentleman will just have to wait and see what is in the budget. When we have made our decisions, we will announce them.


OIL-RELATIONSHIP OF INTERNATIONAL FLOOR PRICE AND DEVELOPMENT OF SYNCRUDE PROJECT
James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, may I put a final supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister. Given the fact that yesterday the right hon. Prime Minister said that the Canadian government had agreed in principle with the idea of a floor price and that the cabinet had in fact discussed prices-in which case I would think my question was not entirely hypothetical-is the floor price that the Canadian government is talking about a price that will ensure continued development of the Syncrude project and the development of oil out of oil sands?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker, the two matters are not directly related. The decision on an international floor price might be quite different from that. The hon. gentleman knows that what was said about Syncrude was said about Syncrude and not about oil prices generally.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs I should like to address my question
Oral Questions
either to the Acting Prime Minister or to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. We have been hearing these last few days stories about a vast consignment of archeological and artistic treasures that have been smuggled out of South Viet Nam and have now been sent en route to their "owner", at present a refugee in Canada living in Montreal. Can the Acting Prime Minister or the Minister of Manpower and Immigration assure this House that that consignment of $150 million worth of treasure, presumably belonging to the Vietnamese people, is not consigned to General Dang Van Quang, whose presence in Canada alone has caused sufficient consternation among the Canadian people?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, there is indeed a great deal of confusion. Any information that I have with regard to these reported art treasures moving from Guam to Canada has not, so far at least, involved in any way Lieutenant-General Quang; that is a separate problem altogether. The only information that I can give the hon. member and the House is this. This information has come to me by way of public allegation; no evidence has been presented to me or, as far as I know, to any other member of the government.
The case involves one Dao Dip Khanh who has been a landed immigrant in Canada since 1971. She returned to Viet Nam and married one Vo Due Dien. She returned to Canada recently as a returned resident, which she is entitled to do as a landed immigrant. Her husband is somewhere in the United States. She does not know where at the present time, but she knows her husband is sending her personal effects to her, valued at $100,000 by the report that we have had. She lives at this time with her father in Montreal who is also a landed immigrant and has been for sometime. She is coming into our Montreal office this afternoon to discuss the matter. As of now, the information I have would indicate that the other allegations really are not founded on any statement that we have been able to obtain to this time, but we will be continuing to follow this in light of suggestions which have been made through unofficial channels.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of National Revenue say that he has in hand measures to deal with this treasure when it shows up at the Canadian border as "household effects" destined to a refugee from Viet Nam?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, as in the case of anything that arrives at the border for anyone, it would be handled pursuant to Canadian laws that apply.

May 27, 1975
Oral Questions AGRICULTURE


ADEQUACY OF SUPPLY-MANAGEMENT PROGRAM OF CANADIAN EGG MARKETING AGENCY-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF AGREEMENTS WITH PROVINCES
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, on May 20, in reply to a question by the hon. member for St. John's East regarding import controls on U.S. eggs, the Minister of Agriculture said that no action will be taken until "it can be shown that the egg producers of Canada have their supply-management program in proper order". The minister went on to say that the producers claim this has already been accomplished, but he was checking out these facts. I should like to ask whether the minister has checked out the facts and is he now satisfied that the program in fact is in order?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am to get a report later this day so I am not at all in a position to indicate whether I feel the supply-management program is or is not in order.


William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, could the minister tell us when he anticipates he will be able to table the agreement, and would he also agree to table at the same time the amendments or riders the various provinces attach to that agreement?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I understand that these are public documents once they are signed, so I feel there should be no difficulty in tabling them, following the usual procedure of getting permission from the co-signers.


OIL AND NATURAL GAS-DATE OF MEETING WITH PROVINCES TO DEAL WITH PRICES
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance. Is the minister able to report to the House that there has been any progress in arranging for the date of a further meeting of the first ministers of the provinces and the Prime Minister to deal with the prices of petroleum and natural gas? If so, what is that date and will this precede the budget mooted for June 23?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, there have been some informal conversations but no date has as yet been fixed.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, will the Acting Prime Minister assure the House that such a meeting is to be held?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think it would probably be desirable to have a meeting, but this is a decision which has to be made by all the prime ministers, including the Prime Minister of Canada; therefore, I cannot answer.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It won't be before June 11?


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that Mr. Quang was brought to Canada, not from Viet Nam, but from the relative safety of the United States, and in view of the fact that according to the minister's own officials it is normal practice to check out a potential refugee's background when time permits or when the potential refugee's life is not at all jeopardized by such a gathering of information, would the Minister of Manpower and Immigration explain to this House and to the people of Canada why in this particular case there was such a hurry to grant Mr. Quang a minister's permit?


Robert Knight Andras: Yes, Mr. Speaker. A minister's permit is a very temporary measure allowing him to reside in Canada for a limited period of time, and it is revocable. An investigation is going on now, and there is no inhibition in respect of that investigation by virtue of it being done when he is here as opposed to when he was there. Any decision to formalize his authority or otherwise to stay in Canada will be based on the results of that investigation when we have them.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that Mr. Quang is allegedly an important figure in the heroin trade which, if true, would make Quang ineligible for landed immigrant status in Canada, and in view of the fact that there was no need for any hurry in the granting of a minister's permit as well as in view of the serious nature of the charges against Mr. Quang, was there any pressure brought to bear on the minister's department by any foreign government or any agency of a foreign government, either formally or informally, to waive the normal procedure and accept Mr. Quang immediately?


Robert Knight Andras: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, and I have carried out some preliminary inquiries on that very matter. It has been confirmed to me at this stage that there was no such contact or suggestion by any foreign government or representative thereof. The fact is that Mr. Quang's children and wife, or children rather, were in Canada, and that was one of the considerations in granting the minister's permit, pending investigation.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Quite recently, the Prime Minister of Canada announced that his government intended to bring in a new comprehensive policy for the textile and clothing industry in Canada. Is the minister's department now in the process of formulating this policy and can the minister advise the
May 27, 1975

House when a truly national policy will be launched so that employment in that industry will not be protected only but also encouraged?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, we do have a textile policy right now which I think has served Canada well over the years. At the present time, however, there are difficulties as a result of low-cost imports. We have taken measures to deal with those low-cost imports, but there may be additional measures that will have to be taken. In light of that, we are reviewing the textile policy, and I would hope later this year we will receive a report.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: By that time the textile industry will have gone.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
Is the minister aware that the Prime Minister wrote to a mayor in the St. Maurice region assuring him that the textile industry would be protected and that an overall policy would soon be introduced in Parliament? Can the minister tell us whether he is aware of the statement made by the Prime Minister or the stand he took, and if so, when this will be done?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated that the policy is under review. The government is not yet in a position to make any decision and will not be for several months, but there is very active consideration going on at the present time.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago I asked the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development whether he was aware of the directive from his department withdrawing vocational rehabilitation services from the treaty Indians in the province of Manitoba. He indicated at that time he was going to investigate the matter and report at a later date. Is he ready with his information on that subject now?


An hon. Member:: I hope so.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It is my understanding that the withdrawal of the provincial services provided by the Manitoba Vocational Rehabilitation Services has not been abrupt, as I think was suggested, but has been gradual. It will be done on a gradual phaseout basis which I am told has been discussed and agreed upon.
Oral Questions


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the directive indicated June 30 was the termination date, and that this program is heavily funded by the Canada Assistance Plan and has been of great benefit to the treaty Indians in the province of Manitoba, and in view of the fact it is planned to transfer responsibilities to Canadian Manpower Centres which do not have the counselling resources to handle this program, will the minister review the matter further to make certain that this outstanding and beneficial service is not terminated on June 30 as that directive from his department indicated?


J. Judd Buchanan: I have not yet had the report, Mr. Speaker, but it is my understanding there was a meeting last Friday between our regional director and the Canada Manpower Centre officials in Brandon, and thdt in addition to the regular manpower staff there are nine officers employed under the Pathfinder Outreach Program. It is felt that among them they will be able to accommodate the case load.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. Is the minister aware that the man in charge of the Pathfinder Program in the western Manitoba region has recently been fired by that organization?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for York-Sunbury.


FUNDY TIDAL POWER PROJECT-INQUIRY AS TO COMMENCEMENT OF STUDIES
Mr. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Can the minister tell us whether any of the five phased Fundy tidal power studies announced last November have commenced and if not can he tell us when the first study will commence?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take that question as notice if the hon. gentleman does not mind because I am not sure whether or not anything has been done this year.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Solicitor General. I wonder whether the minister can tell us if he is in any better position today, after the federal-provincial conference with the law officials in Victoria and in view of the release by Statistics Canada over the weekend concerning the increase in violent crime, especially murder which is
6148

May 27, 1975
Oral Questions
up 11 per cent, to tell the House when firm proposals to meet this problem of increasing crime can be laid before the House so that there can be a balance between reform, rehabilitation of the criminal and the protection of the person in a free society?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the goal we wish to pursue. We will have a measure to put before the House shortly. I cannot give the hon. member an exact date, but I hope to have an announcement soon.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, with an appreciation of the problems involved in this very sensitive area, can the minister assure the House that there will be no delay because of the involvement of inter-related measures which could help meet the crime situation now and/or the emotional debate that might ensue on capital punishment and that if there are measures to meet the crime situation now that they will be introduced and that capital punishment will be treated on its merits or demerits.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, there will be no delay of any measure in order to put it forward with a measure on capital punishment. On the contrary, we are trying to speed up some measures which might have taken longer so that we can do more to protect the Canadian people from crime.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. Last week the Committee of One Million presented a brief on abortion to the Prime Minister in connection with the presentation to Parliament this Thursday of a petition of one million names. I should like to ask the minister now if he has studied the brief and whether or not he is giving consideration to legislative action to restrict abortions to cases where the medical need is indisputable and to do this by specifying in legislation that the word "health" in section 251 of the Criminal Code is not to include social factors?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any indication that social factors, apart from those which have an impact upon health within the meaning of the section, are relevant in any case. I do not think the brief changes the essential position of the government which is that if the medical committees are willing to take the responsibility that was transferred to them in the 1969 law, we have a law which can be made to operate. There is no immediate intention therefore to present further legislation.


Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, in light of the escalation of abortions which now exceed 43,000 per year or 12.6 per cent of live births, I should like to ask the minister if the government is giving any consideration to guaranteeing protection of the child conceived but not yet born.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the position of the unborn child of course was at the base of the thinking which led to the particular law in 1969 and that form of protection for it. We are looking at the whole question of the operation of the abortion law and the steps which should be taken to make it work more effectively. There may be some announcement in due course about this, but as to the specific intention in respect of legislation my previous answer stands.


SUGGESTED AMENDMENT TO MAKE APPLICATION OF ABORTION PROVISION UNIFORM-PROPOSED REFERENCE TO SUPREME COURT FOR INTERPRETATION OF WORD &quot;HEALTH&quot;
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question along the same line. I might preface it by saying I agree with the position of the minister. There is a difference of opinion in the House on both sides relative to abortion. I should like to put this question to him because I believe it is very serious. In light of the fact that Morgentaler was convicted of certain acts and is now still being charged before the courts for acts which committees in other provinces are approving every day, does the minister not feel it is time the law was reviewed and changed so that the law is respected and made uniform throughout the country in this regard.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the law of course is uniform. A question does arise under the law concerning the place of, and the functioning of, the medical committee. That, of course, is another matter which depends upon the responsibility and the kind of action which is taken by authorities other than this parliament or this government.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, would the minister not consider taking this matter before the Supreme Court of Canada to obtain a judicial interpretation of the word "health" in the section with reference to abortion, what it means in relation to the mother and so on, so that the law will be applied uniformly across the country.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am not convinced that an immediate reference to the Supreme Court is the best solution. I did indicate in my earlier answer to the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona that the question of the law and its operation is something we are looking at, and that we will be proposing certain steps in respect of its operation. As a result of the examination of this operation, I indicated there would be an announcement in the House in due course.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport may I direct my question to his parliamentary secretary. On Monday, May 12, as recorded at page 5689 of Hansard, when we were discussing the estimates of the Department of Transport, the minister said that on Monday, May 26,
May 27, 1975

there would be a meeting of the CN board to discuss the question of the escalation of pensions of retired CNR employees. I indicated to him, and I am keeping my commitment, that on Tuesday, May 27, I would question the minister about this matter. I wonder whether the parliamentary secretary could now indicate what decision the CN board took yesterday.


Mr. Cliff Mclsaac (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to my hon. friend I am not sure whether the decision was taken yesterday, but just before coming into the House I was given some brief information to the effect that there was an escalation provided for CNR pensioners effective January 1, 1975, pertaining to people who went on pension from December 31, 1972, and from thereon back. The amount varies from $12 a month to $7 a month. There are different rates. I may have to provide the details to my hon. friend later, but there has been an escalation covering the period of time from December 31, 1972, on back.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. Will the parliamentary secretary ascertain whether this is the end of the story or whether the board has other decisions to make regarding Canadian National pensions.


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to make an inquiry in that regard because I cannot answer that right now.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General relating to a letter he wrote me on April 9 regarding a Virginio Gonzales an alleged CIA agent in Canada. The minister said in his letter at that time he was having a further investigation in view of the fact that Mr. Gonzales stated he did operate inside Canada. Can the minister advise me how his investigation is coming along?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I do not have a further report at this time but I will try to obtain one from the RCMP and report to the hon. member as quickly as possible.


John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, can the minister assure the House that he will have that information for the Standing committee meeting tomorrow afternoon?


William Warren Allmand: I will do my best to obtain such a report for the meeting tomorrow.
Oral Questions EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


POSSIBLE DIFFERENCE OF OPINION BETWEEN FRANCE AND OTHER NATO COUNTRIES
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. As the President of France will not be present at the summit meeting of NATO countries, instead sending his foreign minister, does this indicate there are fairly sharp differences of opinion or views held by the President of France as opposed to other NATO countries and particularly Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman knows, France is not part of the integrated force. There has always been some difference in the attitude of France to NATO. I do not think this represents any deterioration.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Agriculture and arises from a question posed by the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot. On the basis of the information the minister has before him, is he satisfied that the present agreement can be satisfactorily enforced, having regard to the terms and conditions which were added by the provinces to the original agreement, and has the minister obtained a legal opinion as to whether the penalty of $1.00 per bird on flocks in excess of quota can be legally enforced?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, I do not have a full report, and part of the report is the legal opinion I am waiting for.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I wonder if the minister can outline to the House whether any positive steps have been taken to bring the bird numbers into line commensurate with production targets, or has there just been no action in this regard whatsoever over the last six months?


Eugene Whelan: It is obvious that there has been some reduction in the bird population. It is quite a bit smaller than it was at this time a year ago.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Could the minister indicate to the House which provinces have not brought their bird numbers into line?


Eugene Whelan: No, Mr. Speaker, because I would have to familiarize myself with the record.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Don't you know what is going on?
29561-45',2

Oral Questions


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
[Stage Direction]
May 27, 1975

Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. I would like to ask again whether he has any new developments to report on the progress of Metropolitan Area Growth Investments Limited which, as the minister knows, is becoming, after three years of non-operation, rather a symbol of ridicule and an object of wrangling between the government of Nova Scotia and the federal government. Has he set any deadline? Has he any progress to report in regard to when this important corporation, funded by the taxpayers of Canada to the tune of $20 million, will finally become operational?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give a specific date, but I can report progress to the hon. member. He may have seen a news item to the effect that the board is in fact constituted. If it has not finished drawing up the terms of reference for a chief executive officer, it is in the process of doing so.
I have additional information for the Leader of the Opposition. I met with the two Nova Scotian representatives appointed by the federal government in the past few days. I hope to meet with the full board in the future. I can only say that the frustration of the hon. member is only exceeded by my own, and the faster we can get it off the ground the better.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of National Defence concerning NATO. In light of Mr. Callaghan's report to the United States state department that the total cost to NATO for duplication of research and equipment has been over $20 billion, would the minister please explain what steps he has taken to ensure that in so far as Canada is concerned such waste will no longer be acceptable or accepted?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I indicated in Brussels last week at the NATO meeting that Canada was prepared to continue its contribution to NATO at the present level.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: I am a little baffled by the minister's answer, but I will leave it.
Further with regard to NATO, Dr. Schlesinger in Europe last week sought assurances that the NATO countries would not cut their forces in Europe. Did the minister give Dr. Schlesinger such assurance that Canada will not cut its number of troops in Europe?


James Armstrong Richardson: We were not asked to confirm the size of our force in numbers. We indicated that we would keep Canada's contribution at its present level.


An hon. Member:: Until the next review.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Now that we know that the reference to section 196 of the Labour Code by the minister is primarily a red herring in that we do not have an inquiry or a probe, nor do we have an industrial inquiry commission, but rather a continuation of the investigation done by the RCMP and officials of the minister's department, why was this matter directed to the Minister of Labour for further pursuit, thereby deceiving-and I say this respectfully-the Canadian people, rather than placing the matter before the Solicitor General?


Otto Emil Lang: I appreciate that the hon. member can use strong language in a very quiet way and therefore have it escape some of the attention it would otherwise receive. Notwithstanding that provocation, let me say to him that this is anything but a red herring. It is exactly the traditional Canadian way of examining whether there is any wrongdoing, namely, to have an investigation which does not attempt to launder matters in public with all kinds of at-large hearsay allegations. This is the proper way of proceeding when there is a matter for investigation.
This matter is divided into two essential parts. One has to do with the part which may involve the Criminal Code of Canada, and any time those matters are involved, it is for provincial attorneys general to take charge. When matters involve the Canada Labour Code, whether in regard to offences or to the determination of what changes are needed, this is obviously the responsibility of the Minister of Labour, and it is a responsibility he has properly exercised.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Now that the minister has attempted to answer my question and has not, can he advise me whether the report will be published after the investigation has been completed?


Otto Emil Lang: This very much depends on the nature of the report and the kind of report which can be published.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto Emil Lang: I am very surprised if the hon. member's colleague from Calgary North does not appreciate the fact that if a report contains certain charges allegations without foundation which could lead to a charge, that is not the kind of thing which in our system ought to be pub-
May 27, 1975

lished, and it will not be published; but if charges can be laid, that will be done.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: It appears to me that the report will only be for the edification of the front bench of the government in power. I would like to ask a final supplementary of the Minister of Labour. Knowing that the minister does not like to deal with innuendos, and rightfully so-and he is concerned about that-I wonder if he can advise the House as to the circumstances which led him to indicate that Ontario authorities were strangely unhelpful-and I emphasize the word "strangely"-would the minister conclude that this is the type of innuendo he has registered his concern about?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker-


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, my question was framed whether the minister-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Would the minister now indicate to the House why he used the word "strangely"? That is what I am trying to get at. Is he prepared to take us into his confidence?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I already dealt with this question when I dealt with the matter in the House last week, but I will repeat it for the edification of the hon. member. When provincial ministers call for a federal inquiry into a matter, as they did in this particular case, and while continuing to call for one they also indicate that they are going to send information down to Ottawa on which we can base a conclusion, and the information does not arrive for weeks and weeks until indeed we have to go out and search it out ourselves, I would call that just what I called it yesterday, strangely unco-operative.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


GOVERNMENT ACTION TO ENSURE MEAT UNFIT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION NOT SOLD TO CONSUMERS
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I would like to ask him what he did when he found back in late 1973 and early 1974 that putrid
Oral Questions
meat unfit for human consumption was being sold in Quebec. Did he do anything to assure himself that the inspection system being operated in that province was successful, and if he made no approach to the government of Quebec with regard to this, what did he do at that time to discharge his obligation to prevent meat unfit for human consumption from being sold to the Canadian people?


Marc Lalonde: I am afraid that the Leader of the Opposition is turning into an old gramophone which repeats the same record. I have answered this question several times quite clearly.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have indicated once in this question period already that if further questions are to be pursued on this matter, they ought to break new ground.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, with respect, I am breaking new ground. I am not asking the minister why he did not prosecute people. I am giving him an opportunity to tell this House and the people of the country what he did, if anything, to discharge his responsibilities.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: Let me say once more that the situation is very simple, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition is again distorting the facts in the preamble to his question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: I have said a dozen times in this House- and I am surprised that the hon. Leader of the Opposition cannot get that into his head-that there was no evidence in 1973 and early 1974. There were only rumours and innuendoes-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: Check the record. On that basis my officials asked the police forces to pursue the investigation because it could only be pursued by the police forces. The type of distortion that the hon. Leader of the Opposition is introducing in the preamble to questions will not help in clarifying this situation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) on a question of privilege.

May 27, 1975
Privilege-Mr. Diefenbaker



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Even though sometimes things are said in the cut and thrust of debate that ought not to be said, I am not one who suffers from eggshell sensibilities. I can understand that in the cut and thrust of debate statements are sometimes made that all of us wish had not been made. That observation does not apply to a speech delivered on Thursday last by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). I was ready to raise this matter on Friday but the Prime Minister was not here. Yesterday I was unable to be present owing to circumstances beyond my control. I am, therefore, raising the matter today so that there will be no loss of my rights and the rights of the House to be protected against diatribes and statements which bear no relationship to the facts.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: On Thursday last it was understood between the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and the government, in respect of the debate that was to take place, that 15 minutes would be allotted. The Prime Minister asked to go first.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto Emil Lang: That is not the fact.


John George Diefenbaker: I have touched a nerve over there, Mr. Speaker. I have not read the whole of the speech. In order to explain the fabulous, wasteful and profligate expenses, the Prime Minister decided to follow the practice which is sometimes followed-of producing something in place of the facts. He referred to me as a fisherman. I have fished in various parts of the world, and it is of interest-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have never had such audience participation.


An hon. Member:: You got yourself some suckers this time.


John George Diefenbaker: The statements made regarding myself, while they cannot be described in this House of Commons in the words of Machiavelli-although the Prime Minister has always claimed that Machiavelli was in fact his political godfather-Machiavelli said that lies have their position; lies when used are bound to be useful. I have pursued this statement. The Prime Minister was in a position of endeavouring to explain how it was that his staff had increased five-fold since he took office in 1968, and the budget of the Prime Minister's office and that of

the Privy Council Office had increased 39 times to almost $20 million.
I mentioned fishing, Mr. Speaker. There is a fish in Fiji-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not want to unduly restrict the right hon. gentleman, but there is a tendency to get into debate as opposed to a question of privilege. I wonder if the right hon. gentleman would mind making his point.


John George Diefenbaker: This is just an example I wanted to give, Mr. Speaker. There are fish in Fiji that when in difficulty exude a black fluid to conceal themselves and their position.
The Prime Minister made a number of statements that I am going to quote. Commenting on the fact that he has two $80,000 cars at his disposal, he said:
I just remember, when the right hon. gentleman suggests that possession of this car-
He should have said "these cars."
-shows signs of paranoia on my part-
I never said that, Mr. Speaker, but I am not surprised that he came to that conclusion. He continued:
-that it was he who, at substantial public expense, had the bomb-shelter built at 24 Sussex Drive.
He went on to say:
The point is that he had that bomb-shelter built at substantial public expense.
Now, sir, I start with that.


An hon. Member:: Start?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, is there nothing that can pacify these guilty souls? This expensive bomb-shelter was placed there as a result of a decision made in various parts of the world. The fabulous cost of the shelter to which the Prime Minister referred was estimated in the beginning to be $1,100 and, according to the Department of Public Works yesterday, ended up at $400. The Prime Minister compared that sum with the expenditure of $160,000 for two dreadnoughts. The speech became worse as it continued. The Prime Minister then said, as recorded on page 6010 of Hansard:
-the right hon. gentleman talked about Harrington Lake. I think that was another unfortunate reference, because I suppose he made the largest land grab when he was in office that was ever made by any private citizen of Canada. He did so when he decided that Harrington Lake and the buildings on it should be the country residence of the prime minister. I do not think anybody then sitting on my party's side of the House criticized that decision. He was adding thousands of acres of land for his private enjoyment.
I could not understand that when I read it in Hansard the next day.
I had nothing whatsoever to do with the purchase of that land. The purchase was made in 1951 by the federal district commission when the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent was prime minister.


Gerald William Baldwin: Justin was right.
May 27, 1975	4


John George Diefenbaker: According to history, Machiavelli became a wicked old man. The statement I just quoted was not diluted by truth. I was amazed to read what the Prime Minister had said. He went on to say:
I think it was a justifiable gesture, one from which I personally have benefited.
Mr. Speaker, we did not spend tens of thousands of dollars on Harrington Lake. Actually, I believe less than $2,000 was spent on Harrington Lake. The Prime Minister then said:
In the same way I hope the next prime minister will benefit from the swimming pool... There is a difference: I do not intend to stock the swimming pool with fish, not even sharks-
I am glad he does not intend to stock it with sharks; they might think they have competition. Then the Prime Minister said:
The right hon. gentleman for Prince Albert liked fishing and had Harrington Lake stocked at public expense with fish for his enjoyment ... That was a shameful incident.
Sir, I tell you that at no time during my period of office, according to the records of the Government of Canada, were fish stocked at Harrington Lake.
I have never, in all the years I have been here, seen such a collection of statements dangerous to the integrity of a member of the House of Commons delivered by a Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


John George Diefenbaker: I only hope that the pit which has been dug will be fully filled before this matter is over. I took the trouble to find out when the stocking of fish took place at Harrington Lake. The National Capital Commission records indicate-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) has the floor on a question of privilege.


John George Diefenbaker: I secured the records. They show that the lake was stocked on April 29, 1967, four years after I had been prime minister, with 7,000 speckled trout, paid for by the National Capital Commission; on October 24, 1967, with 500 Atlantic salmon, paid for by the Canadian Wildlife Service; on October 31, 1967, with 1,000 speckled trout, paid for by the National Capital Commission; and in February, 1968, with 3,000 rainbow trout, paid for by the National Capital Commission. The Prime Minister said how shocking it was that I, at public expense and for my enjoyment, stocked Harrington Lake with fish. He said that was a shameful incident.
I could deal with other statements but will not at the moment because I want the Prime Minister to be here. He is away at the moment. He has every reason to be away, although sometimes there is no reason.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


John George Diefenbaker: When he comes back I want him to answer in this House or in committee for statements that bear no relationship whatever to the facts. This is an
Privilege-Mr. Diefenbaker
appalling thing. Never in all the years I have been here have I heard such things.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: I note the presence of the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer). He has something to answer for in Quebec.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understood from the right hon. gentleman's last remarks that he is reserving any motion which he may propose to move until such time as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) returns to the House. If that is the case, perhaps the matter could be concluded then.


John George Diefenbaker: I want to reserve my right until the Prime Minister's return. I reserve the right to bring in a formal motion then to have this matter placed before the Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: Statements of the Prime Minister have the same weight in the House as if made under oath. That is why it is so dangerous when a member of this House holding that position makes the sort of statements to which I have referred, statements entirely undiluted with truth. I, therefore, sir, wishing to preserve these rights, have brought this matter before the House at the earliest possible opportunity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: Why don't you defend the PM, Mitch?


Mr. Hees:: John, it looks as if you will not have to wait quite so long.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport stated that he would provide the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre with documents relating to CNR pensioners. Members of the Conservative Party are also interested in improvements to the CNR pension plan. I would appreciate being provided with the documentation that the parliamentary secretary will be presenting to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order just raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre may I say that I spoke to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport about this matter and I believe he would be prepared to have the document made an appendix to today's Hansard, if the House agrees. I take it the parliamentary secretary has a document giving details regarding CNR pensions. I should like to request that it be made an appendix to today's Hansard.


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: Mr. Speaker, I do not feel at liberty to table a document that is addressed to the minister. I would be glad to table, later today or certainly tomorrow, the

May 27, 1975
Order Paper Questions
essence of the pension increase, the periods covered and all the other essential information.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. At the moment there is no document in the possession of the House and no document which the parliamentary secretary is prepared to table. I do not see how I can seek consent to table. In light of the parliamentary secretary's suggestion that he may have the document later today or tomorrow, perhaps consent could be sought at that time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, that is what I was going to suggest. It would be appropriate to have this information on today's Hansard. Perhaps if the parliamentary secretary has the document later today, we can revert to the appropriate item and put it in at that time.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[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: 1,807, 2,430 and 2,444.
Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred questions Nos. 2,319, 2,322 and 2,448?
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Has the Department of Public Works purchased, in the past five years, dredging equipment from any private dredging company in Canada and, if so (a) from which firm (b) for what amount (c) for what purpose?
2.	During the past five years, has the government sold any dredging equipment to any company and, if so (a) on what date (b) to which company (c) for what amount?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Department of Public Works and Crown Assets Disposal Corporation as follows: 1. No. (a) Not applicable, (b) Not applicable, (c) Not applicable.
2.	The Department of Public Works has not sold any dredging equipment to any company. Any dredging equipment that becomes surplus to the Department's requirements would be turned over to Crown Assets Disposal Corporation for disposal. In so far as the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation is concerned:
(a) Date	(b) Purchaser	(c) AmountJuly 15, 1969	Government of Nfkt.	$ 1,000.00(a) Date	(b) Purchaser	(c) AmountJanuary 31, 1971	Mr. Gordon Boisseau 1105 St. Cyrille Guest Quebec, Que.	13,110.50June 16, 1971	Province of P.E.I. Charlottetown, P.E.I.	300.00August 11, 1971	Dept, of Indian Affairs and Northern Development Maritime Region	100.00August 11, 1971	Dept, of Indian Affairs and Northern Development Maritime Region	45.00July 28, 1971	Verreault Navigation Inc. Les Mechins Co. Matane, Que.	2,800.00May 1, 1973	Ministry of Transport Quebec, Que.	5,228.00April 10, 1974	Real Rioux Inc. Co. Matane, Quebec	10,150.00April 22, 1974	Oak Bay Marina Ltd. Victoria, B.C.	37,681.00August 13, 1974	West C 'oast Salvage and Cart Co. Ltd. Vancouver, B.C.	8,556.00January 15, 1975	Mr. J. R. MacDonald Charlottetown, P.E.I.	700.00


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): 1.	Is it the intention of the government to permit'CN Steamships to withdraw TSS Prince George from service after its recent small fire?
2.	Has CN Steamships given consideration to the repair of the fire damage to put the vessel back in service?
3.	Is the government aware that the withdrawal of the vessel from service will put 122 crew members out of work as well as office and dock staff?
4.	What steps is the government taking to find alternative employment for the seamen and shore staff?
5.	Is the government prepared to see the carriage of tourists along the Pacific Coast become even more in the hands of foreign flag vessels?


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: Mr. Speaker, in light of the rather lengthy answer, I wonder if hon. members would permit me to table this as read.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: The answer referred to above follows:]
1.	CNSS Prince George suffered a major fire, sustaining damages in excess of $400,000 and rendering the vessel unseaworthy. As a result, the vessel had to be put out of service.
2.	CN has performed an appraisal of the damage sustained. The estimate is that more than two months and a sum of about $400,000 would be required to return the
[Mr. Mclsaac.)
May 27, 1975

vessel to an operational state. As this would place the vessel out of service for about 6 weeks of the season, and as CN had planned to retire the vessel at the end of this season, CN felt that these major repairs could not be justified.
3.	The government is aware of the effect of such a withdrawal and the steps taken to alleviate it.
4.	CN has undertaken a multi-faced approach alleviating any difficulties that may arise from circumstances resulting from the accident. CN will absorb some crew members into the transcontinental passenger train service as stewards. CN will also provide a generous settlement for those employees not wishing to exercise this option. Management affected have been offered early separation settlements or other employment. Seasonal employees have also been given settlements or offered alternative employment.
5.	The government is always seeking to assure the best and most reasonable service for the tourist trade along the Pacific Coast, within reasonable economic bounds. The route is served presently by many other lines, including at least one Canadian line.


Mr. MacLean: 1.	Has a section of the runway at the Charlottetown Airport sustained frost damage that renders a section unserviceable and, if so, does such damage render the runway unsuitable for the operation of DC-9 aircraft?
2.	Will repairs, if necessary, be completed before the scheduled commencement on April 28 of DC-9 service by Air Canada?


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: Mr. Speaker, the answer is as follows: 1. On April 11 a small section of the runway at Charlottetown Airport sustained damage that rendered the area unserviceable for a few days.
2.	The necessary repairs have been made and the runway is back in service satisfactory for the scheduled DC-9 service by Air Canada. The matter of a permanent repair of the runway is currently under investigation.


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval): In the Department of Veterans Affairs estimates, how many of the listed (a) 433 administrative employees (b) 972 Welfare Services employees (c) 452 Pensions employees (d) 122 Bureau of Pensions Advocates employees (e) 6,269 Treatment Services employees (f) 489 Veterans Land Administration employees earn between (i) $15,000 and $20,000 (ii) $20,000 and $25,000 (iii) $25,000 and $30,000 (iv) $30,000 and $35,000 (v) $35,000 and $40,000 (vi) $40,000 and $45,000 (vii) $45,000 and $50,000 (viii) $50,000 and more?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: (i)	(ii)	(iii)	(iv)	(v)	(vi) (vii) (viii)(a)	37	27	11	3	1	1(b)	45	7	1	1	-	- _ _(c)	5	12	27	45	1	- - -(d)	9	18	9	1	-	_____Order Paper Questions	(i)	(ii)	(iii)	(iv)	(v)(e)	50	27	18	27	21(0	55	17	1	1	-
Note: The term "employees" referred to in the question actually refers to man-years. The answer is given as the number of employees.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Have there been any discussions between Quebec or United States officials and officials of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources concerning the location or size of a power line which is to export electricity from Quebec to the United States?
2.	Have any agreements been signed with Hydro-Quebec or the Government of Quebec?
3.	Will the line be constructed by the National Energy Board?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources reports as follows: 1. There have been no formal discussions.
2.	No.
3.	No.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	What are the new rules and regulations in regard to the bilingual requirements under the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act?
2.	What changes have been made in the requirements since March 1, 1975?
3.	What information on such changes is presently available to Canadian businessmen besides a departmental press release?
4.	Will the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs make a formal announcement concerning the rule changes as they have considerable effect on the import of goods to Canada and many Canadian businesses?
5.	In order to alleviate the concern of Canadian importers and manufacturers, will the government give immediate consideration to the early promulgation of the new rules?


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, the answer is as follows: 1. The Consumer Packaging and Labelling Regulations which were gazetted on March 1, 1974, will become effective in regard to labelling requirements for non-foods on Sept. 1, 1975, and for foods on March 1, 1976. They will require that the common name and the quantity of the product be in both official languages. There are exceptions to this requirement, the major one being that prepackaged products manufactured and sold in a local government unit need only have mandatory information in one of the official languages if the population using the other official language represents less than 10 per cent of the total population of the unit.
2. While no changes have been finalized since March 1, 1975, certain proposals for amendments to the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Regulations were published in the Canada Gazette, Part I, April 26, 1975. These include several proposals which would have the effect of granting exemptions from some mandatory labelling requirements for certain prepackaged products.
6156

May 27, 1975
Labour Relations
3.	In addition to a press release, copies of the proposed amendments were distributed to all industry associations affected for the information of their members. In accordance with the requirement of the Statute, a period of 60 days has been provided from the date of publication of the draft (April 26, 1975) for submissions by any interested parties prior to formal promulgation of the amendments.
4.	See answer to number 3.
5.	See answer to number 3.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Charles-Eugene Dionne (Kamouraska) moved:: That this House deplores the fact that the government has neglected to make legislative changes to remedy present problems at all levels of labour activity.
This neglect has resulted in:
(1)	a climate of instability and dissatisfaction for workers and the working class in general;
(2)	the toleration of a system which allows certain union figures to wield powers exceeding their responsibilities;
(3)	the toleration of illegal strikes and work stoppages initiated on any pretext which paralyze or even destroy the economy and the social progress of vast fields of activity;
(4)	a continued opposition between employees and employers instead of the development of mutual aid policies.
To remedy this situation, Parliament should:
(1)	pass measures granting fiscal advantages to employees and employers to restore their motivation;
(2)	effect stimulating measures to increase work attractiveness and professional satisfaction;
(3)	urge corporations to set up employee shareholding and profit sharing programs;
(4)	create labour tribunals made up of experts in employer-employee relations and empowered to set adequate working conditions for restoring mutual understanding and preventing conflicts.
Mr. Speaker, in looking at this motion, we see clearly that we have realized the great difficulties that exist in the employer-employee relations field and that we intend to make suggestions which seem practical to us to improve the impossible situation in which the workers find themselves these days.
For a few years, all observers of the employer-employee relations scene have been able to find out that the great many strikes of every kind, justified or unjustified, establishes clearly that the labour legislation is not suitable for present economic conditions. Today's negotiating mechanisms as they are used are outdated. They talk about strike first, then negotiations. You will probably remember the time when workers who disagreed with their employers negotiated seriously and, as last resort, they thought of going on strike. Today it is the other way around. It is recognized that many demands are sometimes justifiable, but what it is inadmissible it is that unwarranted irresponsibility they show when they call illegal 
strikes if union leaders feel it is necessary, and the only purpose is to put pressure on employers.
In almost all issues of the Labour Gazette, we can read articles that prove the concern that exists in employer-employee relations, Vol. 74, No. 10, October 1974, page 534: Going beyond collective bargaining, by Marcel Pepin, President of the CNTU, an article in which the author admits that union action is political; Vol. 74, No. 12, December 1974, page 666: The collective bargaining crisis; Vol. 75, No. 2, February 1975, page 77: In search of alternatives; Vol. 75, No. 3, March 1975, page 139: New outlook on trade unionism.
In most of these articles, present day difficulties are outlined in the field of relationships between workers and employers. Let me quote two short citations from Mr. Jean Pellerin's article on page 144:
Due to the freedoms and the rights the system recognizes, unions were born and have been in a position to grow freely. If they propose to use these same rights and freedoms to destroy the system that has enabled them to become what they are, they will provoke, not its fall but its hardening.
Already, a trend toward interventionism can be noted. The government must continually involve itself in unions' affairs, and that, at the express request of the latter. It is abnormal.
And yet, we all know that management and workers are somewhat like Siamese brothers: one cannot live without the other. They must be partners in production rather than rivals competing for the profits of the business.
Upon analyzing the wage-price structure, we perforce discover the cycle according to which raw materials coming from the fields, the forests, the ground, the sea or the sky are refined, processed, manufactured, then shipped to the retailer for distribution to the consumer. In their natural state, raw materials cost little or nothing and no price tag can at first be attached to any element such as cost ore from the earth, loom soil, forest trees, fish or sea minerals, the air we breathe. The conquest of raw materials, their processing into consumer products, the subsequent stages of transportation, processing and distribution determine the final price the potential purchaser and consumer must pay.
This listing of the various steps in the processing of commodities leads me to point out an interesting aspect of the Social Credit doctrine of economic distribution based on the value of the collective heritage resulting from the abundant natural resources which Providence so generously heaped upon Canada. Unfortunately, our petty politicians happy in their submission to a corrupted and corrupting financial system keep floundering about in debts, taxes of all kinds, strikes, crime, unemployment, inflation and pollution problems.
It is quite unusual that in a country such as ours there are workers who will have toiled and sweated for years to leave nothing to their sons and daughters but a heritage of debts, misery and hardship. That is why there has to be a reform of the present financial system which no longer meets today's needs.
The contradictions generated by the present system do not make it easy to propose solutions to the numerous problems of the workers. If finance were the faithfull
May 27, 1975

mirror of reality, if a social body automatically issued new credit to finance any new production, there would be no need to abolish capital domination because that evil would not even exist.
Money capital would be raised as competent technicians and workers would start and pursue the development of our country's raw materials and this capital would in turn be at the disposal of those who are thus creating new riches.
All workers of various categories would find an acceptable solution to their many income problems if they finally decided to really get together and change the financial system which is depriving them, instead of going on strike to fight those who are paying them.
On June 15, 1972, I introduced in the House a motion about the possible reorientation of all labour legislation towards employer-employee profit-sharing. My motion read:
That this House deplores the fact that the government has not adopted the appropriate measures for involving workers in Canadian firms through prifit-sharing and stock purchase programs as a means of promoting social stability, reinforcing our country's economy and ensuring greater co-operation between capital and labour.
I had expected the reaction of some members who are too easily satisfied with existing situations, who prefer to take refuge behind the present federal jurisdiction and believe that a labour legislation governing employer-employee profit-sharing comes instead under provincial jurisdiction. I had tried to allocate the respective responsibilities in a problem of concern to all Canadians. Although the implementation of the suggested measures was restricted to industrial sectors under federal jurisdiction and a great many workers were employed in various administrative services, we feel that the government should set the pace by establishing, whenever possible, a profit-sharing scheme for the benefit of workers. There exists a great many ways to favour such participation.
Several Social Credit members had given at that time several good reasons which warrant employer-employee profit-sharing. I had the opportunity to hear a number of excellent speeches from various members, namely the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) who mentioned that incentives and policies should be applied to promote a greater participation in investments by Canadians. .
The Minister of Labour of the day said he was glad that the Social Credit Party through me had asked that the question be debated, since he realized that we were searching for every means to improve labour relations and increase peace in industry. He then pointed out that the federal government's labour relations legislation was promoting a system in which the workers can have their say in the terms and conditions of employment through freely elected bargaining agents.
I take this opportunity to point out several mistakes made in the name of that so-called "freedom". It is a rather disreputed word nowadays, judging from its interpretation by certain advocates of freedom. We know some people who claim the freedom to bring down the system, after having secured from that same system the freedom
Labour Relations
to set up regulations on the compulsory check off of dues. Anything can be said, anything can be written in a democracy, but we find that this freedom is not enough for some. We tend to forget that whatever privileges we have, we got them from someone.
I have here an article published in Montreal's La Presse on June 3, 1972, entitled: "The freedom of others". There are some passages worthy of some thought which I will quote to you:
The post-industrial world is witnessing a strange situation. It finds that the freedom of some people sometimes destroys the freedom of others. Some freedoms do not exist yet. The worker has freedom of association, but not freedom of non-association. Neither does he have the freedom to choose a union other than the one certified where he works.
There is more. A journalist, for example, may break his contract because of a change in the ideological orientation of his employer, but he does not have the right to withdraw from a labour union for the same reason.
Hospital workers have the right to strike, but when they exercise it, they endanger the patients' life, who have a clear strict right to attentive and sustained care. Public servants have the right to strike, but when they do exercise it they are depriving old people, pensioners and welfare recipients from the right to get their always eagerly expected cheques on time.
Air Canada controllers and technicians have the right to strike, but when they do exercise it their action is detrimental to the interests of people living in the North who are fundamentally entitled to supplies. They nearly caused the death of a child because of the impossibility of sending a rare serum by air.
Teachers have the right to strike but when they do exercise it they deprive children of their basic right to a peaceful and stable education.
Post office employees have the right to strike, but when they do exercise it, they deprive the population of an essential service and seriously prejudice many companies who do their business by mail.
It must never be forgotten that "The right to live" for all and everyone springs from a natural right and that must be given priority over the right to strike and other ones.
I am in favour of the right to join a union, having been myself in charge of the Quebec loggers' organization for ten years, that is from 1952 to 1962. I must add that I am still a "trade unionist" but not a striker. I point out the difference.
In those ten years of union work, I sat through several rounds of negotiations with representatives from large lumber companies and we have always been able to agree on improving the living and working conditions of bush workers, and without ever going on strike.
The right to strike is a precious one, but it smacks of blind egotism when it deprives abusively other citizens of their own rights. Who would dare claim that the rights of union workers must take precedence over all others? Would it be that we have a deranged sense of justice? Going through a red light, parking one's car the wrong way, stepping on other people' toes, shouting at the top of one's lungs out on the street, in public places, are serious matters. But it seems people are unaware of the fact that it is far more serious for an organized group of citizens to use their rights at the expense of the rights, every bit as precious, of those citizens who are not organized.
We grant without any hesitation whatsoever that it is quite normal, quite in order to acknowledge the right of all workers to belong to the union of their choice. Still, if we really want to respect the freedom of those very workers, a text of law written in clear and specific terms should
29561-46j/2

May 27, 1975
Labour Relations
also exist mentioning that a worker has the right to join the union of his choice, the right to refuse to join it and also the right to withdraw from it.
The provisions contained in the collective agreements negotiated in accordance with the will of the majority of their free members, could determine the responsibilities of the union members with regard to union check-off. Well understood freedom, in the field of industrial relations as in any other field, involves three aspects which can not readily be separated: the freedom to accept, the freedom to refuse, the freedom to withdraw.
I have read somewhere that one must not be a slave to one's environment but one must transform it according to one's ideal. It is hard to find a good reason to justify the attitude of our governments which did not, at opportune times, pass legislation that would have stated specifically what are the rights, the duties and the responsibilities of everyone concerned in the field of union check-off.
Allow me here to quote the opinion given by Me Fernand Morin, in the 1969 edition of Relations industrielles, volume 24, page 789. This is what he said:
In our opinion, those conflicts and difficulties should have been solved once and for all a long time ago, by a clear and specific text of law. An act that purports to ensure peaceful and fruitful relations between employers and employees but makes no mention of or is ambiguous about matters of such importance is not good enough.
In view of all the restrictions resulting from compulsory check-off formula when applied indiscriminately to all collective agreements in general and since the recommendations made by Justice Rand in his decision by arbitration rendered on January 28, 1946, have not been implemented, even if he took the trouble to specify: "I do not suggest for one moment that this method can be applied across the board," Parliament should determine by means of an appropriate legislation the responsibilities of everyone with regard to compulsory check-offs. If I have time left and if my colleagues allow me, I shall come back to this question of check-offs at the end of my statement.
At this time and under the terms of the motion introduced, I should like to suggest a means which, in my opinion and in the opinion of many people who are familiar with labour-management relations, should restore some order in our troubled times. Any responsible observer will admit that most of our conflicts come from the lengthy discussions and the delays in settling disputes. It seems that this situation will continue as long as real labour tribunals are not substituted for existing bodies, providing all the safeguards of equity that one may desire, and whose decisions will be binding on the parties. Labour tribunals made up of labour, management and government representatives, made up of experts in the field of employer-employee relations must have adequate powers and information enabling them to: prevent inter-union conflicts by laying down a clear and specific procedure making it possible to determine by secret ballot, under the supervision of two members of the labour tribunal, the right of workers to be represented by a bona fide union; to set a period of negotiations not exceeding 90 days between the parties concerned and to provide severe penalties for those who fail to comply with the regulations; to make an adequate evaluation of the profitability of the undertaking or service taking into account the risks of the monetary reserves necessary to maintain the undertaking and

required for income tax deductions and procedures arising from taxation regulations; to determine when required, according to a classification of duties based on the responsibilities of each class of workers, a wage range commensurate with the possibilities of the entreprise and the service and indexed on the cost of living; to require that all strike votes be secret and taken under the supervision of two members of the labour tribunal and that the strike be considered legal only when it is accepted by half-50 per cent plus one-of the employees, and after all the above-mentioned means have been exhausted; to direct the negotiations in the public service area to determine wage adjustments according to varied percentages, by increasing lower wages first, in order to reach a proportional equilibrium between all wages. We do not claim that these labour tribunals will solve all problems, but we have good reasons to believe that they could greatly improve the situation. This is as good a time as any to recall the events that happened at the end of August 1973, here, in Parliament, around one o'clock in the afternoon, when a group of railway employees on strike entered the Parliament buildings.
One may assume that had they been more familiar with the inside of the building, they might have gone to the House of Commons, occupied the premises and delayed the sitting. For the first time since Confederation, the Speaker of the House of Commons and his escort of dignitaries entered by the back door. Such events should make it abundantly clear to the legislator that the labour legislation must be amended as soon as possible.
I said earlier that I would state more clearly my viewpoint on the application of the Rand formula and on the circumstances in which this decision was rendered. I notice that many seem to be unaware of the facts.
For several years, unions have been using the Rand formula to ensure their incomes. On several occasions, they have even gone overboard by setting up what they call a common front.
It would be in order to recall the events that led to Justice Rand's award and to the very specific recommendations he submitted concerning compulsory check-offs.
This formula is named after an arbitration award issued by Justice Ivan Cleveland Rand of the Supreme Court on January 26, 1946 in a dispute between employers and employees of the Ford plant at Windsor, Ontario. The strike of the Ford employees had been going on from September to December 1945 when Justice Rand was appointed artitrator to make a ruling on these issues under dispute. On January 29, 1946, he issued an arbitration award applicable to the parties concerned. The union wanted a union shop clause along with a compulsory checkoff. The union shop clause allows the employer to hire any worker, belonging or not to the union, provided that, within a delay prescribed by the agreement, those employees should join the union, otherwise they are fired. As for the compulsory checkoff, it is a sum of money that the employer deducts from the salary of the worker and returns to the union.
Justice Rand prefixed his ruling with important considerations on the philosophy of labour law in this coun-
May 27, 1975

try. Then he gave his sentence. First, he turned down the request of the union shop clause:
I am unable in the circumstances to award a union shop.
Then he added:
It would deny the individual Canadian the right to seek work and to work independently of personal association with any organized group.
On the other hand, Justice Rand did not hesitate to admit the principle of a compulsory check-off:
My award is a compulsory checkoff upon all employees who come within the unit to which the agreement applies.
Here is the essential part of Justice Rand's arbitration award. Then he added:
I do not for a moment suggest that this is a device of general applicability. Its object is primarily to enable the union to function properly. In other cases it might defeat that object by lessening the necessity for self-development. In dealing with each labour situation we must pay regard to its special features and circumstances.
Furthermore, Justice Rand bound the checkoff with very precise conditions:
1.	Every strike should be called by a special vote taken by the majority of the members;
2.	The union should take the responsibility of stopping any illegal strike or picketing.
3.	Any employee participating in an unauthorized strike should pay the company a $3 fine for every day's absence from work and lose one year's seniority by every week of absence;
4.	Should the union violate the obligations stipulated at subsections 1 and 2, its right to the compulsory checkoff would be suspended;
5.	Every year, 25 per cent of the employees could require a secret ballot to confirm the mandate of the existing union or to appoint a new bargaining agent;
6.	That checkoff clause became a work condition;
7.	All employees had the right to join the union, provided they complied with the by-laws;
8.	Any misunderstanding about a clause constituted a grievance and was subject to a procedure established for that particular case.
Since then, the Rand formula has taken a more restricted meaning. The conditions which Justice Rand had imposed on the formula proposed in a dispute of the automobile industry have been ignored. Today, the Rand formula is nothing else than a compulsory checkoff clause.
This situation has never been cleared. In various occasions, judgments have been made. In some circumstances, they were favourable and, in others, opinions were divided. In spite of precedents from the Supreme Court in particular cases, the legality of checkoff clauses, of which the Rand formula is only one example, continues to be the target for criticism.
It is true that the Rand formula is in force in many collective agreements. However, that does not mean the freedom of the individual is being respected. In various provinces of Canada, the modes of application vary. Among the arguments advanced for mandatory checkoff, it is often pointed out that labour law has progressed.
Labour Relations
I mention in passing that the right to strike also has progressed, and not always for the better.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has now expired. To continue, he needs the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent to allow the hon. member to complete his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Charles-Eugène Dionne: I thank hon. members for giving me a few more minutes to complete my remarks on this very important subject.
One needs only to observe what is happening in this day and age when strikes follows strikes at an alarming rate. It must also be added that union security clauses give union members a feeling of security allowing them to work out a better coordination between business management and workers. It is obvious that unions are assured of a revenue in the form of substantial amounts they receive every month from any employer in employer contributions.
Millions are taken out of workers' salaries every month in payment of union dues.
Note that I am not against the payment of dues to a union, provided the amounts are paid voluntarily and the money collected is used in the interest of workers in general. Unions were formed to meet a need, and I see that that need still exists.
However, we also see that several individuals are members of various associations, such as the Knights of Columbus, the Daughters of Isabella, Chambers of Commerce, and hundreds of others. Generally, people are free to join or leave the association. The freedom of people is fully respected.
The value of an association lies in the value of its membership. I admit that a member drawing benefits from his association must contribute to its operation; on the other hand, if the leadership goes astray, he must not be forced to continue to pay for the mistakes, and that is why we suggest that the government should pass legislation to clear up definitely this matter of union check-off which up until now has stemmed from a precedent, a decision in an entirely particular case.


Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, in following my colleague the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Dionne), I think the first comment is that there ought not to be too much difficulty, even on the government side of the House, in agreeing with the general proposition which is implicit in the hon. member's motion, namely, that labour and management relations in this country at the present time leave a great deal to be desired.
The stark fact, as was brought to light for the Canadian public a few weeks ago, is that presently we have the worst record in respect of work stoppages of any industrial country in the western world with the exception of Italy. It seems to me this is a matter which ought to

May 27, 1975
Labour Relations
concern every member of this House. It ought to, and does, concern the public. I know, from my conversations with men and women in the unions of this country, that it concerns them; and, of course, it also concerns management.
It is not necessary to elaborate in this House on the total collective loss to the community of continued and excessive work stoppages, because all hon. members are fully aware of the hardship, the difficulties, the bitterness and the social strife created by these work stoppages. There is another aspect which I think all hon. members would agree is paramount in our consideration of undue work stoppages. I refer to the colossal waste of our productive capacity and manpower in terms of the men and women in the work force.
It is interesting that the history of work stoppages in the last several years more than illustrates the fact that we have a serious problem. The House of Commons has been called together to legislate the end of work stoppages a number of times since the summer of 1972. In October, 1972, the House of Commons ended the longshoremen's strike in eastern Canada. The House of Commons ended the railway strike in August and September of 1973 by legislation. Further, the House of Commons ended the strike of the grain handlers on the west coast in 1974. Since then the House of Commons again acted in respect of the longshoremen on the west coast and ended that lawful strike. Just recently the House of Commons ended the lawful strike of the longshoremen operating at the three river ports of Trois-Rivi6res, Quebec City and Montreal.
The apologists for this particular method of ending labour strife believe an ad hoc approach of this sort is the most effective means of responding to a difficulty while at the same time retaining the respect and the right of free collective bargaining with the mutual or collateral rights of walk-out and strike. However, if I may say so, those who cling to that position-I know there are some on the government side of the House-are a long way behind public opinion, because clearly the public has little sympathy with an absolutely unstructured method of solving work stoppages which affect either essential services or the totality of the public interest. I say very pointedly to my colleagues on the government side that despite what some of the apologists for the government may say, there is growing doubt within the cabinet itself that the present ad hoc system is adequate.
As some hon. members know, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) some months ago delivered a confidential document to the cabinet in which he very honestly faced up to some of the specific problems. I shall quote a paragraph of that document and ask government members especially who are sometimes too quick to support the present ad hoc system, which I do not think is satisfactory, to note it because it comes from a document that is before the cabinet today. I quote:
There have been disruptive work stoppages this past year and I sense growing pressure to review and revise labour relations law and policy-to have another task force research and produce volumes. The Woods report was very useful and the studies are still relevant. That work led to a comprehensive revision of our labour relations code which came into force after intensive lobbying less than twenty-four months ago.

The minister goes on, I think quite properly, and says:
It does not answer all of our problems and in our democratic society it never will-not if the hope is for a quiescent work force and a strike-free economy.
That is the end of the quotation. So, there clearly is a recognition on the part of the government of the day, despite statements made by some of its own members, that the government or at least the Minister of Labour is not satisfied with the present ad hoc method of solving these crippling work stoppages when they affect essential services or, as I said before, when the total effect of the strike may not confine itself merely to essential services but affects the national interest.
Therefore, I think it is true to say that there is far greater agreement that we must find a better way, among all members of this House, the public, members of the labour force, management and other interested groups within our community, than is now apparent. This better way has been apparent to us for quite some time and it is interesting that the Minister of Labour, in the document sent recently to his colleagues in the cabinet, referred to the Woods report.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: He stole our policy.


John Allen Fraser: My colleague is suggesting that the minister stole our policy. If the minister wishes to pluck the policy out from under us, we are prepared to look the other way or we are prepared to give it to him. It is interesting that the minister has said the Woods report is very useful and the study is still relevant. The minister should be bemused at hearing these remarks because today the first page of the business section of that very reputable gatherer and purveyor of news, the Globe and Mail, contains this remarkable headline, "Council established in hope of reducing stoppages in work". I quote from the article:
The federal government has established an industrial relations council of union, management and government representatives to examine ways of reducing work stoppages and labour strife and of improving the work environment.
It is interesting that the article goes on to say:
Labour Minister John Munro will be chairman, according to Gordon McCaffrey, special assistant to Mr. Munro.
I want to say, on behalf of my party, that whatever surprise we may have in finding that many years after the Woods report came out the minister is beginning to implement parts of it, nonetheless we congratulate him sincerely on taking this very excellent recommendation from the Woods report and implementing it into policy at this time. On page 170 of the Woods report the authors of the report said:
To ensure that the members of the commission-
That refers to the Public Interest Disputes Commission of which I will have something to say in a few minutes.
-have the confidence of the parties as well as the public, the Canadian Industrial Relations Council, the creation of which we recommend later, should be consulted in their selection. Once appointed, such members should have the equivalent of tenure-
Then if we read page 214 of the Woods report we see that in paragraph No. 769 the authors recommend the establish-

ment of a Canadian industrial relations council, and I quote:
Departments of labour and industrial relations in general have been well served by labour-management advisory committees in a number of jurisdictions in this country and abroad. We recommend that such a body be established at the federal level in Canada and that it be termed the "Canadian Industrial Relations Council". The council would be able, on its own initiative or on the request of the department, to examine all manner of industrial relations issues and to offer its advice and counsel, especially on proposed policy and program changes.
Then it lists further details of what the council would do. In the document to which I refer, which the Minister of Labour submitted to his cabinet colleagues some weeks ago, he outlined some of the difficulties facing the world of work, if we want to use that phrase, at the present time and on page 3 of that document he says, with considerable accuracy:
Some of the problems are of a structural nature in that there are too many bargaining points, too many bargaining agents and unions. The result, as any holiday traveller in Canada knows, is something as exciting as the Olympic lottery. As he embarks on his holiday, confident that the airline pilots are working and that the machinists are also on the job, there just may happen to be a walk-out of ticket clerks and other personnel. And even if all of these private sector employees are on the job, the trip could still be placed in jeopardy by collective action taken by air traffic controllers, technicians, airport electricians or firefighters. There are similar difficulties in the movement of grain-
I will say something about that in a moment.
-with risk of its steady flow being halted, if in the long stream handling the commodity, there is labour peace on the dockside but not on the ships or the waterways.
I would ask all hon. members, especially those on the government side, to take note of the next paragraph. The minister says:
It is clear that the system today lacks coherence and has a great potential for conflict.
On page 4 the document to which I refer goes on to say:
I am proposing, therefore, the establishment of the Canada Labour Relations Council as a mechanism that will go beyond one-shot, crisis or ritual consultation.
Our own objectives for the council would be:
-an alteration of bargaining structures so as to reduce the number of bargaining points,
-the utilization of structures for on-going relationships,
-to persuade the parties to adopt alternative modes of settlement of disputes so as to lessen impact of conflict on others if not on themselves,
-to ascertain what additional programs and services we should be providing in the way of support,
-to maximize the use of collective bargaining as a means of dividing the national product in a fair way.
So far as this party is concerned, at least as far as the minister has gone with respect to the direction in which the government is going the minister and the government have our support; but we are a little astounded to find, when we read pages 170 and 171 of the Woods report, that the things the minister is referring to today, in 1975, in his cabinet document were set out as part and parcel of the recommendations, considerations and deliberations of the Woods report which came to the government in 1968. I will not take the time to quote them, but they are there for hon. members to read.
Although I am a relatively new member, it was interesting for me to listen day in and day out, month after month,
Labour Relations
for the last number of years to Liberal candidates and Liberal members over and over again saying that the Woods report would not work. We remember ministers of the Crown saying that it would not work.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I remember that.


John Allen Fraser: Others in government have said that only rarely do we have to bring in legislation to end strikes and the ad hoc system we have followed is the best. However, the facts have overtaken them, and in the absence of any structured system which in an effective way involves labour, management and the government, the so-called ad hoc, occasional piece of legislation to end strikes has become a recurring pattern and it shows every sign of increasing. So we say that we support the minister and his recommendations but we ask him to remember that we have been saying since 1968 that this should have been done, and the government has said over and over again that it could not be done.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The government forgets bad meat, too.


John Allen Fraser: I know that the Minister of Labour will speak to us this afternoon. When he does, I wonder if he would elaborate on an article which appeared this morning in the Globe and Mail with respect to the industrial relations council which has just been announced by the minister's special assistant, Gordon McCaffrey. In this regard, it would not be amiss to suggest to the minister that when an important statement like this is to be made, it might be preferable that it be made in the House of Commons, with notice to the parties.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Allen Fraser: I say this conscious of the fact that the minister has known for some months that I have had his document and I am fairly familiar with the details. In any event, I think it would be in order if the minister were to elaborate this afternoon or, if this is not the occasion, if he would shortly make a statement on motions to explain the purpose and direction the government wishes to take, even though this is obvious and has the support of our party.
There is another matter which I think is of considerable importance, Mr. Speaker, and it fits in with the general tenor of the motion of the hon. member for Kamouraska. I refer to the question of illegal strikes. As the minister said when talking about the right to strike, that freedom, while unchallenged, is not absolute. The legal right to strike is not absolute, I think most people would agree, when it infringes to an inordinate degree on the public interest. But there can be no question about illegal strikes.
An extraordinarily interesting address was delivered at the convocation at Simon Fraser University, in Burnaby, British Columbia, last Saturday which I had the privilege of attending in an official capacity. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada made a speech which was short and very much to the point. He said that if because we did not like a law, or thought a law inconvenient, or for any reason decided we could ignore a law, such an attitude would inevitably destroy the social fabric of the community and put an end to our freedoms and liberties. It is a

May 27, 1975
Labour Relations
sad commentary on the state of affairs in Canada when the Chief Justice of Canada has to make such a remark under those circumstances. There is no question in my mind that the Chief Justice was saying something which he thought had not been said clearly enough by others in the community and had to be said by the highest ranking judge in the country.
One of the difficulties is that the procedures by which we have passed back-to-work legislation leaves a great deal to be desired in the wording of the clauses and in the measures used to force union members back to work. While our party supported the recent legislation affecting the St. Lawrence Seaway workers because we believed that the farmers of Quebec had to get the grain, we are not happy with the form of legislation presently being used to force workers back on the job. That legislation requires us to apply for a court order to be served on the union or union members requiring them to return to work. If they do not obey this order, then they have to brought back to court where they are treated as if it were a traditional case of contempt. I suggest to the minister that there is good reason why this particular form of legislation ought to receive further consideration. The contempt process of the courts ought not to be used to interfere in a union-management dispute. The courts are reluctant to do this.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret having to interrupt the hon. member, but he would only be able to complete his remarks with the consent of the House as the time allotted to him has expired. Is there consent to allow the hon. member to proceed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for their generosity. I would ask the minister to consider this point. There has to be a more effective way of having the law take effect immediately, otherwise there is an inclination to delay obedience to the law. Such an example to the rest of the community is not to be tolerated. I will not be much longer, Mr. Speaker, but I want to raise with the minister another item which appeared in the Globe and Mail this morning. The minister or his friends must have been very busy these last few days because there is more labour news in the Globe and Mail this morning than there has been for weeks. One headline reads, "CLC plans talks with grain handlers on strike problem". The article begins:
The Canadian Labour Congress plans to hold talks soon with affiliated unions involved in the movement of grain to seek some co-ordinated approach to collective bargaining. The move is an effort to avoid a succession of strikes affecting grain shipments.
The article does not suggest that this has taken place as a result of the initiative of the Minister of Labour, and I am sure the minister is not so modest that if he were behind it he would not say so. If he had something to do with it, of course, I commend him and compliment him on his initiative. I also want to commend and compliment my colleague the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Hurlburt) because he has been advocating this approach for a long time. On May 20, as reported at page 5905 of Hansard, he said:
Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to present a motion under the terms of Standing Order 43. My motion concerns the sale and delivery of our grain to foreign customers. The foreign exchange earned by our grain

sales abroad is vital to our economy at any time; these sales are especially vital when this country is running a present trade deficit which economists forecast can only worsen. Recent failures to meet our delivery commitments due to lawful strikes within Canada in grain delivery operations have seriously hurt our grain sales efforts; already foreign buyers have gone to rival producers. Not only has our whole economy been injured but our farmer-producers have had to pay millions of dollars in demurrage charges.
In a matter so important to all Canadians, we cannot afford labour-management confrontations where there are no winners, only losers. I suggest that organized labour must be made a party to our international grain sale negotiations. Therefore, I propose to move, seconded by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Hamilton):
That the government immediately invite organized labour to participate as a party in contract negotiations for the sale of Canadian grain to foreign buyers, to the end that grain movement is guaranteed to meet delivery commitments to foreign purchasers despite any lawful strike.
Unfortunately, as seems to happen too often, the hon. member's motion did not receive unanimous consent. It is a matter of some comfort, however, to see the headline a week later in the Globe and Mail, "CLC plans talks with grain handlers on strike problem". The hon. member for Lethbridge deserves credit. He nudged the minister, who in turn nudged the CLC into acting. Hopefully, we shall witness some degree of co-operation which will end the chaos of recent years.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I, too, welcome this opportunity provided by the motion of the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Dionne) to express my views on the industrial relations issues covered by his omnibus motion.
The point that should be made at the outset is this: the hon. member's motion seems to assume that most of the troubles now besetting labour-management affairs are susceptible of legislative solution. The implications of the motion are that all problems in this field are the result of government failure to provide the right kind of legislation, and that the problems can be solved by the enactment of appropriate new laws or the amendment of existing laws. This shows touching faith in the power of legislators. I only wish it were well founded.
The fact remains that we are dealing with some very complex socio-economic developments and they do not lend themselves to quick, easy or arbitrary treatment. At most, legislation can provide a suitable framework within which the parties themselves can work out a satisfactory and constructive relationship. This is the philosophy embodied in the Canada Labour Code. Its preamble refers to "the encouragement of free collective bargaining and the constructive settlement of disputes." It declares its support for the principles of freedom of association and free collective bargaining as the basis of effective industrial relations.
This government has always supported, and will always support, these basic principles. We do not believe that in a democratic society the relations between labour and management can be determined by legislative fiat. This belief has not been shaken in the least by the disturbing increase in the number of industrial disputes and work stoppages in recent years. These signify a weakness in the collective bargaining system or, rather, its inability in its present form to cope with the increasing strains imposed on it by a
May 27, 1975

rapidly changing society with its growing interdependence and technological advances.
We agree that there must be reforms. The structure of collective bargaining and of industrial relations in general must adapt to the new challenges and complexities that now confront it. But that does not mean we should legislate away basic rights, abandon our faith in the ability of the parties to accommodate their conflicting interests, and try to substitute a Big Brother-like regimentation of all labour relations activities. In a democracy, change-if it is to be durable and acceptable-must come from a process of consensus; and that applies even more forcibly to the volatile world of labour-management affairs.
My department quite openly identifies itself with the interests of the labour movement. We exist to foster and facilitate its legitimate objectives of promoting the welfare of working people. We consult with labour leaders on all aspects of policy affecting their members. We have in recent years expanded this kind of consultation in an effort to involve organized labour in the discussions and dialogue that form such a vital part of the decision-making process of government. We make no apologies for this policy and we intend to develop other channels of consultation with labour and, of course, with employers as well.
As a result of the greater frequency of strikes-particularly those that interfere with public services-many people are complaining about what they perceive as the exercise of excessive power by unions. The hon. member makes this point in his motion. There is a clamour in the press and in the legislatures and in some company boardrooms to curb this alleged abuse of union power. The motion we are debating today reflects that feeling when it refers to "certain union figures wielding powers exceeding their responsibilities."	-
This conjures up an image of autocratic union leaders bullying their reluctant members, feeding their aspirations with unreasonable wage demands and goading them into strike action against their wishes. This stereotype of the average union leader bears no resemblance to the world of reality. The average labour leader of my acquaintance today is trying to curb his members' expectations and militancy, not stimulate them. He is trying to dissuade them from adopting unrealistically high demands. He is doing his best to avert strikes, not start them.
There are, of course, exceptions. A few well publicized union leaders are speaking and acting irresponsibly. A few are guilty of inflating their members' bargaining objectives and of inflaming their distrust of the employer through misrepresentation and distortion. These few are the ones you read about. The vast majority who are conducting themselves responsibly-who are much more typical of union officials-get little attention in the media. They are too lacking in controversy to make news.
Actually, a good case could be made that most unions and union leaders, far from being too powerful, are not powerful enough. One of the main reasons for the multiplicity of strikes now being experienced-especially those that occur successively in the same industry-is that collective bargaining is splintered among so many different bargaining units. Power, instead of being concentrated in
Labour Relations
one union or one bargaining unit, is diffused among several organized groups.
When we talk about the need for industry-wide bargaining to do away with this fragmentation of contract negotiations, what we are in effect advocating is the concentration of more union power. This would repose in the central union leadership, rather than in the hands of numerous small union fiefdoms, the power to bargain for all the workers in an industry. Strikes would be fewer and would require the approval of a majority of the entire work force instead of a majority of each small subgroup.
I am not implying that all central labour organizations lack power under the present bargaining structure or that they are not sometimes guilty of abusing their power. We have only to look at the revelations of the Cliche commission in Quebec to see how corrupt, venal, unscrupulous leaders can gain control of some unions and misuse their power to the detriment not only of the industry and the economy, but of their own members as well. Although the rot that permeates the construction industry in Quebec is outside the federal jurisdiction, it does serve as an object lesson of what can happen when rank and file unionists lose or surrender their democratic rights. It also underlines a glaring omission in the internal mechanism of the labour movement in Canada-the lack of a code of ethics and the means to enforce it.
The reticence of the Canadian Labour Congress preceding and during the Cliche commission hearings-as well as its aloofness from the latest controversy involving the Seafarers' International Union-has not been particularly impressive.
If the congress does not set up the needed internal machinery to expose and correct wrongdoing among its affiliates, it will have no one to blame but itself if governments are compelled to step into the moral vacuum and do the clean-up job the labour movement neglected to do. Government intervention of this kind should be a last resort, undertaken only when the central labour body has attempted to institute reforms and failed. Because the CLC has no ethical standards or mechanism for policing them, the government intervention to which labour objects remains the first and only corrective available.
This is not to convey the impression that corruption is rife among CLC affiliates. Far from it. The vast majority of affiliated unions, locals and union officers at all levels are scrupulously honest and honourable. We all know that. Their over-all record for integrity, I am sure, would match that of any other institution or section of society. This is all the more reason, of course, for the honest majority of unionists to act quickly to rid their organizations of the minority of those whose interests and actions do not reflect those of the membership.
Time does not permit my dealing as extensively as I would like with the prevailing myth that excessive wage settlements are the main cause of inflation, that they are running at double the average rise of wages in the United States, and that they threaten our competitive advantage over the Americans.
I would refer hon. members, instead, to two articles in the Financial Times, one by Peter Cook on April 21, the

May 27, 1975
Labour Relations
other by Don McGillivray on May 19, which go far to debunk this myth about allegedly excessive wage increases. Mr. Cook quotes figures to show, first of all, that inflation in Canada "is under better control here than in Europe or Japan"; secondly, that our strike record is not nearly as bad in terms of international comparisons as had been thought; and, thirdly, that the rise in wage costs in Canada has been lower than in all countries except the United States and West Germany.
In his article, Mr. McGillivray admits that Canadian wages have been rising faster than those in the United States, but so has our productivity. In the five years 1969 to 1974, Canada's real gross national product, eliminating all inflation, grew by 23 per cent, as compared with a growth of only 10.2 per cent in the American real gross national product. Mr. McGillivray also points out that when the statistical distortions are removed, average Canadian wage gains have been running at less than 1 per cent ahead of those in the United States over the life of collective agreements, instead of the widely but incorrectly reported double the United States figure. I am not implying for one moment that all settlements are reasonable; some are obviously not, and these remain a matter of real concern. I think this myth about Canadian wage settlements being double those in the United States should be laid to rest right now.
The motion before us refers to an alleged "toleration of illegal strikes" by the government. I would challenge anyone to substantiate that charge. When parliament has acted in cases of economic crisis to enact back-to-work legislation, defiance of the legislation has met with the appropriate response to enforce compliance. This action may not satisfy the authoritarians. It may not appear to be sufficiently prompt or punitive. However, it has been taken in the most feasible way to ensure an orderly resumption of work without going to the harsh extremes that prolong, rather than end, the dispute.
We must always remember that ad hoc, strike-ending legislation, while it may sometimes be the last unavoidable means of protecting the public interest, is a poor substitute for voluntary agreement. I agree with the spokesman for the Conservative Party, the labour critic, in that regard. It necessarily imposes a settlement that is not freely accepted by one of the parties, usually the union. It appears to the labour movement to be a one-sided intervention by parliament on the side of the employer since it takes away the union's sole bargaining lever and forces the employees back on the job against their wishes.
This brings me back to the question of what the government, and my department specifically, is doing to bring about the needed changes and reforms in our particular labour relations system. We are convinced that the system can be improved to meet the challenges of the times and that it can best be done through consultation with the participants. This is a slow and often tedious process, but in our opinion it is the only way. It involves much more effort and time than would be involved in passing the kind of legislation called for in the motion before us.
The goals of the proposed legislation are in some respects admirable and not far removed from our own objectives. However, they cannot be accomplished unilaterally, without involving the parties in the decision-mak-

ing process. It would be convenient, as the motion urges, to set up "tribunals made up of experts" to devise the new approaches and policies required. However, there are no real experts in the labour-management field; there are only people with enough knowledge of the complexities to know that there are no simple answers to be handed down from on high.
We hear today that the public is fed up with strikes. This has been said repeatedly and to a degree it is true. However, this is an oversimplification and one might ask: If the public is fed up with strikes, why do we have strikes? When we speak of the public, we cannot segregate working men and women in Canada from the public.
In most strike situations today, working men and women are fighting for more dollars to keep ahead of the inflationary spiral that is plaguing this country and indeed the western world. There is another underlying cause for the labour unrest we are experiencing today. As society changes, traditional job values change and people become, rightfully or wrongfully, dissatisfied with their place in the pecking order, as basically we still relate salary to status. We have not yet reached, if we ever will, the millennium or Armageddon described by Alvin Toffler in "Future Shock" where people will have to be paid a salary to stay home and our whole status of values related to wages and salary will have to change.
With larger segments of our working force moving to the service sector of our economy, strains have developed. Those engaged in some services feel there should be drastic changes in the pecking order. A few years ago snide remarks were made about the work of the garbage collector. In today's society we find his work can be pretty important if garbage is piled in the parks in the summer months when he decides he is entitled to more dignity, which in today's terms can only be accomplished through the status of a higher wage. The same holds true for hospital workers and, indeed, the trained nurse-whose skills are greatly needed-takes the position, why the great disparity between her salary and that of the doctor with whom she works?
Traditionally, remuneration has been based on higher education. It was the hope of every working father to be able to put his children through university so they would not have to toil with their hands and they would enjoy the status delegated to those with degrees by our society. I sense the winds of change taking place in this country. Perhaps we will have to pay a premium to those we ask to bend their backs and toil with their hands. Perhaps we will have to pay a premium to those who keep unpleasant things out of our sight, such as garbage, and to those who look after our sick and aged in hospitals and old age homes. It is all very well for us to sit in this House and express horror at certain percentage increases without examining the base rate. We might have different ideas of what our percentage increase should be if we were handling bedpans in hospitals or clearing the garbage from the streets.
Our problem is that as people fight to better their position in the pecking order and correct long-standing inequities and anomalies, other highly organized groups within the work force say, "Traditionally our wages were such a percentage higher than this group, and we must
May 27, 1975

maintain the differential." We are going through rapid change in this country and all the gnashing of teeth and wringing of hands will not prevent changes from taking place.
I say to those who suggest instant answers to these problems through legislation or other means that they are either naive or foolish. Over my years in the House I have heard at one time or another the whole range of fantasy from compulsory arbitration to an industrial disputes commission. If solutions are to be developed, they will have to be developed by the social partners, labour and management, acting in unison with government. Only in this way, through participation, can we achieve the commitment to make policies work. It is for this reason that we are in the process of establishing a tripartite type of council to cope with the problems now besetting us and which will intensify in the next decade. I have high hopes for this council, but let me sound a note of warning. The adversary nature of our industrial relations system, which has been fostered since the days when working men had to meet secretly to discuss their conditions of employment, will not be dissipated overnight.
It would be premature to speculate on what the council will deal with, but among the things it may well turn its attention to is the creation of an independent research institute which would be the source of reliable and generally accepted data on which the parties could agree as the basis for negotiation.
Another area where experimentation is long overdue is that of industrial democracy and job satisfaction. I am glad to note that my colleague, the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey), plans to give the concept of workers' management a trial in the Post Office. I wish him every success and trust this will be the beginning of a new era in labour relations.
I see in these initiatives the prospect of getting at the root causes of the labour unrest which the motion decries. What we have to do is to provide the stimulus, the framework and the resources which will enable the practitioners themselves to alter their thinking, their traditions, their bargaining structures. At the last meeting of the tripartite council I attended, I was mightily impressed by the tremendous enthusiasm of both labour and management, the determination to get on with the work of the council and give it the time and resources necessary to get on with this type of job because they fully realize the challenges which must be met if we are to maintain a free, collective bargaining system which we all value so highly.


Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Dionne) for introducing this motion into the House at this time. That is about as much as I have favourably to say about what he said. He has introduced the matter at an important time. I must say his interpretation of the Rand formula going back to 1946 pretty well left me astounded, because he does not seem to have understood the difference between a closed shop and a union shop. To say, as he said, that he rejects dues payments that would be irrevocable, or what he calls compulsory-which is called the agency shop in the
Labour Relations
United States-and to say he is all for dues being voluntary, is just to say what the management of the United Aircraft plant was saying at Longueuil-now Pratt and Whitney-to the workers there.
I do not think he would say that to the medical profession or the legal profession, and so on, who would not accept into their ranks, into their types of unions, people who would only voluntarily contribute to the good of that union. Mr. Justice Rand, in his famous decision in the UAW case in 1946, pointed out that workers who do not belong to a union and insist there be freedom of decision on their part nevertheless have to recognize that the union is a group working on behalf of the workers, and as such gets certain benefits through the collective bargaining process and these benefits redound to the benefit of everyone in the bargaining unit, so workers who do not want to join the union must at least pay union dues if they are to get the benefits the union provides. In trying to bring about a compromise, he said it is unquestionably right for the people who do not want to belong to a union to be protected, but at the same time they must make a contribution in terms of union dues since they will get the benefit of the work of the union acting as an agency on behalf of all the workers.
Some hon. members know about the compulsory arbitration system under Australian labour courts and tribunals that has been tried, and I for one am very leery to see too much legalism put into trying to reach a compromise between labour and management in such situations in a free society. The fact is we have too much legalism, in my opinion, in the situation now. Labour courts or tribunals are not going to help very much.
The last part of the resolution the Social Credit party presents, urges corporations to set up shareholding and profit-sharing programs, and so on. I think we can go along with that within a certain framework and subject to certain constraints which I will mention as I go along. The point I want to make, as far as the Progressive Conservative spokesman is concerned, is this: I take little objection to what he said. I was glad to hear him remind the minister that the tripartite council he proposes was something coming out of the Woods report, and althought it is a very belated recognition by the minister of this important suggestion, nevertheless we all agree it should have a valuable role to play.
The spokesman for the Progressive Conservative Party notes the colossal waste of production because of the number of man-hours lost through strikes, illegal and otherwise. We all know that this type of statistic is easy to get at, and in parallel we should also note-and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) should recognize it when he makes a speech as he did today-that when you deliberately create unemployment as the government did in 1971 and 1972, and as they are doing now to fight inflation, you should have a figure amounting to $5 billion or $10 billion for goods and services lost through unemployment.
My point is that the amount of production lost through strikes is always noted, but very seldom the amount of goods and services lost through the deliberate creation of unemployment in the economy. I would agree with the minister, though, that we should not be looking primarily for a legal solution in labour-management relations.

May 27, 1975
Labour Relations
I was quite surprised but pleased to hear the minister refer to the myth that has been propagated, that Canadian wage settlements are double the rate of United States wage settlements. He said he wanted to lay that myth to rest once and for all. I wish he would tell the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) about this, because the Minister of Finance has been propagating this notion all across Canada. Every editorial I have read keeps repeating that labour wage settlements are pricing workers out of the market. On more than one occasion the finance minister has said-I have questioned the Minister in the House on this-that the major cause of inflation in Canada is wage settlements achieved by unionized workers. This is why I wish the Minister of Labour would bring the matter to the attention of the Minister of Finance. Certainly, I hope that in his forthcoming budget there will not be a repetition of what the Minister of Labour is now calling a myth that needs to be laid to rest.
In referring to the difficulties presently existing in labour-management relations in Canada, the minister noted that the structure of unions in small bargaining units is something requiring serious consideration. The minister is all for more concentration in bargaining units so as to give, he hopes, union organizations more weight, which will cut down on labour strife. He also mentioned the lack of a code of ethics for the CLC and referred in particular to the construction industry in Quebec. I suggest there is an analogy here, one the minister might have brought out, with what took place in the United States in the 1950s when corruption became such an issue among the unions there that the AFL-CIO started to police themselves by setting up their own code of ethics.
The minister also mentioned the drastic change that is taking place in the pecking order, as he put it, and said workers today want a certain dignity. People in the so-called dirty jobs, like garbage collection, want a higher place in the pecking order. We do not disagree with this, but it strikes me that there was a notable omission in the minister's remarks in reply to the hon. member from the Creditiste party who introduced this motion, and the spokesman for the official opposition. I refer to the fact that he failed to mention that inflation was one of the dominant reasons the unions are asking for such high wage settlements and are so disturbed.
I suggest to the minister that if someone in his department researched this question, he would find a very close analogy between today and 1946-47. Incidentally, if I may return to the minister's argument about wage settlements in Canada not being so far out of line with the United States, this very point was made by my parliamentary leader in a debate on May 14 last, as reported at page 5794 of Hansard, the fourth paragraph. I am glad to hear that the minister agrees with my parliamentary leader on this subject, but again I ask him to make the situation known to the Minister of Finance.
To return to the question of inflation, recently Dr. Donner, an economist, wrote a comment in the Globe and Mail regretting the amount of industrial unrest in Canada today. In his article he makes the same major criticism that I have made of the minister's remarks today. He says:

Unfortunately, the hostility now arising is being directed at particular groups, such as big unions or big government, though rarely is it ever directed at the real culprit in the picture-Canada's high rate of inflation.
I should like to add to that Canada's high rate of unemployment is also causing insecurity among people who are already working. Not only do they fear prices going even higher, so they try not only to catch up but to anticipate future increases, but they fear that the many hundreds of thousands of Canadian workers who have already been laid off will create insecurity in their communities that will flow over into labour-management relations. Dr. Bonner goes on:
Indeed, with the benefit of hindsight, it is clear that it is the gross under-anticipation of the high rate of inflation of the past several years, as well as the efforts to catch up with the lost real earnings by labour, that are now at the centre of the industrial turmoil.
Management was no more perceptive than labour in evaluating the accelerating pace of inflation of the past two years, although management was more quickly able to capitalize on the excess demand pressures of 1973 and early 1974 by increasing prices ahead of rising costs.
We know, of course, that there is a very strong statistical correlation here. When the business cycle moves up, big business can increase their prices and this results in the abnormally high profits that were present in the Canadian economy between 1972 and 1974. It is true that in the first quarter of 1975 the profits of many firms went down, but this is just a phenomenon of the business cycle in a serious recessionary phase. Dr. Donner goes on to say, and it is very important that parliamentarians recognize it:
Labour tended to be locked in by one and two-year contracts, and many of these contracts in the recent past did not have adequate inflation escalation clauses . . .
Moreover, when the ratio of profits to GNP declines sharply, as it did in 1970, and when the labour movement feels that it must catch up with past real income losses, it is not surprising to see the number of man-days lost because of industrial disputes reach high levels. In 1975 we could see the number of man-days lost reach as high as 13 million, 260 per cent above the average for the period 1963 through 1974.
I am making this long quotation from Dr. Donner's editorial because he speaks with wisdom and because the minister failed to deal with this matter in his remarks today. I am happy to see that as a result of high inflation and unemployment, labour and management are getting together. I hope the government will take some of the recommendations flowing from the Woods inquiry and apply them to the labour scene at the end of the 1970s and the beginning of the 1980s.
As far as I am personally concerned, the major cause of industrial unrest in Canada today is, as Dr. Donner points out, our failure to anticipate inflation. I remember during the last election campaign that members on the government side were saying that they could not do anything about inflation. Then we come to this parliament and the Minister of Finance brings in his first budget and says we have a cost-push inflation: then it is a wage-push inflation. The ball game keeps changing every few months. He was still expecting the United States to rescue us from our own problems, which have become worse.
I am not contending that there are any easy solutions to inflation in Canada or anywhere else in the world but I am saying that countries like Germany have done a much better job of managing their economy than we have. We in
May 27, 1975

this country have had a repetition of much the same kind of policies that we had in 1971 and 1972, although not as restrictive as that period. One would think that the government had learned their lesson; they were almost thrown out of office in 1972. Since we are 3 Vi years away from the next election, the government probably feels more secure today.
The high rate of inflation in this country, coupled with a high unemployment rate, make a much more serious contribution to industrial unrest and to the kind of illegal work stoppages we have been experiencing than any other one variable mentioned this afternoon. I repeat for the second or third time that I am surprised the Minister of Labour did not make this point an essential part of his argument. But once again I congratulate him for having the courage to say that it is a myth that Canadian wage settlements are far out of line with United States wage settlements. That should mean that no one, including editorial writers and people in the government, can any longer try to make labour the scapegoat for our problems.
It was interesting this week to watch the minister and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) working hard around the country trying to sell the notion of industrywide bargaining. The minister developed that idea this afternoon and I was pleased to hear him do so. But I would consider it a little premature or presumptuous on the part of the Minister of Labour and the Prime Minister, having announced the establishment of a tripartite labour-management-government advisory council, to then suggest or tell that council that industrywide bargaining is the solution to our problems in the labour-management field. What makes them so sure of that? There are many examples of industrywide bargaining in the United States which would indicate that it could create even more difficulty. This matter is so complex that it has to be looked at very seriously by the experts in this complicated field, although the minister and the Prime Minister did not suggest that this should be done earlier this week; they just offered it as a solution.
I think we are facing the danger of creating an oversimplified panacea, which obviously the minister should want to avoid. It is all right to look at the Canadian steel industry, as one journalist pointed out today, in terms of industrywide bargaining. This type of bargaining seems to be made for that type of industry in which the firms in Ontario control 70 per cent to 80 per cent of the production of all steel products in this country. But what about Dofasco which never had a union organization? How will you get industrywide bargaining in a situation like that? What about Sidbec, in Quebec, which is owned by the provincial government? What about our provincially-owned poor version of Sidbec called Sysco? The federal government practically washed its hands of that when it refused to allow the Cape Breton Development Corporation to take over the steelworks. I say that despite intermittent DREE grants made to Sysco.
I give the federal government full credit for setting up the Cape Breton Development Corporation, but it took away one of its most important controlling aspects when it did not allow the corporation to take over the Sydney Steel Works, forcing that industry back on a relatively
Labour Relations
financially weak province which did not have the civil servants, expertise or the know-how to tackle the difficulties in creating an internationally competitive steel industry. We are paying for that failure in Nova Scotia today.
When we talk about industrywide bargaining, these are some of the critical problems involved. We have to be very careful now even talking about voluntary arbitration as a good solution. I know George Meany in the United States came out in favour of this, but let us not do the work of the council before it even sits.
Having said that, let me congratulate the minister for having accepted the recommendation of the Woods report and setting up the council and making it a reality. If this is a by-product of the labour unrest due to our inflation and high unemployment, all well and good. I think the references in the resolution to industrial democracy in terms of profit-sharing and workers' shares should be seriously considered by this council as a tool for bringing labour and management together in the 1970s and the 1980s. I join with the minister in wishing the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) well in his attempt to make industrial democracy work in the Post Office.
Perhaps I could just have one or two minutes more, and I will be through, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: The hon. member's allotted time has expired. He can be allowed to conclude his remarks if there is unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Andrew Hogan: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and fellow colleagues. I just want to make this point about the profit-sharing scheme mentioned in this resolution. I think shares going to the workers is a fine idea and I am all for it. I think if we had had some workers on the board of directors in the Cape Breton situation, the 1971 fiasco there would not have happened. I do not want to take the time of the House by going over that matter now, as time is pressing.
Let me remind Social Credit members and everyone else here of what the minister implicitly mentioned today. He said that in no way should these things such as profitsharing be substituted for collective bargaining as a key implement in our free society. They are good ideas so long as they are not used to subvert union organizations or the organization of certified unions. Having said that, let me suggest that I feel there is a conservatism in the trade union movement, coupled with excuses for not attempting to establish industrial democracy, which are the kinds of things the minister's council well have to consider and overcome in their attempts to accomplish what has been suggested along the lines of the last part of this resolution. They are all part of the over-all picture.

Labour Relations



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please. I interrupt the proceedings of the House to inform hon. members that pursuant to Standing Order 40 the questions to be raised tonight at the time of the adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leg-gatt)-Environmental Affairs-Reason for failure to adopt standards for asbestos fibres under clean air act-Possible protest from United States; the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay)-Air Transport-Suggested separate ministry for civil air transport-Government position; the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan)-Income Tax-Decentralization of data processing-Possible establishment of office in Atlantic region.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Dionne (Kamouraska):
That this House deplores the fact that the government has neglected to make legislative changes to remedy present problems at all levels of labour activity.
This neglect has resulted in:
(1)	a climate of instability and dissatisfaction for workers and the working class in general;
(2)	the toleration of a system which allows certain union figures to wield powers exceeding their responsibilities;
(3)	the toleration of illegal strikes and work stoppages initiated on any pretext which paralyze or even destroy the economy and the social progress of vast fields of activity;
(4)	a continued opposition between employees and employers instead of the development of mutual aid policies.
To remedy this situation, parliament should:
(1)	pass measures granting fiscal advantages to employees and employers to restore their motivation;
(2)	effect stimulating measures to increase work attractiveness and professional satisfaction;
(3)	urge corporations to set up employee shareholding and profit sharing programs;
(4)	create labour tribunals made up of experts in employer-employee relations and empowered to set adequate working conditions for restoring mutual understanding and preventing conflicts.
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate to stress some features in the brilliant demonstration by my colleague for Kamouraska (Mr. Dionne).
Mr. Speaker, my party is privileged to show once more, with a certain amount of courage, some of the ills that, unfortunately, there is a tendency to ignore. The present

labour situation is so clear, so obvious, that it is not longer possible to be satisfied with suggestions that problems are complex, that there are no miracle solutions, and so forth. To keep on saying this is simply to admit the situation. The present nightmare in certain areas, and especially in Quebec, is so horrendous that the time has come to wake up and find solutions. It is all the more easy for us to talk about it as we have been referring for years to this extremely bad situation, at the risk of being labelled at times anti-labour and anti-worker, which is totally inaccurate. When we take such positions, it is to defend the worker himself who is being mocked in the process. If this kind of condoning goes on, if the government in particular remains negligent as we feel it is in that area, our democracy might be over and done with.
Concerning the second consequence of the neglect we refer to, the toleration of a system whereby certain labour leaders wield powers exceeding their responsibilities, we are now experiencing such a consequence of the failure of government leaders.
When certain labour leaders, specifically those who were responsible for gangsterism in James Bay, who in the course of simple labour conflicts caused tremendous property damage totalling over $35 million, when these same individuals are expected to decide today whether or not the Olympic Games will be held in Montreal in 1976, is this not giving them a responsibility that is not theirs? Have these people not proved by their former behaviour that they are far from having the qualifications required to take such responsibilities?
Such is the situation, Mr. Speaker. Who in this House can now say whether the Olympic Games will be held in Montreal in 1976? Who can state positively that they will be held as planned and at the date which has been set? No one can say so, no one can be certain. Why? Because certain union people can decide otherwise. If this is democracy, Mr. Speaker, where is all this leading? If this is respecting the rights of labour, where is all this leading?
Mr. Speaker, it is now time for us to truly take our responsibilities and to truly defend those who need it. Mr. Speaker, have you noticed that the conflicts which cause the most perturbations in our society are most often those which draw no sympathy from the population? To mention only one example, when the Montreal firemen decide to have a work stoppage, legal or not, since today no one cares whether they are legal or illegal, and ask $16,000 instead of $14,000 or $15,000, Mr. Speaker, who can sympathize with them? We understand the responsibility to fight fires, to protect homes and material, with one call a week or every two weeks, while the rest of the time is spent playing cards or dice, this is what it means to be a fireman.
Then how can they hope to gain the sympathy of the population when there are still small wage-earners who work from morning till night to earn the minimum wages and whose income will increase only because the provinces have now decided to raise the minimum wages. In my constituency, there are still small industries which pay minimum wages. If those were the people we have to defend, if those were the people who were asking for better wages, everyone would sympathize with them and, as the minister said, it is obvious that certain categories of manual workers, like the garbage collectors or those who
May 27, 1975

do the cleaning in the hospitals, deserve much more our consideration and, consequently, maybe a higher income.
[DOT]	(1720)
We agree that those people need help to balance their income with regard to other trades or professions. But it is not in such cases that the disruptions ar worse. It is always in cases when workers are well-paid and do not ask for more. Usually it is a small group that stirs up trouble and under the pretext of some social revolution, wants to separate the working class from the worker's true objectives thus taking simply advantage of an extraordinary force that was obtained through the force of circumstances. And now I would like to make mine an editorial that appeared in the December 1974 issue of Opinion Canada, in which is stressed a point which, in my opinion, is very true:
Trade unionism has for a long time been viewed favourably by the public due to the fact that the workers were deemed to be the scapegoat of management and of big companies that often seemed to have the support of governments and of police forces to victimize them and reduce them to a state of helplessness.
And the editor goes on to say:
It was an illusion. On the contrary, history shows that in North America, successive liberal governments, in Washington as well as in Ottawa, have not sought to victimize trade unionism, but to promote it, by legislating in order to enable it to resist the assaults of all-powerful multinational organizations.
American and Canadian laws have widely contributed to give the unions the power they now enjoy. Power and a certain degree of immunity have made major labour organizations arrogant, and the increasing number of strikes in the last few years are a major factor in alienating public sympathy from the unions. In reply to a recent Gallup poll on the confidence Canadians have these days in labour unions and large corporations, only 10 per cent answered they had great confidence in the labour unions, and only 8 per cent in large corporations. Those figures reveal less confidence as compared with preceding polls; a similar decrease was also noted in the United States in recent years.
To go back to my quotation:
People are starting to get the impression that unions strategies, which in the past proved themselves in private enterprise, are become overbearing and indefensible when aimed at public services.
It would seem that the time has now come for governments to help the unions find new bagaining and negotiating formulas for the members assigned to those services.
Mr. Speaker, how true those specific points are. There were confirmed once again a fortnight ago by a survey conducted scientifically in Montreal which proved in addition that the vast majority of the people, and what is more, the vast majority of the union workers and specifically those of the QFL, are calling the shots in the field of construction in Quebec. Ninety-five per cent of those very workers replied that they were against the methods used in labour negotiations, in other words, that they were against their union leader. Not so long ago, on May 1st at the Paul Sauve Centre in Montreal, one Mr. Laberge, president of the QFL was unable to address a crowd made up exclusively of union workers.
[DOT]	(1730)
This indicates that labourers as such as well as the Canadian people in general want these things to end. We are here it seems to help the people through legislation, through example. This is why I think the government
Labour Relations
should never have had anything to do with these rights given to public servants.
Mr. Speaker, as my colleague from Kamouraska so well underlined, there are priorities which must be taken into account. Are we going to condone the exercise of a right when rights which are still more fundamental are at stake? No one will ever make me admit that the right to strike should be extended to firemen, for example, when the very day they did strike-and I refer to a specific incident which happened in Montreal, damage by fire ran into several million dollars. The strike of policemen is another illegal strike, in Montreal too, which resulted in disaster and crime. Terrible things happened at that time!
Mr. Speaker, I shall never tolerate that, bringing someone to hospital for emergency treatment, pickets decide whether the patient will be admitted or not. There are limits! We do not deny workers the right to unionize, to defend their interests, but we are absolutely against the social unrest that those rights could create. We do not want to do away with the right to strike, but as my colleague for Kamouraska said, we must try to adopt by legislation such effective means that the right to strike could become outdated.
Indeed, in 1975, it is completely unacceptable in our advanced society that we are still using old fashioned processes to solve a labour dispute, as it were impossible to hold meaningful negotiations. Mr. Speaker, people work backwards not even thinking about negotiations, about getting together in order that both parties, employer and employees, come to an agreement on a reasonable contract. No, they go on strike right away, no matter if it is an illegal strike! If they have to book sick to do so, no problem. That is the situation we are denouncing, because it upsets and disrupts the economy, as we know that in 1974, 9,255,120 man-days have been lost in this country. Where are we going now?
We can understand why the worker is demanding job security, that he is trying to oppose automation because we have not yet established a guaranteed minimum income plan to allow him to take advantage of the automation and not to be a victim of it. We have always stated that if machines take the place of men, the products of machines must be distributed to the workers. That is clear and those are the policies that should have been established.
However, Mr. Speaker, and I will conclude on this, what is the actual reason for all those disputes? Simply that employers and workers try to have a guaranteed income, they try to have more advantages, but it is impossible within the present system. Why? Because banks consider money as a commodity, an actual value, and this is not true because it is a relative value. They try to maintain money in great demand. And people need money as they need food products or any other product. That allows banks to increase their power and their control over the whole community. To that end, they tighten or ease credit so that prices grow faster than incomes. That is the basic issue, Mr. Speaker.
It is the basic economic problem, the real cause of labour-management conflicts. Workers and employers are fighting over an inadequate purchasing power. In such circumstances, it is impossible to find a satisfactory solu-

May 27, 1975
Labour Relations
tion for all. Before considering a solution to the labour-management problem, we should relieve the artificial pressure exerted on the economy. When the purchasing power will have reached the production level, the present struggle to appropriate an inadequate money supply will have ceased.
That is the real reason. We realize that the workers seek a higher income and want job security, while the employer is trying to produce at a competitive cost. Such being the case, according to the motion, the government is to be blamed for being negligent, unconcerned and tolerant to such an extent that drastic measures are now required. The fact remains however that the government can be sure that steps in that direction will get the massive support of the people.
Mr. Speaker, coming back to the example given a moment ago, if the Olympic Games do not take place in Montreal in 1976 because a small QFL group has so resolved, you can be assured that any government that would end these absolutely equivocal, inadequate and inappropriate situations would receive tremendous support from the whole population, and that, without any mental reservation. This is what we must keep in mind and any government action should be oriented toward policies of this kind.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that this motion supported by different points will be well understood. We have spoken plainly because we want the members of parliament to grow aware of problems that are continually cropping up: longshoremen strikes, railway employees' strike, postal employees' strikes. And the minister said a moment ago that if the people do not want strikes, they have to bring about a change! But, Mr. Speaker, people have elected us to do this job. They have elected us to change what is wrong. Sometimes, people find it difficult to communicate in times of dispute. If there is a dispute in the Post Office Department, one cannot write to the minister. If there is a dispute in the telephone system, one cannot get in touch with the minister. As I said, all these strikes disrupt the social and economic life of our country. They have to come to an end and we hope that through this motion, all members of parliament will become fully conscious of the seriousness of the problem.


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the constructive tone of much of this debate, although it is true that in the speeches of the Social Credit members, and especially in that of the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte), one does not sense a great sympathy for the aspirations of labour unions and members of labour unions.
It is also true that the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan) brought an unduly sharp note into today's proceedings with his parading of some doctrinaire nonsense about the economic policies of the government at the present time, alleging that the government is following restrictive policies similar to those which it followed in 1971. If the hon. member does not know, everyone else in the country knows that the government has been following an expansionary policy, and the gener-

al criticism is that the policy is so expansionary that it has been causing more inflation.
The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond also spoke about the subject of inflation. I have no particular quarrel with what he said in relation to the effect of inflation on labour contracts, but he treated us to a collection of truisms in his lecture on economics. The fact of the matter is that the debate today is not on the subject of inflation but rather, given the existing degree of inflation, what should be the response in the area of labour relations, and I regret that the hon. member did not devote more of his time to that subject.
Nevertheless much of the debate has been constructive, and I think the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) was right, for example, in pointing to the difficulties in the form of a legal settlement which was used in the Montreal longshoremen's strike, a form which led to an application to the court in proceedings analagous to those seeking an injunction. I think the decision of Chief Justice Deschenes in that case goes a long way toward establishing this procedure on firmer ground. I very much doubt whether we will have that kind of problem again. Nevertheless the means we choose to settle strikes, when parliament is occasionally called upon to intervene, must be kept under continual review.
I could not agree with the hon. member for Vancouver South on the reason for the address made recently in his home province by the Chief Justice of Canada. He suggested it was because of the lack of such statements by other people, members of the government in particular, that the Chief Justice had found it necessary to address himself to the subject.
The Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) has many times, especially recently in the case of the Montreal longshoremen's strike, enunciated the supremacy of the law and his expectation that the longshoremen would return to work. The Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) found himself in a small amount of hot water for so enthusiastically proclaiming the virtues of the law in the Montreal situation, but the court quite rightly exonerated him of any attempt to interfere in the judicial process. The fact is that the government has been very strong in its position on this subject. I think it is not fair, therefore, for the hon. member for Vancouver South to suggest that this was the motive of the Chief Justice; his motive obviously was that one more authoritative voice, especially the supreme judicial voice of the country, might well be of assistance in dealing with the mood of disrespect for the law that sometimes asserts itself in various parts of the country.
Despite the constructive aspects of this debate there is, nevertheless, an over reliance on law by many of those who spoke before me. I sometimes think that we ought to have a debate in this House on the limits of the law. Certainly there is no area of human endeavour in which the law must tread more softly than the area generally described as human relations. And hon. members realize, of course, that labour relations are a particular case in the field of human relations.
The hon. member for Vancouver South fell into this error of excess in a previous debate in this House on April
May 27, 1975

23. I am sorry to embarrass him in his presence, but I want to recall to him the words he uttered on that occasion. As reported at pages 5126-7 of Hansard for that date, the hon. member said:
If we are to bring in legislation four weeks after a strike affecting the national interest takes place, is it not more logical to anticipate such a strike before it takes place, to pass legislation and not allow it to happen in the first place?
An hon. member says we cannot do that because it would interfere with the right to strike. What can be more ridiculous than knowing you are going to do in the end but not doing it at first and allowing the situation to go on and on; and then, after the damage has been done, coming before the House and saying piously, "We have decided we cannot stand it any longer; we must act".
It is an undue reliance on law and an interference with the due process of collective bargaining to suggest that there should be general legislation which, in the first instance, before any labour stoppage had taken place, would say to the members of the unions, "You shall not exercise your free right to bargain collectively by going on strike."
The reason the government sometimes has to decide after a number of weeks or a number of days that the situation is such that it must be dealt with by way of legislation is not, as the hon. member for Vancouver South suggested in his previous address, that the government is moved by popular clamour; rather it is that at a certain point it becomes obvious the strike is not going to be settled by the process of free collective bargaining. When the government comes to that conclusion, then, and then only, is it possible for the government to take the position that it should interfere with the normal process.
The Finkelman report which is being considered by a committee of the House seems to many hon. members to take an approach which is unduly legislative and regulative in recommending the appointment of a public commissioner whose powers could easily have the effect of undermining the collective bargaining process with the risk of jeopardizing any chances for a real labour-management relationship. The recommendations in the report would also impose more severe penalties. It seems to me this is not the general solution to the kind of problems we are facing.
The resolution presented to us today by the Social Credit Party and as developed by their speakers, especially the hon. member for Champlain, is an extreme oversimplification of the effect that law can have in the area of labour relations.
Generally speaking, there is a movement today to what we might call decriminalization, a movement which in the area of criminal law realizes that many things which have previously been subjected to criminal penalties should be no longer so subjected; a movement which, in the recommendations of the law reform commission, would change the character of a number of regulatory offences so that they would be less criminal or not criminal at all; a movement which in the area of administrative law, particularly with regard to fair accommodation practices, has seen all provinces try to rely on conciliation methods rather than on the harsher methods of the law, except as a last resort.
Generally speaking most of us in the House have remarked that from their position on the omnibus Crimi-
Labour Relations
nal Code bill, of 1969 and onward, members of the Social Credit Party have been unsympathetic to this whole contemporary movement, and it does not surprise us that they take the position that in the area of labour relations solutions are to be found through the law. The fact is that the Social Credit proposal if taken literally, especially the proposal to create labour tribunals to settle practically all matters normally subjected to collective bargaining, would destroy collective bargaining.
The situation in Canada is not as grim as is often supposed. It is generally said that some nine million man-days of time were lost in the last year through strikes, and that this is a larger number of days than was lost in the previous year. In fact, this is not a very exact test. Let me indicate what those nine million plus man-days represent. They represent some .46 per cent-less than half of 1 per cent-of total working time, and less time than is lost through accidents and sickness. In 1969 we lost exactly the same proportion of total working time; in 1970 it was .39 per cent; in 1971, .16 per cent; in 1972 .43 per cent, and in 1973, .30 per cent.
The figures go up and down from year to year but it should be noted that the number of man-days lost under federal jurisdiction in 1974 was not only very small, 323,000 days in total for the public service as well as areas under the jurisdiction of my minister, but this was a very considerable decrease from the number of man days lost in the previous year. If this were to be taken as a test, the Department of Labour obviously did a better job in 1974 than in 1973. I would suggest, however, that the Department of Labour had many other bases on which to base its reputation in its seventy-fifth year of service to Canada. The use of this kind of test would be an over-simplification. All you need is one long strike and you have a lot of man-days lost. For example, the higher number of man-days lost in 1974 is attributable to the large number of man-days lost in the forest industries of British Columbia which, incidentally, are not under federal jurisdiction. When something like this happens occasionally, the number of man-days lost is magnified.

Indeed, if we establish more industry-wide bargaining, as the government hopes, we might even have more man-days being lost, in the sense that when there is a work stoppage the number of man-days lost would be greater. Again, that is not the test which ought to be used. The test is whether the system, according to all criteria which can be applied to it, is working effectively.
We, on this side of the House, are not satisfied with how the system is operating.
The minister advanced a number of proposals, both today and previously, for solving some of the difficulties we face. His chief proposal was, of course, the establishment of the Canada Labour Relations Council, which has already begun its important work. In addition the minister wishes to encourage more ongoing bargaining so that the collective bargaining process does not begin merely when the collective agreement is completed; rather, he wishes to encourage closer relations between labour and management during the currency of the contract.

May 27, 1975
Labour Relations
Indeed, as shown by the progressive steps the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) has taken with respect to the concept of workers' management in the Post Office, the government in its own bailiwick is adopting the most contemporary and enlightened views on industrial democracy. That subject has caused even some members of the New Democratic Party, which has shown some understanding of labour matters, to become overly legalistic. It is one of the most cherished theses of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), the House leader of that party, that industrial democracy should be legislated. I can only say that we should approach industrial democracy legislation with as much caution as we approach legislation having to do with all other areas of labour relations. In this area the government should give leadership and encouragement, but it should not attempt quickly to adopt any legislative formula which might be considered as an easy solution to our present problems.
I see that my time has almost expired. As I want as many hon. members as possible to participate in this debate, I shall say just a few more words in conclusion. In my view the law in this field should be as minimal as possible. The government should provide as much encouragement as possible in the field of labour relations. Labour relations, being really human relations, are a field in which the expression of human freedom is of paramount importance.
Those who know the history of the labour movement, of workers in this country and, indeed, of all western countries, know how sensitive workers are on the subject of legislation. Only comparatively recently have they attained the right to the collective bargaining system which they now enjoy. For more than a century the working classes of all countries struggled hard to become free of repressive laws. Those on this side of the House do not propose to subject them ever again to such laws.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, as it is almost six o'clock, may I call it six o'clock?


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


Some hon. Member:: Agreed.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Discussions among those here at this time reveal that there might be a disposition to agree to a 15 minute limit on speeches for the rest of the evening to allow more members to take part in the debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: The House has heard the suggestion of the parliamentary secretary that

speeches be limited to 15 minutes for the remainder of the evening. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, the motion before us is a timely one, no doubt prompted by the growing labour unrest in the country and particularly recent events in the province of Quebec.
As I read the motion, the mover, the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Dionne), indicates its content that he is hoping there will be some urgent government action to deal with the problem of growing labour unrest-in the province of Quebec, mainly because of the threat to the Olympic Games. We are faced with a situation there where, in order to keep the workers on the job, it has become necessary to introduce a police state with three levels of police supervising the construction site of the Olympic Games to exclude trouble makers. This indicates the degree to which labour relations have degenerated in this country. It is not something that has come about overnight. It is symptomatic of the general unrest in society which is a part of our industrialization and urbanization process.
In a recent speech the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) referred to our emphasis on material values that is creating a situation of rising expectations, which has resulted in the current stress in our society. All sorts of solutions have been put forward. The socialists look toward Utopian economic solutions. The communists have authoritarian solutions. The resolution before us, and this has been mentioned by several speakers, suggests that we might resolve the problem by legislative action. No one else agrees that that is the solution. While there is a commonly used phrase that says "there ought to be a law against it," I do not think that any legislative provisions can deal adequately with the deteriorating labour situation that confronts Canada at the present time.
There is a fundamental change in values, a breakdown in the traditional hierarchy system where wages used to be related to education, and also a decline in the work ethic. We have a situation where the working poor who stay on the job are in a worse position in terms of income than those who decide to take advantage of unemployment insurance. These are all symptoms of the degree to which the problem has developed in this country. It is aggravated by rampant inflation.
Just as an example of how inflationary expectations have become built into our economy, I was shopping in my constituency yesterday and I made a little purchase. There was one price of $5.50 and another price of $4.50 on the box. This is a very simple little souvenir, a letter opener, which is now selling for $5.50. When I asked the salesgirl, who was going to charge me the new price of $5.50, why the increase, she said the latest inventory indicated there should be an additional dollar increase. This product is distributed by one of the large companies in Canada which also manufactures beer. I do not know whether it is a head of barley or wheat in the handle, but it is an indication that inflationary psychology is rampant. It is a problem that must be dealt with if we are going to come to grips with the current labour unrest in this country.
May 27, 1975


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Is the government to blame?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) asks if the government is to blame. Just look at the rapid rise in government expenditures and I think you will see where the main problem lies.
While the motion emphasizes legislative solutions I think we all agree that what is required is skill and sensitivity in human relations, along with goodwill and good faith which can only be produced by improved working conditions which help to relieve the monotony of the assembly line approach to modern industry, introducing repetitive monotony into the manufacturing process, and in particular a sense of community.
The government in its statements thus far today has adopted simplistic solutions. Always under pressure, the government feigns a flurry of action. As has been noted by previous speakers, there have been several announcements, as reported in today's Globe and Mail. One of the solutions is a labour council that will bring together the diverse groups in the bargaining process. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacGuigan) pointed to this as a major breakthrough in dealing with the problem. Obviously it is hardly enough to scratch the surface.
One of the people who has been most critical to the government approach to the problem has been the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey). He has been locked in debate with the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien), who has great responsibility in matters of labour relations in the public service. I quote from an article in The Ottawa Journal of October 11, 1974, by W. A. Wilson, as follows:
The new President of Treasury Board, Jean Chretien, has said firmly and publicly that the government should not be the best employer in the country. This is a somewhat old fashioned view which has respectable antecedents but which is probably much less generally accepted than it would have been 25 years ago.
The new Postmaster General, Bryce Mackasey, facing the challenge of bringing to an end a long period of internal strife and deteriorating service in the Post Office is firm in his view that all things considered the government must be the country's best employer.
"The government can hardly go around . . . telling private enterprise that they must be good employers if they're not the best employers themselves," Mackasey said in a recent television appearance. Chretien's contrary view was expressed with equal firmness in a radio broadcast last weekend.
Here is a problem right in the bosom of the cabinet, and it will have to be resolved if we are to come to grips with the breakdown in the collective bargaining process in the public service. The situation at the moment is best described as an adversary system where the union leader becomes the organizer of discontent rather than one who helps bring about a consensus.
There has been a deterioration in the public service since 1967 partly because of the frustration created by the attitude of Treasury Board. I have several clippings from the Globe and Mail which relate to this aspect, and one of them is dated April 23, 1975. It reads:
William Ladyman, a Winnipeg employee relations consultant, says the federal Treasury Board may create "absolute anarchy" in the
Labour Relations
public service if it continues to act as bargaining agent for the federal government.
Mr. Ladyman, formerly an international vice-president of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and now a consultant... says the Treasury Board's ineptness and "plain stupidity" have precipitated most recent strikes by various groups of federal employees.
Unfortunately we are now confronted with a situation where the attitude is "strike first and negotiate later". One of the reasons for our present difficulties may be that the system which has been applied to the public service was developed in the private sector and does not fit four square into the public sector. Those of us who have been active in the committee which is considering the Finkel-man Report, for example, have discovered that there really is not a bargaining team which meets all the requirements of an adequate collective bargaining process. Management and labour do not, in fact, confront one another. Other weaknesses were discovered-failure to deal with grievances, failure to use the pay research bureau to establish comparable rates outside the service, an inability to deal with illegal strikes, and so on.
One of the witnesses who appeared before us was a representative of a public service union. He pointed out that most of the employees who go out on an illegal strike feel a deep sense of guilt if they are given a two-dollar parking ticket. Yet their attitude is such that they blithely go out on an illegal strike and seriously disrupt the economy in Canada. The only solution offered by the government so far has been to ask parliament to pass ad hoc back-to-work legislation-not a rewarding course to take in the long term. Obviously, though legislation is not the complete solution, the law will have to be brought up to date; present circumstances demand nothing less.
May I refer now to the Post Office and what is happening there. The Postmaster General has been recognized as one of the more progressive members of the government in the area I have outlined. The Post Office itself is one of the more visible arms of the public service. Unfortunately, it has been neglected for some 80 years.
Members of the Letter Carriers' Union voted 81 per cent to ratify the agreement which was reached with them a short while ago. It was a fair settlement. Let me quote from the Courier, the official news voice of the Letter Carriers' Union of Canada-this is the edition of March-April when they were getting set to strike:
We will probably be in a legal strike position when this issue of the Courier reaches you. Several months ago each local received an L. C. U. C. strike manual explaining how to organize for this period. By now, your strike committee should be well organized, your picket captains appointed and your picket rosters brought up to date. All your strike machinery should be well oiled and ready to move if the employer forces us to use our strike mandate.
Well! Fortunately, it did not go in that direction because a spirit of goodwill and good faith was introduced into the negotiations, with the happy result I have mentioned.
Now the government is engaged in critical negotiations with the Union of Postal Workers. One of the fundamental issues is the issue of automation. This will be a real test of the government as represented by the Treasury Board, the postal officials and the Postmaster General, in bringing about the new spirit which is required if we are to see a happier situation in the collective bargaining process in the public service.


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in this debate and congratulate my good friend and colleague, the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Dionne), on the motion he introduced this afternoon.
Mr. Speaker, it is an opposition motion that we wished to bring before the House for a long time. Today its importance and its urgency can no longer be ignored. For some time, we have noticed an increase in labour-management disputes in this country. Consequently, our party thought it advisable to draw this House's attention to some suggestions which we feel would result in more harmonious relations between management and labour, above all in fields where profit sharing can be applied.
Mr. Speaker, before coming to the heart of the matter, I want to say that as the time allotted to me is very limited, I shall restrict myself to one aspect of the motion, employee profit sharing, while also referring to the necessity of a labour participation in the development of Canadian business. But before considering this aspect of the motion, it would be appropriate, I think, to review the current situation.
Mr. Speaker, we all know that anybody who actually wants to work in Canada must first of all submit to a union, that is, join a union. In other words, he must pay monthly dues. In Quebec, it is called the Rand formula, but in fact they are union dues. We really believe that compulsory union freedom, established by the provincial legislatures in Canada, goes against the Canadian bill of rights. Therefore, it seems natural that the people are entitled to demand the abolishment of the compulsory

check-offs; otherwise, it is clearly a serious breach of the worker's freedom of non-association and, in the end, the security of this country is greatly threatened by the power of union leaders.
We have no objection to workers being free to belong or not to unions. What we really want, is that they remain free. On the other hand, we oppose what is now happening. Because, in our view, when one feels compelled to pay dues to some union, although it does not fulfill one's objectives, this is highly similar to the franchise in communist countries.
If we are really intent on upholding private enterprise and on giving back their freedom to workers in the process, in order that the people be finally assured of having at all times the services they are entitled to, there must be an immediate end to the Rand formula of compulsory check-offs now in use in Quebec.
According to a Canadian Institute of Public Opinion survey published in The Citizen, of May 3rd, a majority of the people are in favour of a curtailment of strikes. Most Canadians, that is 56 per cent, wish that strikes be forbidden in essential services.
Approximately a third of the people, or 34 per cent, feel they should not be prevented, and 10 per cent have no opinion. Those figures are almost unchanged from a similar survey conducted in 1972, although our economy is faced with labour conflicts.
If I remember correctly, at that time some 57 per cent of the people felt that public service employees should not be allowed to strike. And further back in 1969, the figures were approximately the same.
Indeed, I read on March 5 in the Montreal Star that a survey by the Canadian Institute of Public Opinion indicated that 37 per cent of the people were severely hit by strikes in the three preceding months, either in their jobs or in their lives.
If we start with the fact that in Canada, there are now approximately 14 million adults, we can see that more than 5 million Canadians have had to reduce in some way their standard of living. Now, if we glance at the number of man-days lost because of strikes or lock-outs, we can see that Canada would hold first place for this doubtfull distinction in the western world if it were not for Italy.
This is not very reassuring if we consider that by the end of the present year, the economic rate of growth in Italy will probably have gone down by 3.9 per cent from 1973. In 1973, 5,776,140 man-days were lost, while in 1974, the grand total of man-days lost was 9,255,120 days. If we go further, from 1901 to 1970, an average of 1,332,740 man-days were lost. From 1946 to 1970, there was an average of 2,527,410 man-days lost, and from 1960 to 1970, the grand total was 3,351,490 man-days lost.
We can therefore note, Mr. Speaker, that these figures clearly show the dramatic increase in the number of man-days lost because of strikes or lock-outs. Despite the very high number of man-days lost in 1970, the average from 1901 to 1970 is just over one million. This is due to the fact the number of man-days lost during the last year is extremely high compared with that of the previous year.
May 27, 1975

In fact, this explains why the average is lower than the figure for 1970.
I recognize, Mr. Speaker, that in view of the contradictions of the present system, it is not easy to suggest solutions to the many problems of workers. Yet, we of the Social Credit have been advocating for many years serious solutions which could solve all this. Indeed, one of these solutions would be to allow Canadian workers to share in the profits and the interests of businesses.
Moreover, we also know that the monetary reform of the Social Credit, by permitting a fairer distribution through social security of our country's wealth, offers an alternative which is attractive for Canadians who want to protect their individuality. However, a reform of the monetary system will never bring about real social peace, that is true justice, if a few individuals continue to control all the means of production. In this case, society will always be at the mercy of the owners of those production means and the workers will still remain second-class citizens.
In fact, I believe that the only way a true social peace might be established is by setting up profit sharing programs for the Canadian workers. Therefore, the real solution is not in the sole ownership by the state, as required in a socialist system, but in a collective ownership.
Mr. Speaker, in 1889, at the International Convention on profit sharing which took place in France, profit sharing was defined in this way:
A freely accepted agreement by which the employee receives a pre-established share of the profits.
At the same time, The Council of Profit Sharing Industries, in Chicago, has given the following definition:
Any method by which an employer pays or makes available to his regular employees, besides their normal wages, immediate or differed payments based on the corporation profits.
Mr. Speaker, in the magazine UAction Nationale, in the February 1972 issue, Father Jean Genest gave a remarkable analysis of the changing philosophy concerning the participation of the workers to the development and the profits of Canadian corporations. Here are some excerpts of that article:
. .. makes it a duty for those concerned: "sharing has become a human right. Every man is equally originator, responsible and recipient of the collective work. Every man therefore has the correlative right and duty to participate in that work. In that sense, participation must be considered in terms of right for those concerned and not in terms of duty for the management. Participation must even include a change with the structures of the undertaking. Those new structures must help initiate a dialogue. However, it must not give rise to the sharing of sovereignty." We could discuss at length whether such participation is a right of the labour force, but it remains that business heads on the whole have more often acted according to their interests rather than their duty. Today, we can no longer overlook the labour views. Their systematic refusal to take part in a certain management of the undertaking is often the main reason which has prompted the labour force and their unions to join socialism and in its extreme form of communism. Their unassumed social responsibilities, great and serious, lead us to a decade of violence and confusion. We must act.
... The second aspect of social development is the profit-sharing of workers. Profit-sharing is usually divided into three main forms:
(1) an outright cash bonus as soon as profits are declared, according to a preset percentage; (2) a form of bond saving given out on the occasion of an illness, termination of work or on retirement; (3) the allocation of the firm's shares known as employee shareholding which has the merit of making employees legal owners of the firm as the other shareholders.
Labour Relations
These three forms of profit sharing have a very powerful psychological and social effect first of all through the interest sharing of the employees in the firm and the participation which makes the whole staff jointly responsible to one an other. Among these three forms, bonus, savings plan and shareholding, the latter two have held the greatest attention."
Mr. Speaker, this is not the only existing program concerning the profit sharing of employees. There is in the United States another program which is even better known and is advocated by Louis O. Kelso. Besides, the Kelso Plan can be summarized in a few words as follows.
Since Mr. Kelso recognizes that workers happen to put less and less energy into salaried production, mostly because machines and automation replace them, and after having easily observed how industrial concentration is going on, he came to wish that all workers were capitalists, while being provided with means of becoming shareholders in the companies employing them.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw your attention to one of the suggestions contained in the Kelso Plan which reads as follows:
Recognition by the government of the duty that falls upon it to ensure all members of society a reasonable participation in the production of wealth so as to enable them all to make a decent living.
One can easily imagine that everybody is looking for that, since all Canadians, whoever they are, want to receive an income which will permit them to live.
In a speech which the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) delivered at the Craig-Alien Golf Club, in Woodstock, Ontario, on May 8, 1974, we find the following statement:
Worker participation is one of a number of areas which are of special concern to myself and my department. The others are job satisfaction, job security, the need to extend unionism, and the work environment.
Further on, we find this other statement:
Unfortunately such programs of worker participation are still not too prevalent in Canada. Many more companies, in my opinion, should take an active interest in the areas of job enrichment as a starting point for more ambitious employee participation and even profit-sharing programs.
On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, we realize now that the government emphasizes work ethic. But does the same government pay any attention to the fact that automation could liberate mankind from work bondage? Quite the contrary, its main purpose is mainly to maintain this subservient attitude which modern society favours by all possible means.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please. I regret very much having to interrupt the hon. member, but his allotted time has now expired.


Mr. Jacques Olivier (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to thank the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Dionne) who has given us the opportunity to dwell a little longer on the matter of industrial relations as they exist now in Canada. Unfortunately, 1 cannot thank him further, because, as a result of his remarks, I think I totally disagree with him.

May 27, 1975
Labour Relations
I would like, Mr. Speaker, to read again the motion presented by the hon. member for Kamouraska: on behalf of Social Credit Party of Canada:
That this House deplores the fact that the government has neglected to make legislative changes to remedy present problems at all levels of labour activity.
At the very start, Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal with a present-day problem to show that it is not necessarily the government which, by legislative action, will solve the problems which exist within the trade union movement.
I want to deal briefly with the problem of the Post Office in Montreal where two unions are presently negotiating. The first, the Letter Carriers' Union, accepted by 82 per cent the minister's offers. Workers voted very democratically under the union's constitution across the country for the employer's offers. Nobody was heard to complain that the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) was anti-union.
There was also a problem in another union, the Postal Workers' Union, which started negotiations at the same time as the Letter Carriers' Union. No agreement has been reached yet on a single clause. Furthermore, they claim that the minister is against them, he who, after all, has made worthwhile offers accepted by 82 per cent of the letter carriers.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that the problem has nothing to do with the legislation, with the men who have to make the decisions. If we are a self-respecting society, it must also, with all the intermediaries involved, abide by the law, the gentlemen's agreements, the collective agreements signed for one, two or three years. I feel that the problem that exists, and I took the postal workers and the letter carriers as an example, in the final analysis, is a problem between individuals.
There are people, today, in the world of labour unions, who forget that one is a union member to work for the union movement and not to do politics or seek power. There is a notion, becoming ever more widespread amongst union leaders, that they are there, not necessarily to inform their members about their rightful claims, but merely to increase their membership and, as a result, their own personal power.
It is easy to find, in this day and age, people who like to imagine that, as president of a union that has 80,000 members across the land while the other fellow is president of 1,000 members, he has more power since he presides over 80,000 members.
Mr. Speaker, I have more respect for the president of a 1,000-member union, who sees to it that the collective agreement he signed is respected, who strives towards bettering the lot of the workers, who is completely concerned about the workers, instead of trying to trick or mislead them.
At the present time, an attempt is being made in Montreal, to bring the postal workers to reject negotiations that are being conducted in good faith by saying: We will not negotiate as long as those who have been suspended, or fired, are not reinstated.
How is it, Mr. Speaker, when those same people have agreed, for years, and within the scope of collective agreements, that a member who is not satisfied, an employee

who does not agree with the decision of his employer, who with good reason to do so, should decide to file a grievance, or to go to arbitration? How is it that today, those same people who have been asking for these clauses in the collective agreements for several years, do not recognize even the principle to say, if the minister made mistakes by dismissing or laying off people, we will go before a labour tribunal.
I think the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) made a very reasonable offer, which several leaders of local unions would have liked to hear from company presidents. Never in a hundred years did many company presidents refuse this formula. We have a Postmaster General who said: Okay, if you think my judgment is bad, if you think my representatives in Montreal made a bad judgment, if you think they made a bad decision, I am prepared to submit to arbitration the cases of the 18 or 20 persons who were dismissed or those of the 500 or 600 persons who were laid off for one or two days.
The minister said: We will go to arbitration if you want. How is it, Mr. Speaker, that these people reject the system which has served them for many years?
I think, Mr. Speaker, there are people at the head of the postal union in Montreal who are not there to lead their members astray or to help them. They are strictly there for political gain, I mean to play small petty politics within a union, to make a name for themselves and some day perhaps control a labour organization in Quebec. That is perhaps what the president of postal workers is trying to do in Montreal to the prejudice of the workers.
Mr. Speaker, I have heard hon. members in this House suggest that we should perhaps do away with the Rand formula. I do not agree entirely with that, because although some union presidents, Mr. Speaker, are somewhat dishonest in discharging their responsibilities, there are also corporation presidents and multinational companies that are unable to respect the people with whom they work, those people who earn them money during the whole year.
And I have in mind a situation I have been living for the past 17 months, a conflict at the United Aircraft, a company whose name no longer a profitable concern with the people, has been replaced by Pratt and Whitney. There are companies, Mr. Speaker, although their actions are perfectly legal on a moral standpoint they do not show the slightest respect for their employees.
Here is the president of a company who, after sober consideration, take the trouble to write to the federal Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, assuring him that, once the labour conflict at the United Aircraft is over, there will be a full expansion program and that he undertakes to re-hire everyone. We know what happened then. The Quebec Department of Labour asks for an investigation among those workers that are still on strike, and asks those the company is still interested in keeping to go back to work at United Aircraft. They are 976, out of a total of 2,600 at the beginning of the strike. After 16 months, 976 are left, saying: Yes, we want to go back to work for that company. From that, we must conclude that the company has won over the union, has managed to get everything it wanted and to crush the union as it wished
May 27, 1975

to do. The managers of the company are not afraid to say so.
After that, Mr. Speaker, the company makes an offer, and says: We are no longer ready to take these people back. We are ready to offer 250 jobs to these people. As for the other 700, we will see if we ever need them.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is very difficult to accept such a position from an employer. I feel that such a type of management leads much more surely to anarchy than the type of unionism practised in certain sectors throughout Canada. It is true that in some sectors, union leaders have proved lacking irresponsible. It is also true that some Canadian entreprises, or rather pseudo-Canadian enterprises that represent American interests in Canada, have made decisions that are contrary to Canadian traditions, contrary to the interests of Canadian employees as well as contrary to people living in Quebec.
That is what happened in the case of United Aircraft, that is what entailed violent incidents that I condemn in all respects. What I wish to prove here, is that exasperation or the way to negotiate with a union may incite individuals, or a small group of individuals, to abandon everything, to disobey legislation and make their own laws. I feel that in a society such as ours in Canada, such a situation is unacceptable. Such situations must not be tolerated in Canada, and must not be tolerated to any greater extent than any violence either by management or union.
Which leads me to say, Mr. Speaker, that when I witness people in Canada rise to their feet because American companies come here and say to us: Well, Gentlemen from the Montreal Locomotive Works, you shall not sell any trains to Cuba, I find such a situation unacceptable. When I see people rise in the House of Commons to say it is an awful thing for Americans to come and dictate to us why we should not sell anything to Cuba, I cannot agree with them. But I have yet to see people rise to say that it is awful for Americans to come and tell us what industrial relations we should use with regard to their companies in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that the present concept of industrial relations in Canada should be that such relations should not be dictated to us, either by Connecticut or by a foreign country. They should be established by our own people, here in Canada. We have enough experience to manage our unions and make our own decisions, which would result in much more harmonious relations.
I also heard several people who took part in this debate and wanted to disclaim being anti-labour. A lot was said about the Cliche Commission. Mr. Speaker, if there are bandits in one area of the labour movement, it does not mean that everyone in the labour movement is a bandit. If there are bandits within a government agency, if there are one or two troublemakers, it does not mean that everyone in there is a bandit. This calls for qualification. I think that what has happened in the Quebec construction industry might be the result of laisser-faire in that area, laisser-faire also on the part of those who were running the province of Quebec. It must also be borne in mind that what happened in the Quebec construction industry came
Labour Relations
under Bill 290, that provided the powers which exist now. It must also be borne in mind that it is under another legislation, Bill 9, that bargainings which were taking place illegally before were more or less legalized. So, when you do that, whether it is in a National Assembly or a Parliament, you contribute more or less to the erosion of authority. So, one should not indeed imagine that because one area was corrupted, as the construction area in the province of Quebec, the whole labour movement in Quebec is a corrupt system. It is not true and I think that those who so suggest are indeed quite short-sighted about what is happening within the labour movement.
There are many people, Mr. Speaker, who really work for the advancement of that cause, and if we had not had the labour movement in Quebec in particular, and in all of the rest of Canada, we would still be in the stone age in many areas. Fortunately, there were people who stood at the forefront of companies and established a system-just remember the years prior to 1960 in Quebec-because if there had not been people to fight for humanitarian ideas and also the respect of individuals who worked within these corporations, and if there had not been a labour movement in Quebec, I wonder where we would be now.
It is not because there is a gang of tramps, Mr. Speaker, who managed to invade a whole segment, that that segment must be condemned in its entirety. We must absolutely not try to embark in that system. Otherwise, we will also be condemned later.
I hear people say: We are in favour of strikes, in favour of this or that, in favour of unions and a lot of things, but when unions exercise their rights, we no longer agree with them. We should decide once and for all if we want to grant civil servants the right to strike. When they will go on strike, of course it will be a nuisance, because they will have a power which will enable them to tell their boss: "You better do something, or I will go on strike". That certainly harms some people. Some are deliberately unaware and publicly say, performing quite a political stunt: I am with the unions. Big deal! But as soon as a strike occurs, they stand back and say: I no longer agree.
We should be conscious of our own decisions and also of existing legislation. There is a number of things which will have to be revised.
The Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) put forward some very constructive ideas this afternoon, and I believe the House should consider the measures he suggested. He mentioned a sort of tri-partite council in which the three parties would be led to have discussions on the future. He mentioned a bank of data to keep labour as well as management from being so obstinate. Who is right when one says that the inflation rate is 12 per cent and the other says it is 10 per cent? If we had a bank of data to show that the inflation rate is 15 per cent, everyone would be on an equal footing.
Union structures might also be taken into consideration. In the Post Office Department for instance, another union does not agree, they go on strike, and the whole problem starts anew. Maybe the unions should also review their own structures.

May 27, 1975
Labour Relations
Mr. Speaker, I realize that time passes-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please. I regret very much to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired.


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, I think this is a most timely motion, and I cannot but agree with the preamble to it that there is a climate of instability and dissatisfaction for workers, and indeed for the whole work force at almost all levels.
With the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) and others suggestion that wage settlements have been so high that we have been pricing ourselves out of the market, the headline in the Ottawa Journal tonight is, "costs dim hopes for cheaper food", and an official of the grocery industry is quoted as saying:
"With settlements running in the 17-to-19-per-cent bracket with fringes and COLA clauses, we are rapidly pricing ourselves out of the business.
These are factors in food costs which will likely continue. I agree with much of this motion; it puts forward some interesting views on what might be done to get us out of some of our problems. But I am somewhat in disagreement with the second paragraph which suggests that certain union officials wield powers far exceeding their responsibilities. This may be so in selected areas, but if unions are properly organized and are responsible to their membership, surely this charge should not be levelled at all union leaders.
In the finance committee it was suggested to Mr. Smith of the Economic Council of Canada that some unions leaders exert influence far beyond what they should or what was reasonable, and his suggestion was that he did not think so, at least in the long run.
It seems to me that it is somewhat of a truism to say that if large unions in many cases have abnormal influence on our society, it is often the fault of the economic and social system which allows or necessitates a concentration of workers, so that union leaders of necessity have to wield their great powers, or are able to do so.
In the third paragraph of the preamble it states that there have been illegal strikes in the past. It is certainly true that work stoppages may sometimes paralyze the economy, but at other times they are necessary to create job improvements and conditions for employees, as well as to force management into more efficient practices which will still retain profitability for corporations in the interests of the dividend shareholders who, incidentally, more and more are becoming the collective workers with pension plans who own many shares in our corporations.
The social Credit motion has brought forward certain proposals which can be supported, at least to some extent, which I think would meet with general approval by all parties. I think it is significant that this motion was proposed by hon. members from Quebec because it is in that province where at the moment there is serious unrest in the labour movement and serious confrontation between the provincial government, corporation management, and union heads. Other parts of Canada may have

their problems, such as the problem experienced in regard to the west coast grain handling stoppage which resulted in serious delays in grain exports at a time when the world's hungry needed our grain and Canada needed the foreign exchange earnings which the sale of grain would earn.
Many of us from the west do not understand the province of Quebec as well as do those from other parts of Canada, but what is happening in that province is cause for concern to all Canadians. No doubt all parts of the country will be faced with some of the problems already present in that province. There is good reason for serious unease right across the country about the confrontation in that province between union, management, and Premier Robert Bourassa. It seems likely that the labour movement in that province will shortly put up a common front and call for a series of illegal stoppages and strikes. As well as affecting the province of Quebec, this will certainly damage Canada's international reputation, particularly in the field of export trade. This is happening to some extent in the grain industry, and also with regard to the Olympics.
The Quebec premier in 1972 dealt with labour's common front by jailing union leaders for refusing to obey the back to work order of his government. It is to his credit that he appointed the Cliche Commission which investigated Quebec's construction industry. Mr. Cliche seems to have laid blame for corruption and lawbreaking indiscriminately and impartially on the unions, on government, and on management, but at the moment the premier has only clamped down on unions. He has made no move to clean up his own party's electoral machine, and he does not seem to have acted aggressively, against corruption in the civil service. It also seems that contractors to this date have escaped disciplinary measures which would have encouraged honesty among contracting companies.
In regard to the Quebec situation the Financial Post in an editorial had this to say:
Furthermore, those whom the government appoints as trustees to run the construction unions placed in trusteeship should be unquestionably identified as labour-oriented or they will be unable to maintain or gain the support or respect of the workers involved. Individual workers must be given greater assurance that, if they want to work when union leaders are pushing for illegal strike action, they and their families will not be victims of strong-arm tactics.
I believe that this indicates quite a serious concern to all legislators. Further evidence that an explosive confrontation in Quebec between the powerful labour movement and the provincial government will occur has been detailed in the Financial Post of May 24, by a correspondent writing from Quebec city. This correspondent, Mr. Rumball, pointed out that following the aftermath of the Cliche Royal Commission on the construction industry, which showed that that industry was extensively corrupt, Mr. Bourassa's government seems to have made a strategic error in its reaction to the recommendations of the commission. If the assessment of Mr. Rumball is reasonably correct, it certainly reminds us of the great problems involved in dealing with labour and settling strikes by the legislative process instead of by other methods.
The Quebec government seems to fail to attack all sources of corruption simultaneously, and so far it has only brought forward bills focussed on unions, placing

unions under trusteeship and barring certain criminals from holding union office. For us who are outside Quebec this seems to give an opportunity for the Quebec Federation of Labour to oppose the government. We are all familiar with and have heard and read what happened at the Pratt and Whitney plant where there was civil disobedience. In this movement by the Quebec Federation of Labour it seems significant that they have been supported by the CNTU and by the Quebec Teachers' Centre, which have brought with them 250,000 unionists.
Some of these problems that have come to the forefront in Canada's second largest province only point out the timeliness of this resolution.
In the broader labour field in Canada the announcement by the federal government of an industrial relations council of union, management and government will be welcomed. If it can find ways and means of reducing work stoppages, labour strife, and improving the work environment it may be of some value which certainly is more than can be said of many government boards.
I am not so sure that the appointment of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) as chairman is a good one; not that I have anything against his abilities but I doubt that he should assume this position at this time because I believe the purpose of this body is to bring labour and management together. As I understand it, the unions are represented by the Canadian Labour Congress, and the spokesman for management is from the Canadian Manufacturers' Association.
If this board can develop some procedures whereby labour and management can settle their differences through the collective bargaining process, it may be of some help. Apparently the United States and the European countries have had such tripartite arrangements for a long time and even they have had their problems. If, as has been suggested in a speech by the Minister of Labour, this will clear away some of the legislative logjams that now hamper unions and employers from developing industrywide bargaining, then this exercise may be of some help.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) suggested last week in Montreal that the structure of collective bargaining in Canada has broken down, as indicated by the large number of strikes in Canada last year. There is not any doubt about the sorry state of industrial relations in Canada. This is manifested by the frequent refusal of union members to ratify agreements reached by their bargaining agents. This has seemingly become very widespread.
The Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour seem to feel they have the answer in some type of industry-wide bargaining. I should like to remind them that this industrial relations council has been established to bring forward solutions to problems. There may be some validity for this viewpoint, and certainly in the grain industry it may well be of considerable value. Last year we had the grain handlers strike, followed by the grain inspectors, and then the weighers and samplers, all of whom represented only 400 or 500 people in each group. They might well have been bargained for by one body.
Labour Relations
The efforts of the Minister of Labour and of the Prime Minister to sell the idea of industry-wide bargaining when the government is in the midst of establishing this tripartite advisory council, suggests that they are usurping beforehand the council's duty to analyse industrial relations and establish new approaches. There are some serious difficulties with industry-wide bargaining, as has been pointed out by various people. Industry-wide bargaining has been most successful, as examples show, in Germany and Sweden, but I believe these are unitary states and do not have the federal system that we have. There are provincial governments in this country which prevent national bargaining among employees of mining and metallurgical companies.
It has been suggested that industry-wide bargaining might not promote as many strikes, but that strikes would be much larger and worse if they did occur than they are now. Presumably industry-wide bargaining means very large unions, with union management being far removed from the rank and file of their supporters. This is one of the complaints of ordinary union members, that they lose touch with their officials.
In the short time allocated, Madam Speaker, we can only have a preliminary discussion of the great problems involved-work stoppages, strikes, and walkouts which are a part of our free society. I believe the increase in the number and length of strikes is due to the financial immunity which workers now enjoy-they can strike and their families will not completely lose their income. In years gone by, in less affluent times, the grocery bill hung heavily over a family affected by a strike. Various welfare programs and unemployment insurance benefits for those who are put out of work without their unions being on strike have had an influence in slowing the settlement of labour disputes. Many families now have two wage earners and are not as compromised by a strike as was the case in years gone by.
Indeed, although the strikes in the grain handling industry were quite severe and serious, it seems as if Canada will be able to export all the grain it has on hand at the present time. That either indicates that the grain handling system is efficient for the volume of grain we have to sell, or that its capacity to export when alternatives are given is considerably above what has been estimated.
This debate is timely, I repeat, and I hope that reasonable solutions to our problems can be found. Certainly profit sharing is one area that can be looked at with favour. Anything that will improve worker identification with his firm and his job is to be commended. We can look with dismay at the confrontation shaping up in various parts of Canada, and hope that the differences can be resolved so that further confrontation will not take place in other parts of the country.


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Fort William):: Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate today for the purpose of attempting to offset the very common notion that labour is the principal cause of inflation; it is the scapegoat in this inflationary cycle.
I think we must look at the last three, four or five years of really heavy inflation. In 1973 the cause was the rapid
6180

Labour Relations
increase in food prices which was brought about by natural and other causes. It was a world-wide situation. In 1974 the major factor was oil prices which tripled and quadrupled in an artificial manner. Another cause was the very high profits in large sectors of the economy, particularly in what Galbraith would call the planning sector of the economy, the sector which can control its own prices through multinational corporations functioning on a world-wide basis.
I will not go into detail, but I think if we were to look at the curves on a graph showing the differences between wages and prices we would notice a considerable lag in the inflationary spiral, with the prices curve well ahead of the wages curve. I think this is extremely important now as we begin to see a decline in the inflation cycle which started four or five months ago. The figures released by Statistics Canada in the last 24 hours show that the wages of Canadian workers increased by 14.8 per cent from the end of February, 1974, to the end of February, 1975. The figures from the end of March, 1974, to the end of March, 1975, show a decline to 14.3 per cent.
One can see what has been happening. Prices, especially profits, have gone up quickly; this trend is now easing, and wages have risen, to catch up. That pattern is not unusual. What is unusual is the extent of the price rise and the extent by which wages had to rise to catch up. We should not blame labour for attempting to catch up with a price rise which began long ago.
I should like to deal briefly with two basic criticisms levelled against labour in this country. One is that Canada, next to Italy, loses more man-days of production than any other industrialized country; second, that wage settlements in Canada, which have been running at between 14 per cent and 16 per cent, have been higher than wage settlements in the United States, which have been running at 9 per cent. Let us examine the first objection. On careful examination, the figures do not appear to be as bad as one thinks at first. As well, there is a definite relationship between growth and wage settlement, particularly at the end of the cycle. In 1974 Canada, Italy and France-and Italy supposedly was in a worse position than we were-led western nations in growth.
Apparently there is some relationship between economic growth and the number of man-days lost through strikes. When demand for labour is strong, labour is scarce and can bargain effectively. It is apparent, also, that the recession in this country has not been as deep as the recession in other countries, particularly the United States. Italy, oddly enough, is now coming nicely out of its recession.
Exactly how many man-days, in percentage terms, were lost in 1974? According to figures available to me, .46 of 1 per cent of total working time was lost through strikes, or less than one half of 1 per cent. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacGuigan) indicated earlier, that is the same figure as applied in 1969. So, although the figure is high, it is not higher than that of previous years. Clearly there is little ground for the sort of frantic concern which suggests that our situation is desperate. It is not. The percentage of man-hours lost in 1974 is the same as the percentage in 1969, and I do not recall a

great outcry in 1969. The performance of industries working under the federal labour code was considerably better in 1974 than it was last year.
As the parliamentary secretary said earlier, the number of man-days lost can vary considerably. It takes only one major strike averted in one industry to move this country from second to fifteenth on the list of countries which have lost man-days of work through strikes. I think we have over estimated this particular difficulty. We have every reason to be concerned about inflation but, as Peter Cook wrote in the Financial Times last month, Canada is coping with inflation more adequately than most European countries and Japan.
The second point at issue is that Canadian wage settlements have been much higher than comparable United States wage settlements, that our competitive position vis-a-vis the United States has worsened, and that we shall not be able to continue exporting at present rates. We are told that settlements in the United States, in round figures, have been running at slightly under 9 per cent, whereas settlements in Canada have been running at between 14 per cent and 17 per cent. Let us examine these allegations. I am told that one cannot make such simple comparisons between figures as other factors, such as fringe benefits, must also be considered. Don McGillivray, writing in the Financial Times, a publication not known for its pro-labour sympathies, has indicated that the real difference between settlements is not much more than 1 per cent.
One should remember, as well, that unit labour costs in Canada in 1974 were 82 per cent of similar unit labour costs in the United States. Clearly we have still retained our competitive advantage, an advantage we must be careful not to lose.


An hon. Member:: But we are close to losing it.


Paul Edmund McRae: Also, while it is true that our economy depends to a great extent on exports, we have been able to maintain effective demand within the economy. Reasonable wage increases tend to support the strength of effective demand. We must be careful not to bandy figures around loosely, not to create a sombre mood, because conditions are not nearly as serious as some have tried to indicate.
I now wish to deal with something which the NDP House leader often mentions in the House, namely, that wage settlements in percentage terms are unfair. I submit that the government, including Crown corporations, and industry should examine the whole question of percentage settlements.
Consider what happened when the railway engineers walked out in January. They wanted a wage increase, which they thought should be awarded in January and not in April. I am told the amount suggested was about $3,000. The point is that many railroaders were given a 15 per cent increase in January. That increase in many cases did not amount to more than $1,000 or $1,100. People earning various kinds of income work in the field of transportation, and a 15 per cent increase for someone at the top of the railroad industry may be very substantial, but it does not represent very much for someone earning $6,000, $7,000 or $8,000. That is why I was so pleased to note that Mr. May 27, 1975

Justice Emmet Hall recommended an across the board increase for railway workers. I think it represented about 47 cents an hour for everybody across the board. That was a move in the right direction.
Personally, I favour across the board increases. At present they are not being granted in the public service, in which there is a substantial spread between money increases granted to those at the top and to those at the bottom of the scale. At present those at the bottom should get more, because they must endure increasing hardships. If the rate of inflation is 11 per cent and a wage increase of 15 per cent is granted, you must remember that, in real dollar terms, that 15 per cent represents considerably more money to a man earning $20,000 than it does to a man earning $7,000. I submit that the Treasury Board should consider this matter very seriously.
I shall conclude by making some observations about the Post Office. I support strongly what the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) is trying to do. He is trying to come to grips with a difficult situation. I realize that the question of postal service in Montreal is a difficult one, but I am 100 per cent behind him in what he is trying to do. I think he is making a magnificent effort.
There is one problem I would like to see looked at by those people running the Post Office, those running Treasury Board, and by the Postmaster General. That is the whole matter of grievance procedure and how postal employees and postal management at the local level get together to solve their problems. We have a ridiculous situation where a grievance filed in the Post Office can take three months to a year to be dealt with fully. It is dealt with at the local office where the manager who took the action in the first place handles the grievance. It is then moved to the second, third or fourth level, and it hangs around for a year.
There is a case in the Thunder Bay post office which involved employees threatening to walk out for a day. A year later it was brought back in the same form, and the trouble started again. The way to handle problems of this kind is to do it locally and rapidly. There should be in the public service throughout the country local committees of management and employees. In the beginning there should be neutral people. This system works in industry where management will chair for one month and the employees for another. I am talking about a new setup for the Post Office. An outsider will probably be required as chairman in the beginning.
Grievances, and other things that should not come up when bargaining starts over wages, are there because they have been allowed to get under people's skins. These people are irritated. Bargaining is difficult because there are all these irritants to start with. They should be solved in the local community by a committee of management and employees, and perhaps with some outside help. I know the Postmaster General, who is very interested in this, will keep this in mind when establishing new patterns for the Post Office once the present mess has been straightened out.
I wish to conclude by suggesting that we should not become panicky. Collective bargaining as it has evolved in
29561 -47V2
Labour Relations
North America over the past 100 years was and is a good tool. Some people say we should have compulsory arbitration, but that does not work all that well. It does not work well in Australia. They have many minor or short strikes, and the days lost are very significant.
Collective bargaining is good. It can be improved. I have suggested one way of improving it. Grievance procedures and local problems should be handled at the local level. That is a system that works in industry and will work in the Public Service.
We have had a very serious inflationary cycle. It started with food, went on to petroleum, and was increased by the planning sector of our economy. Wages are now levelling off in the same way that inflation levelled off earlier. We should allow the collective bargaining system to continue. The culprit is not labour. It is the whole cross-section of our economy.


Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Madam Speaker, I would first like to say how pleased I was listening to the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. McRae) attack some of the myths that have been created in the past two years concerning the causes of inflation. I understand the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) also dealt with that this afternoon. I am sorry this is not a motion on which we will vote so that these fine labour defending speeches could be reflected in the votes of our friends in the government.
I am impressed with the sympathy shown to labour by some of the speakers from government benches. I wait in patience and expectation for the June 23 budget when we will see whether the provisions of the budget reflect the sentiments expressed here today by some of the members on the government benches. I hope before that budget comes down that the Minister of Labour and others who have made these very sympathetic speeches toward labour will have some impact on the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner). However, I must say that I am pessimistic. I am quite skeptical that the kind of budget we will see on June 23 will be one that those who work in this country will not like all that much. Nevertheless, it is just a prediction. We live in hope, and we hope for the best, but I am a bit pessimistic.
Dealing with the motion, I agree with those speakers who have said that it is timely. The preamble reads:
That this House deplores the fact that the government has neglected to make legislative changes to remedy present problems at all levels of labour activity.
It is inherent in that preamble that the problems we now face are labour problems. The problems we face are society's problems. They are not at labour's door. The inference contained in this motion is wrong and unfair.
I suggest to those who presented the motion that if they travel to places like Mexico or the Bahamas they will not find any labour people. They will find a lot of doctors, middle management and so on, who have done well in this society over the past ten years. However, this society is under a strain for the very reason that those who labour have done nothing more in the last year than keep pace with inflation. In fact the industrial wage index was about 11 per cent, exactly the rate of inflation over the past year. They are as entitled to share in the productivity gains in this society as anyone else. Therefore, I am sincere when I

May 27, 1975
Labour Relations
say how pleased I was to hear so many speakers in this House today attempt to redress what I think is a media myth that is becoming prevalent in this country, namely, that of laying all of our ills in terms of inflation at labour's door.
Another portion of the motion that bothers me is the following:
-the toleration of a system which allows certain union figures to wield powers exceeding their responsibilities.
I am not sure what that means. However, if it suggests there is a large number of union leaders who are wielding powers exceeding their responsibilities, the facts belie it. In fact most of the settlements that have been rejected were rejected by the membership. It is the membership that is unsatisfied with its share of the national income and the national economy. We must be sensitive to the problems of the rank and file of the trade union movement who very often reject the recommendations of their own executive.
We must remember that those who go on strike never make the decision lightly. They may get $20 a week in strike pay. I heard someone saying the amount they have to pay for food is not as significant as it used to be. If you are on a union scale receiving $20 a week, have house payments to meet and children to feed, it is a very serious decision you have to make to go on strike. It is never done lightly.
When workers go on strike as much as they have in the past year, we should take a careful look at our society. The phrase "industrial democracy" is thrown around from time to time. It seems to be a pretty useful phrase, one which we should consider in a very serious way. I am pleased to see the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) in the House because I wish to quote something he said on May 14 to the Canadian Direct Mail Association, as follows:
Production, production-that's management's real concern. We see employee behaviour as something that hurts or helps production. The employees know this, they know that management's real concern is the system-all this industrial democracy jazz is a ploy to goose up production. They are not stupid, they know when concern is phoney.
Our attitude goes back to the robber barons. They believed absolutely in their right to limitless power. As John D. Rockefeller said, "God gave me my money".
The rationalization is bankrupt today but our goal has merely broadened. Instead of personal wealth, it's national wealth. We genuflect to the growth of the GNP. Our basic relationship isn't to man, it is to things. And so we don't design machines for man's needs, just for efficiency. We don't organize work with man in mind, just the product. We treat labour more humanely than we did in 1867 when Karl Marx outlined what he called "the irreconcilable opposition of capital and labour", but our attitude hasn't really changed, labour is still a commodity. The system doesn't exist for man, man exists to serve the system.
That is a most penetrating critique of the kind of society we live in today. 1 live in hope that the Postmaster General in the discharge of his responsibility will attempt to apply some of that philosophy to those who work in the postal service.
The discussion concerning industrial democracy is one which I hope will find its place at the bargaining table and lead to meaningful, practical clauses in the collective

agreements under which workers will be asked on a regular basis to engage actively in the management and provision of whatever service is concerned-and in the Post Office it is the delivery of mail and associated services. The sickness that exists in the Post Office is not only the result of a lack of involvement in managerial decisions; it comes from the dehumanizing nature of the job itself.
My father worked in the Post Office in New Westminster for 36 years. He was proud of the fact that he worked for the Post Office. He had memorized almost all the routes. There was some challenge attached to the work, and doing a good job gave him satisfaction. But there is a difference now.
Workers are too often asked to do things which are so routine, so dull, so soul-destroying that they attack the machine which they sense is destroying them as persons. This thought has been well expressed by the Postmaster General and I commend him for his very human approach to the problem. It is one which is developing not only in the postal service but in industry throughout the western world. It is a new world, a new system and I believe that until we recognize the frustration generated by this system we shall not be able to solve the problems which arise. Throwing blame around makes no contribution to industrial peace.
If we examine the societies which have experienced least industrial unrest over the years we find that where the feeling of the common good, the social contract, if you like, is most accepted, there has been least social disruption. We can get to that point if we carry out significant experiments in industrial democracy, through profit sharing, through moving away from the old idea that bargaining is strictly a poker game. I believe there is need for full disclosure. I am tired of the two sides in a labour dispute playing games with each other. It should be required that the management side fully reveal its cost and profit picture, and similarly it should be incumbent upon the representatives of labour to make full disclosure.
Labour intransigence is not always the problem. Remember the grain handlers strike last fall. It was the companies, not the union, which refused to accept the conciliation report of Dr. Perry. To give another example, the asbestos workers are presently on strike at Thetford. What are they striking for? They are striking for the right to monitor dust levels so that they do not die as a result of the effects of asbestos on the lungs. Mr. Speaker, I wonder how long it would take this House to pass legislation to control asbestos pollution if we faced high asbestos levels as we talked in here every day, and people told us that one out of every five of us would die from cancer of the lungs.
The question of time lost because of strikes has been dealt with by many speakers today. It does not amount to as much as time lost through lay-offs, or time lost through illness. But when it comes to developing a consensus we still have to ask ourselves serious questions about the kind of society in which we live. Alienation in the work world is developing in line with a society which tells us that if we compete with each other to the utmost of our ability we shall lead a successful life. This philosophy also leads to urbain crime, drug abuse, and the waste of our resources. It is a system which assumes that competition is the basic instinct of man and is in itself a desirable thing.
May 27, 1975

I do not believe we need this kind of system in the last half of the present century. It is likely to lead us to a degree of waste and destruction in the western world which, to my mind, is awesome.
The interests of management and labour may at this point be different, or appear to be different, but in the future I believe those interests may, in fact, be the same. In other words, as the pie gets larger and larger we shall find that other important public interests are being eroded. There is the environment to consider, the whole question of the style and quality of our lives. The time will come when we realize that we must finally manage the system and reach what is now called a steady state economy so that we can rationalize competitiveness within the system, and in this way eliminate the fantastic social strains we see all around us and reduce the urban disease which is spreading beyond our cities into the country. This is a system which can only be administered properly within an egalitarian and socialist philosophy.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired.


Mr. J. Larry Condon (Middlesex-London-Lambton):: It
is certainly a pleasure to hear the NDP view on labour, Madam Speaker. We all know that they are solid supporters of labour except at election time when very few labour speakers are on their platforms. Their platforms usually consist of doctors, lawyers or social workers, and I notice that following the last election there are in the caucus of that party at the present time just two of 15 who are labour oriented.
Some of the views expressed today cause me to wonder what are the views of the people of Canada. We are all aware that only one third of the working force in Canada belong to a labour union. To make this point I should like to read part of a letter I received from one of my constituents that illustrates how people who are not in a labour union feel when they get a little older:
While you are in Ottawa try and do something for the salaried personnel that have no union or anyone that will assist in obtaining a living wage.
We are in the position of being just over the minimum wage scale but far from the range required to maintain a proper standard of living. Due to my age being 63 I am helpless to obtain a salary that is anywhere near today's standard; we are told "If you don't like it, quit."
I just wonder whether the people of Canada realize the problems facing not only the labour unions but the white collar workers, who seem to be forgotten in these days of so-called unrest. Why is there labour unrest today? Perhaps we should look back a little over the years. This constituent of mine, salaried, obviously underpaid, at 63 years of age after some 35 years in the business is told that if he does not like it, quit.
What about the employers' obligation to those people who work for them? I refer not only to members of unions but to workers who do not belong to any union. Is money what the unions really want? Surveys that have been made indicate that the first choice of a worker is not money but the opportunity to work in an environment he
Labour Relations
is happy in, one where his boss will say hello to him in the morning and give him an opportunity to be part of a team.
It seems to me that the only time management talks to labour is at the bargaining table. Do hon. members remember the days before the labour unions became as strong as they are now, when the bosses came round and talked to the workers? In my lifetime I can remember when they would say to a worker who was doing his job, "You are doing a good job, Charlie". Or: "How's the family?", or "How's the kids?", or "How's the wife?" The fact that this is no longer said may be one reason for present labour strife; it has nothing to do with money, as some people say.


Mr. Towers:: It is because we have a Liberal government, Larry.


Joseph Lawrence (Larry) Condon: Well, Madam Speaker, I feel happy that someone has taken a shot at me, I appreciate that. Perhaps some of these remarks are coming home to people who run businesses. The obligation of management has for too long been forgotten. The unions get blamed for everything. According to headlines you see in the press every day, the unions are running the country. All hon. members get letters from people who are not knowledgeable enough to realize that more than labour is running the country; it has to be a combination of labour, management and government.
Every time some difficulty crops up in Canada, or for that matter in North America or even in Europe, the government gets involved. Why cannot labour problems be settled at the bargaining table where they are supposed to be settled? Honest bargaining, with the realization of the needs of management and the needs of labour, is what we need.
Much has been said today about the strike of the postal workers and the problems facing the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey), indeed facing all of us. I heard a gentleman on television tonight who is a postal letter carrier. He has been working for the Post Office department since 1968, and he has been off work one day since that time. He explained on television tonight how the letter carriers were the most important postal workers because they realize their obligations. Perhaps somebody in the postal department in middle management had passed the time of day with him and said, "Jack, you are doing a good job". Or perhaps the lady down the street had said: "Boy, my mail is always on time, even when it rains, because I depend on my pension cheque and on letters from my children overseas". This is the kind of worker running the postal service, and we meet them every day.
Only a small percentage of postal workers are creating problems for the Post Office department. Ninety-five per cent of the workers are there working for us every day, but the remaining 5 per cent try to stir things up and make them all look bad, especially the hard workers.
Some labour unions are not really unions. Some years ago my brother, who is a school teacher, used to comment on the way the unions ran the country. Now after 15 years he is a member of a union. It is not called a union but an association. People today are now complaining about school teachers. Why did the school teachers have to get together? It was because the school boards could not sit down with them and talk to them on a man to man basis.

May 27, 1975
Labour Relations
As I say, this is partly the reason for labour trouble today, a failure by labour and management to communicate with each other on a man to man basis.
I realize another hon. member wishes to speak, Madam Speaker, so I shall conclude on this note. In this great country of ours we must realize that we have so much going for us. Our country is strong and proud, and this fact alone will make us even stronger. No country became great without facing many problems. We are one of the few countries of the world that got our flag from parliament; many others had to bleed for it. I say to the members of this House, thank God that we only have postal and other labour problems in this country today, and have not had to shed blood in order to stand under our flag.


André-Gilles Fortin: Madam Speaker, I am quite pleased to take part in this debate launched by my colleague for Kamouraska (Mr. Dionne) who is a distinguished unionist well sensitized to the problems of workers who are now facing troubled times not only in Quebec but throughout Canada.
Needless to add, Madam Speaker, in the short time allowed to me that more than 3,351,390 man-days on average have been lost each year between 1960 and 1970 as a result of various strikes. Needless to add either that in several cases, the strike is not only legal but often justified, that is the workers have the right to strike and they are urged to do so. One only has to think, for example, of a strike which is now affecting my constituents in the furniture industry where, after 27 years of employment in the same dusty plant, even though they are practically artists, some cabinet makers or furniture finishers still earn $2.60 per hour, which is the new minimum wage in Quebec.
Generally speaking, one can say that in most cases, workers are peaceful people who want to better their lot, who do not want to break anything nor restrict the rights of others in our society. Unfortunately, these people are manipulated, lead by union leaders, who often abuse their power, their prestige, their title, compel workers by restricting their freedom and leading them to actions that everyone regrets in the end.
I do not refer necessarily to acts of violence, since these are exceptional. But when a strike has lasted two, three or four months in some sectors, how long will it take for the workers who were to be given help through the strike, because the strike weapon has been invented to defend the workers' rights in extreme circumstances, how long will it be before they return to normal conditions? Finally, the strike is not a peaceful means. It is an extreme means, once all other avenues have been unsuccessfully explored.
As my colleague from Kamouraska (Mr. Dionne) very rightly said, today, under the influence of union leaders, workers go on strike first and then, having demonstrated their strength, they go on to bargaining. While logic and common sense dictate that everything possible must be done to negotiate, if that does not succeed, legal mechanisms provide this extreme solution, the strike. Why do I say it is extreme? Because rarely does the worker, what-

ever increase he gained through this pressure action, recoup the amounts he lost during the strike.
That shows, Madam Speaker, that the main problem facing our society is not necessarily the strike mechanism, but rather the bargaining process that is defective. Indeed, everyone can strike in any circumstances. Today we have rotating, legal, wildcat, vertical, horizontal and all kinds of strikes. But what we fail to develop is our bargaining process which must precede any collective or common action called a strike. That is why my colleagues and I are for the right to strike. Because association is a human right, we cannot in any event deny that right derived from the right to associate and which is the counterpart of that of the employer. The motion we proposed today seeks especially to improve the bargaining process since it is at that exact level that the main problem lies.
For instance, to say that after two or four months negotiations have still not been held between employer and employee is ridiculous and the worker is always the victim. On a limited striking fund, he goes on strike and there are no negotiations. Finally, Madam Speaker, even this last resort means of protecting the worker's right works against him because he must bear the financial consequences. If we add abuse to that situation, on the one hand from union leaders who generally are associated with politicians-and here I have in mind the Parliament of Quebec which uses such gimmicks that there is no longer any form of union freedom-then the problem takes extreme proportions. Anyway, Madam Speaker, those union leaders who abuse their influence, call for violence, and rebellion against those in power are finally exploiting workers to create an unofficial government and challenge the very real strength of democracy invested in the duly elected representatives, so that we wake up in a state of permanent turmoil, of constant distrust, and God knows where we will end up. When faced with such situations of extreme abuses, Parliaments-and this one is no exception-are forced to step in often in turn in an extreme and abusive way, supposedly under the legitimate pretext of preserving the common interest. That is why this Parliament, including myself, has adopted special legislation to settle so-called exceptional situations. All of this, because the parties involved probably refused to bargain in respect, honesty, good will and good faith. This, however, as suggested by my colleague the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Dionne), is probably due to the fact that our labour legislation, including our Canadian Labour Code, is outdated.
Madam Speaker, as this debate is coming to an end, I take the liberty of asking this question. Why are all Canadians and hon. members so anxious to streamline our democratic institutions, improve the financing of political parties, modernize and adapt all our legislation? There is no exception to this rule, whether it be in the fields of communications, culture, economy, finance, income tax- hon. members will readily remember the thorough tax reform that was adopted by the House.
Yet, for more than 25 years, only one area has not been updated, has not been improved, has not been adapted, and it is our Canadian Labour Code. It is the only area we are not really looking into in order to adapt our negotiation

and our arbitration methods to the modern conflicts which have modern causes, like automation.
I see the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) who is present and who is showing remarkable leadership in dealing with a conflict in postal services. Well, Madam Speaker, this proves once again that the minister's only way out is the recourse to the oldish grievance procedure which takes-and on this the union leaders are right- tremendous time. So, the postal workers have no other choice but to resort to violence and to voluntary exclude themselves from the democratic process, because they no longer believe in it, because it is outdated, because it takes too much time.
Madam Speaker, today we have moved this motion, which I find positive, and have asked our colleague from Kamouraska to do so because he knows this field. It is precisely to make Parliament fully aware of the situation of conflict we are constantly experiencing from sea to sea. I want to point out to my colleagues from the other provinces that those conflicts are not restricted to Quebec alone. It is imperative that we should notice it, and take this opportunity today to think positively and try to convince the minister that the act should be brought up to date in its widest sense that it might adapt to our modern times.
Madam Speaker, this is extremely important. Electronic automation is replacing man increasingly. More and more thought is being given to reducing work hours, to improving work conditions, to reducing the work week, precisely because the machine is replacing man.
In a second stage, after having modernized our negotiating institutions, we will inevitably have to tackle our social security system to guarantee an income to our workers who will have been replaced by the machine.
Madam Speaker, will we wait for the ridiculous situation where union leaders will ask to throw out the machines under the pretext of guaranteeing the worker job security?
How ridiculous for us to have reached that point! It proves that the source of the evil, for the workers, is the lack of income or income security, and not so much job security.
That is why, Madam Speaker, we are happy not only to have raised this debate but also to have heard useful comments from both sides of the House. This is the third time that we have launched such a debate in the House to speak of the sharing of employees in company benefits and to speak of unemployment, which is particularly acute among our young people who really wish to get satisfaction out of their work.
Contrary to many of our predecessors, Madam Speaker, this is our third attempt at raising the issue. We shall try and do so again later, but we are quite happy with today's reaction to the motion, hoping that it will contribute to the rallying of goodwill in Parliament as well as in the country, so that finally, all Canadians will unite to build their country and stop holding records for more man-days on strike than at work. Madam Speaker, when we have such a high unemployment rate in a country of our size with such a small population, we cannot allow ourselves, in a state of economic crisis such as the one we are now facing, to play
Adjournment Debate
the game of union leaders who abuse their powers or the game of some politicians who dream up gimmicks with union leaders.
That is why I feel the federal government should show leadership in this field.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order. It being 10 o'clock, I must point out to the House that under-


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: I should like to rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker, before you call it 10 o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The member for Longueuil (Mr. Olivier) wishes to make a point of order.


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: This may be a minor detail, Madam Speaker, but to my right it is 10:02, 10:05 in front of me and 10:01 behind me. Perhaps somebody should look into it some day.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: This matter has been raised in the past.


André-Gilles Fortin: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) on a point of order.


André-Gilles Fortin: I wish to thank the hon. member for Longueuil for keeping a close watch on time, probably because of his great interest in what the Social Credit members were saying. I thank him.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: It being ten o'clock, it is my duty to inform the House that, pursuant to Standing Order 58(11), the proceedings on the motion have expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Madam Speaker, on March 20 this year I asked a question of the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Sauve) which dealt with the problems relating to asbestos in this country. There are really two aspects to the question.
I asked first why the minister has not brought in regulations concerning asbestos under the Clean Air Act so we can have a national environmental standard in an effort to help to overcome the problem at Thetford Mines. I could also mention Cassiar Mines in British Columbia, Clinton

May 27, 1975
Adjournment Debate
Mines in the Yukon, and so on. The following is the answer in part given by the minister:
We are now looking into the asbestos question, and when we get together to regulate those standards the provinces, using their authority, will implement them.
With the greatest respect, it is my understanding that the minister under the Clean Air Act has jurisdiction to impose ambient air standards; that is, standards for the air outside enclosures. I suggest that she does not have to regulate in this regard through the provinces. She may have to consult with the provinces, but she does not have to wait for the provinces to take action. There is a consultation procedure, but the minister does have the jurisdiction to solve this very serious problem in the outer air.
This is a problem which we cannot treat lightly. I should like to read from some recent information. I shall quote from the Montreal Gazette of May 20, 1975. The headline is "Industry, doctors accused of cover-up in asbestos peril". It reads:
Brodeur, a New Yorker magazine writer and author of two books on lung diseases affecting asbestos workers, defined the 'medical-industrial complex' as an 'entrenched group of doctors working for industry and government'.
The article continues:
Brodeur said he has found it peculiar that, as far back as 1917, virtually all Canadian and American insurance companies were refusing to insure asbestos workers.
That was back in 1917. It has taken the medical profession, the government, and industry another 50 years to discover the danger of working in asbestos mines. I suggest this is really a national scandal that has gone on in respect of the asbestos mines.
Again I should like to quote from this article in the Montreal Gazette:
According to Brodeur, statistics have shown one in five workers exposed to asbestos dust particles dies of cancer or asbestosis.
There are also severe risks related to asbestos for those who work in the railroad industry. I should like to quote now from an article by Dr. Thomas F. Mancuso, an IAM medical consultant: He says:
The old time railroad machinists from every section of the country have independently described the asbestos dust exposure which centers on the steam locomotives; the use of asbestos to cover the steam boilers of the engines, ever since the steam engine and the railroad began. The pattern of work exposures and procedures were similar in all railroad shops in the country.
This is not something new. This is something which has been going on for many years, and yet governments have fallen fast asleep in regard to protecting workers from death by cancer simply because of the old productive wheel which had to keep turning regardless of the risk to those involved.
A second aspect of the question which was asked on March 20 dealt with information I had that the environmental protection agency operating from Maine had lodged a complaint with the Canadian government concerning ambient air which was blowing across the border from Thetford. I would be happy to be corrected because that information came to me through a radio broadcast. I see my hon. friend the parliamentary secretary smiling, so it could be that the information I had may not be correct. I have not been able to trace the source of that information.

I understood that there had been a problem and that an official protest had been made. It is probably fair to say that there was a problem, but whether an official protest was lodged may be in some doubt. I will let the parliamentary secretary deal with that.
I cannot, however, fail to feel somewhat outraged that the answer I received with regard to the imposition of clean air standards for asbestos is that we will see those standards before the end of this year. I submit that people will be injured and will suffer additional cancers before the end of this year, and in my view it is untenable that the government should not immediately impose ambient air standards right across the country.


Mr. Len Marchand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for bringing this important question before the House. He has been very consistent, and this is undoubtedly a very important matter which must be dealt with. I suppose there are many good reasons it has not been dealt with before now, but in all fairness the Clean Air Act is a pretty new piece of legislation which was passed by the parliament of Canada.
The air pollution control directorate of the Department of the Environment has been studying the problem of asbestos fibres in the air for some time. Meetings have been held with officials of the province of Quebec as well as with those industries involved in the mining and milling of asbestos. The Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Sauve) will be proposing to the governor in council national emission standard regulations for asbestos mining and milling operations prior to the end of this year. These regulations will allow control of stack emissions in both the mining and milling processes, as well as for fugitive dust emissions resulting from handling operations and waste disposal.
The regulations will be established under the Clean Air Act, and the provinces will be implementing the standard under their own authority. As a regulation under the Clean Air Act, however, the federal government can of course enforce the standard itself, should this prove necessary.
Officials of the Department of the Environment, of the Department of External Affairs and of the Canadian embassy in Washington are not aware of any protest being received from any U.S. authority concerning airborne asbestos fibres crossing into Maine. I was glad to hear that the hon. member was relating his information to a radio broadcast. I would like to know if he has any further information. We would be glad to follow it up.


AIR TRANSPORT-SUGGESTED SEPARATE MINISTRY FOR CIVIL AIR TRANSPORT-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Madam Speaker, last month the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) indicated that a separate ministry for air transport was one of the aspects of transportation policy being considered. I want to point out this evening that over ten years ago the Glassco Commission considered this option, but the government of the day decided on a wider approach, a so-called co-ordinated policy embracing all
May 27, 1975

types of transport as they related to the economic growth of Canada. I suggest that it is time to re-assess the situation, particularly in view of the increasing complexities of the whole transportation question and the demands on the ministry as it now exists.
The duties of the Minister of Transport are spelled out, among other places, in the National Transportation Act, the Railway Act, the Pilotage Act, the Canadian National Railways Act, and the Aeronautics Act. They involve responsibility for certain aspects of rail, air, and sea travel, for northern transportation, and for the Canadian Transport Commission. Dredging contracts, airports, freight rates and so on, all are matters of concern to the Minister of Transport. Certainly this heavy workload has a direct relationship to the sorry state of affairs within the department. A separate department of air would relieve the burden somewhat, and seems particularly reasonable given the fact that the Department of Transport shows every sign of continuing to grow and, within it, the field of air transportation is one of the fastest growing elements.
Steadily growing expenditures are one indication of the growth of the ministry. The budget of the Department of Transport has increased by about 267 per cent in the last five years, from 354.2 million in 1970-71 to nearly one billion in 1975-76. Within this, the expenditures for air transportation have increased at a rate of 237 per cent, from 198.7 million to 471.3 million. Moreover, expansion of air passenger traffic is expected to continue at a rate of 8 per cent a year until 1978; while air cargo is presently growing at a rate of close to 18 per cent. This continued growth of air transportation presents a strong argument in favour of a separate ministry of air, particularly since the main argument against it-the need for a co-ordinated transportation policy-is inconclusive.
One of the things a minister of air or of civil aviation could do, for example, would be to reorganize the affairs of Air Canada. He could provide for a more flexible type of Crown corporation; he could direct an infusion of capital, and so on. In passing, Madam Speaker, I should like to point out that the debt-equity ratio which is now being used as a financial crutch by management is not entirely justified. The other side of the coin is the very favourable interest rates that have been of assistance to Air Canada in the past. I should like to observe also, Madam Speaker, that under a separate ministry sporadic and purely political interference in civil aviation could be replaced by steady supervision.
A new minister of air could co-ordinate civil aviation policies. The same minister would not be in charge of competing modes of transport and would focus responsibility for a national air policy through one department. A minister for aviation would thus have time to supervise activities and direct policies on this unique form of transport. He or she could thoroughly evaluate and give attention to regional air policies-rationalize them-lessen Air Canada's monopoly in some areas where smaller airlines could do better, and encourage Air Canada to do a better job on long haul domestic and international flights.
A recent article in the Ottawa Citizen of May 23 quotes an airline executive as saying;
Adjournment Debate
Sometimes 1 have to wonder where Air Canada ends off and the Ministry of Transport begins,
The article later quotes a regional airline president as follows;
The government should either let the airline completely alone or it should step in to enforce some sort of consistency,
I suggest, therefore, that the argument for a separate ministry of aviation is a sound one, and I urge the minister to give it considerable thought. Such a ministry could also pay greater attention to Air Canada's activities abroad which affect our trade patterns and our national interests. For example, Air Canada is getting a black eye because the strike of its employees in Paris has been allowed to drag on for over a month. There have been many unfortunate side effects, and a loss of revenue.
I hope the minister will accept my observation in the fashion in which they are offered-an open minded fashion. I recognize his problem, but I hope he recognizes and the government recognizes that problems must be solved sometimes by using innovative methods and procedures at least on a trial basis. Certainly there are arguments to be made against a separate ministry, but I hope the government will fully explore both sides and attempt to do something.
If the creation of the Solicitor General's portfolio from the area of responsibility held by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) could be justified in 1965, then surely there is just as much if not more need for a ministry of air vis-a-vis the general portfolio of transportation than there was, let's say for a separate portfolio for the RCMP and the penitentiaries approximately ten years ago. In the interest of keeping cabinet positions within manageable numbers, I suggest that the government should consider abolishing the Solicitor General's portfolio. The Department of Justice should be responsible for carrying out the work now performed by the Solicitor General (Mr. All-mand), and a new ministry of aviation should be established as an experiment.


Len Marchand: Madam Speaker, I assure the hon. member that his comments this evening will be considered carefully in the spirit in which he made them. He has acquired a reputation in the House for being hard working, responsible, and knowledgeable in many fields.
As the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) indicated on earlier occasions, he hopes to be in a position in the not too distant future to indicate to the House the results of the current review of transportation policy. In carrying out this review the minister has considered a wide range of options and assessed the implications of each of them. In the meantime I might mention that one of the requirements we see is the need to develop all modes of transport in an integrated way so that the best use is made of each mode in relation to others. The requirements of all modes can then be considered in a balanced way, by taking into consideration the requirements of users, carriers, and governments. The desirability of creating a separate ministry of aviation would have to be examined within this concept.
I should add, as a western Canadian, that I also look forward to the minister's announcement concerning the
6188

May 27, 1975
Adjournment Debate
new transportation policy. We, in western Canada, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) will no doubt agree, face many problems in transportation. We hope that a new transportation policy will soon be formulated and resolve many of our transportation problems.


INCOME TAX-DECENTRALIZATION OF DATA PROCESSING- POSSIBLE ESTABLISHMENT OF OFFICE IN ATLANTIC REGION
[Stage Direction]
Mb'. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):
Madam Speaker, as recorded at page 5822 of Hansard for May 15, replying to my question concerning the criteria to be used in deciding on a location in the Atlantic region for the proposed data processing unit of his department, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Basford) noted several yardsticks he would use. These criteria included the number of tax returns filed with the Atlantic region, the availability of part-time and full-time workers, the availability of space, and the availability of communication links.
I want to develop some further observations on this matter this evening. I think the Sydney industrial area is an ideal location for such a data processing unit. We have an abundance of part-time workers available. Our latest unemployment figures for Cape Breton Island, as forwarded to me by the Nova Scotia department of labour, show unemployment rates for January, February, March and April of 13 per cent, 16.1 per cent, 17 per cent and 14.3 per cent respectively. These figures, of course, do not include the discouraged workers, male and female, who stopped looking for work because they considered it hopeless to do so. Besides that, our labour force participation rate for the first quarter of 1975 was 8 percentage points below that of Economic Region 6 in Nova Scotia, which includes Halifax County. Thus there is an abundance of underutilized human beings ready to work.
When it was announced that a satellite data processing centre was to be established in Winnipeg, it was noted that, initially at least, 125 highly skilled permanent jobs plus 1,000 part-time jobs would be created, with a 1975 payroll of $4 million.
I want the minister to know that the Nova Scotia Eastern Institute of Technology in my riding now teaches data processing. They are capable of training most of the highly skilled personnel needed, as well as the part-time people. We, through the Cape Breton Development Corporation and/or the College of Cape Breton, can provide adequate space; I think the minister would find the communications links more than suitable.
When the Department of Regional Economic Expansion was decentralized a couple of years ago, 84 members of the department were stationed in Moncton, 43 in Halifax, 41 in Fredericton, 19 in Charlottetown and 41 in St John's, Newfoundland.
As Nova Scotians we were happy to see the Halifax-Dartmouth metropolitan area profit from a special agreement entered into between the province of Nova Scotia and DREE. In Halifax a total of $87.7 million was earmarked for waterfront development, including a new, large hotel in downtown Halifax.

Some in Cape Breton thought it was an anomaly to build another luxury hotel in Halifax when our housing problem is so acute in Cape Breton, but the development of Halifax has helped Cape Breton in that many Cape Bretoners- they never call themselves ex-Cape Bretoners-can get steady jobs there.
We all hope that the metropolitan area growth investment scheme will be successful, and we are glad to note that following DREE's announcement of the special grant to the Halifax-Dartmouth area that One Sackville Place Ltd. of Halifax said it would build a $5 million low-profile eight storey building in Halifax on a 40,000 square foot site adjacent to the Hotel Nova Scotian owned by the Canadian National Railways.
It is time for some government agencies to be decentralized in favour of high unemployment areas, especially when they have almost 20 per cent of a provincial population as does Cape Breton county.
Surely it is unfair to let such areas try to fight the cold winds of international competition in their basic industries when all that is needed is the political will to make the government department decentralization process a tool of diversification and growth for such hard hit areas. I appeal to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) to take a strong stand with the Minister of National Revenue and other cabinet colleagues on this matter, which I consider a matter of principle as well as being an important means of getting balanced provincial development.
Mb'. Len Marchand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment): Madam Speaker, the hon. member's question in the House on May 15, followed by the remarks which he has just concluded, arise from an announcement the minister made in Winnipeg on May 9.
On that occasion he announced the government's decision to carry out a geographic decentralization of the Ottawa Data Centre for the processing of income tax returns. The first of the satellite data centres is being established in Winnipeg. Within a period of up to five years, similar data centres-all linked to the central facility in Ottawa-will be established in the other four regions of Canada, that is in the Atlantic provinces, Quebec, Ontario, and the Pacific region.
I should mention that even before this important decision was made, the department, both on the taxation and the customs and excise sides, was one of the most decentralized of government departments. For instance, more than 80 per cent of the taxation employees are situated outside the capital.
I realize the big pitch the hon. member is making here tonight is important, namely, that these centres should be located in the slow growth areas of the country. I should also mention that very strong representations have been made to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Basford) by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen). All that the Minister of National Revenue can honestly say at this stage is that he is listening to all the representations being made to him. He has also mentioned
May 27, 1975
[Stage Direction]
that representations were received from the other maritime provinces.
Our first regional data centre should be in operation by late 1975. In support of what I have said about the effect on the local labour force, I might mention that the Win -
Adjournment Debate
nipeg facility will require approximately 125 full-time and more than 1,000 casual employees during 1975-76. The 1976 payroll will exceed $3,800,000. It is a very important policy in many ways.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.26 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, May 28, 1975