1975-04-23

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provision^ of Standing Order 43 concerning further freight rate increases which are being phased in by our railways and which will have an impact on many sectors of the economy in eastern Canada. This action by the railways, following on the heels of a 25 per cent rate increase which already has had adverse effects on this region, threatens to have further economic implications on an already depressed region. Since the railways will be permitted to implement this increase unless intervention takes place, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall):
That the Minister of Transport take the necessary steps to have the matter referred to the Canadian Transport Commission for their consideration and evaluation.


Mr. Speaker:: A motion proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43 cannot be debated without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion dealing with an urgent and important matter.
Since the longshoremen's strike in the Quebec ports as well as the inspectors' strike are entirely paralyzing the grain shipment, which does considerable harm to Quebec breeders, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Rober-val (Mr. Gauthier):
That this House consider immediately the steps to be taken so that Canadian dockers will no longer be subjected to foreign orders and that the refitting inspectors return to work right away.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Since there is not unanimous consent, the motion cannot be put.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I wonder whether cabinet ministers would edit their press releases in the House rather than out of it so that we would have them here to answer questions.


Mr. Speaker:: Oral questions.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. Since there seems to be some possible confusion or discrepancies in the statements made by the Acting Prime Minister yesterday and the statements made by the Minister of Transport concerning the terms of reference for the inquiry into the affairs of Air Canada, would the Prime Minister assure the House that the Minister of Transport's discussions with Judge Estey will not preclude the possibility of an immediate inquiry into the accounting system of Air Canada and ancillary matters relating to finance?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add to what the Minister of Transport himself said in the House yesterday.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the right hon. gentleman assure the House, as I felt the Acting Prime Minister did yesterday, that since many other aspects of Air Canada's operations have been the subject of frequent complaint, often well documented, he will consider other inquiries if he does not give Judge Estey wide powers pursuant to this particular inquiry?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I take it that is a representation, Mr. Speaker. I will see that the minister reads it.
295 57-48j/2

April 23, 1975
Oral Questions


LAY-OFFS AT CHARLES DE GAULLE AIRPORT-MEASURES TO IMPROVE SERVICE
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
Yesterday I asked the Minister of Transport a question concerning the possibility of 82 per cent of Air Canada staff being laid off at Charles de Gaulle airport and the Minister of Transport undertook to report to the House.
Today, the staff went on strike. I want to know whether the Prime Minister can indicate to the House first of all, if it has become government policy that Air Canada management lay off its staff with a view to assigning its operations to another company, in this case to the "Union des transports aeriens de Paris" and second, what does the government intend to do to facilitate the return of passengers who are held up because of the cancelled flight of the DC-8 to Canada which was occasioned by this strike?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of this problem, but I thank the hon. member for raising it and I shall see to it that the department provides an answer.


COMBINES
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. When about a month ago the Prime Minister said the government was concerned about the possibility of a takeover of Argus Corporation by the Power Corporation, I asked him whether he would investigate it and he said that was being done. Since at the same time the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs announced that Mr. Robert Bertrand, the chief anti-trust investigator of the government, was going to embark upon an investigation of this specific takeover bid, would the Prime Minister tell the House whether this investigation has been completed and, if so, would the government make the report available to members of the House?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think the investigation must have been an in-department study. I do not know its exact nature, but I can tell the House that my decision announced in the House yesterday afternoon was the result of discussion of the matter in cabinet, and particularly discussion between the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and myself.


PROPOSED TAKEOVER OF ARGUS CORPORATION BY POWER
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question relating to the Prime

Minister's assertion in the House yesterday and subsequently at a press conference that the government's position on the Power-Argus takeover, as well as any others that may take place before the royal commission brings forth its findings, was a neutral one. Will he clarify that position in light of the judgment of some that by saying he would not prevent the takeover of Argus by Power the conclusion one could reach is that this is, in fact, a go ahead signal to the Power Corporation to make and succeed with such a takeover bid during the next 12 months because they would clearly understand that the government would do nothing?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says this is a judgment by some, but obviously it is not the judgment by others. It seems to me that kind of judgment would be arrived at by some very tortuous logic. The position of this government is that when we see nothing illegal and we have no policy against a thing, the government should not intervene just for the purpose of stopping it, which would probably be the hon. member's position.



John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, in view of the brilliant logic of the government in the past that led it to conclude that, in the cases of proposed actions in the uranium field by Mr. Steve Roman and in the petroleum field by Home Oil, the government should announce a moral position in advance, indicating that legislation might be forthcoming if a certain course of action were taken, could the Prime Minister, by whatever process of logic he wants, explain to the House why the government could not have done the same in the present circumstances concerning the Power-Argus Corporation situation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: For the
very simple reason, Mr. Speaker, that in the case of Home Oil the government had and was developing a position on foreign ownership, and in the case of uranium the government had jurisdiction over the area and the legal instrument to act. This involved a matter of defining with some precision our policy for the long term. In the matter of concentrations of economic power, as I explained to the House yesterday, there are some advantages to the Canadian economy in such concentrations, particularly when it comes to competing with large multinationals who operate in Canada, or in other markets in which we are operating. It is because of this, that there may be advantages and disadvantages to this kind of a takeover, the government announced the royal commission and remained, as I said, neutral by not interfering in an area in which it had no legal obligation to act.
April 23, 1975


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Solicitor General.
Considering that Senator Joseph Montoya, Chairman of the America treasury grant sub-committee, is carrying out a thorough investigation into the financing of Interpol and its activities within the United States, an organization which is jointly financed by the United States and other member countries including Canada, can the minister advise the House whether his department is also investigating this international organization which operates in Canada and over which the Canadian government has no control whatever?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, my department is not taking part in any such studies. The RCMP is a member of Interpol which has its headquarters in Paris, France. Interpol is merely a centre for the exchange of information and is not an operational agency. I will look into the other aspects of this question.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Is the minister aware that while Interpol disclaims any access to privileged information in Canada, it has nevertheless access to all facilities and information of Canadian police forces and may therefore disclose this information to Communist countries which are members of this organization. My question is this: can the minister tell the House whether he is aware of the sort of information which may be passed on to Communist countries through Interpol?


William Warren Allmand: As far as I know, Mr. Speaker, there are no communist members of Interpol, except perhaps Yugoslavia. As I mentioned to the hon. member, Interpol is an organism for the interchange of information in respect of known criminals. The RCMP will provide information to other countries in respect of criminals who may have had some operations in Canada, and those other countries will provide information to us in the same manner. I know of no basis of information that would support the question asked by the hon. member.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a supplementary question.
Can the minister assure the House that the information available to Interpol is not passed to other members of that agency and that the RCMP exercises control over the information given to Interpol?


William Warren Allmand: I will look into that question, Mr. Speaker. I think I should point out to the House that the RCMP have some members of their force working at Interpol headquarters in Paris and the President of Interpol is a former commissioner of the RCMP.
Oral Questions ENERGY


NATURAL GAS-REASONS ADVANCED BY UNITED STATES FOR CHANGE IN TIMING OF INCREASE IN EXPORT PRICE
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the fact the minister said that because of the representations by the United States government at a meeting held in Ottawa Tuesday morning the government will probably reconsider the timing and the price in respect of the export of natural gas and change the August 1 date, would the minister tell us what were the new items brought to the attention of the government by the government of the United States which caused the government to change its mind in this matter.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: The United States representatives wished a longer term phasing-in of the price increases in respect of natural gas.


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is again directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Could the minister tell us whether in the course of these conversations, either directly or indirectly, the United States representatives suggested that with the change in price proposed by the Canadian government there might be some type of retaliation either in the form of capital flows, export quotas on beef and so on brought into play.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is there was never so much as a hint of this.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In light of the announcement by the United States immigration and naturalization service that it will admit a maximum of 50,000 high-risk South Vietnamese to the United States has the United States made any representation to Canada to also accept a number of South Vietnamese refugees.


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker.


INQUIRY WHETHER VIETNAMESE GIVEN REFUGEE STATUS
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, in respect of those who are leaving South Viet Nam, could the minister tell us whether or not the department considers these people as refugees or whether any statement has been made by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees which would indicate that there is status given these people as international refugees.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated that people

Oral Questions
wishing to leave Indo China or South Viet Nam can apply to come to Canada under the refugee provisions of the immigration regulations and would be dealt with on an individual basis and judged accordingly. With regard to the second part of the question, the most recent information I have had from the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is that there has not been a formal declaration of a refugee status for people leaving either Cambodia or South Viet Nam, but we are in almost weekly contact with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and indeed one of my officials will be in New York tomorrow talking with him on that subject.


POSSIBLE USE OF ARMED FORCES AIRCRAFT TO TRANSPORT VIETNAMESE CITIZENS TO CANADA
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. If Canadian armed forces aircraft are used to evacuate Canadians from South Vietnam will these aircraft also be used to transport South Vietnamese citizens if these citizens would be capable of receiving UN status as international refugees?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, we have already used Canadian forces planes to evacuate Canadian personnel from Saigon as far as Hong Kong. We would respond to requests from other departments to make use of these aircraft for other purposes.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister who looks lonely over there. I should like to ask him, now that his consensus program has reached a crucial stage, whether the government has reached a decision that the Prime Minister should use the prestige of his office and persuasive power to try to persuade the principals in the economy to adopt the Prime Minister's consensus program. If so, is the meeting of the labour leaders on May 7 to be postponed, so that the Prime Minister can attempt, on his return to intervene there?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should explain that the Prime Minister has had to leave the House to participate in some of the activities in connection with the visit of His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales.


An hon. Member:: All the royalists have left.


Mitchell William Sharp: As to the question itself, the Prime Minister and other members of the government have been participating in the development of the policy consensus. I do not think it will be necessary for him to abandon his plans

, to intervene in this way, but I can assure the House that he is fully in support of the activities of all the ministers in the field.


INFLATION-PERSON IN CHARGE OF CONSENSUS PROGRAM IN ABSENCE OF PRIME MINISTER AND MINISTER OF FINANCE
Robert Lorne Stanfield: was not asking that the Prime Minister abandon his plans but rather whether the government has any plans in this connection. With the Prime Minister going away and the Minister of Finance out of the country, perhaps the Acting Prime Minister could indicate to the House who will be in charge of the consensus program at this crucial stage, will it be the Acting Minister of Finance or the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance? I got the impression yesterday that the Acting Minister of Finance is pretty busy trying to figure out a way to get dredging done in the country.


Mitchell William Sharp: I would just like to assure the Leader of the Opposition that the process of the development of the government's consensus program is continuing, and we see no reason to think that it will be delayed by the absence of the Prime Minister or of the Minister of Finance at the present time.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I would like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether it is his hope and the hope of his colleagues that business and labour in this country will take the consensus program more seriously than they themselves seem to.


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker.


OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General. Because of the fact that the Olympic revenue may be short by some $75 million or more as a direct result of the Olympic coin program, thus further adding to the already incredible deficit of Montreal, COJO and Quebec, can the Postmaster General advise the House of the contingency plans, which I know the government has, to supplement the loss in revenue to the Olympics?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The figure quoted in the newspaper today of $100 million revenue from the coin program is precisely the figure that was given before the Quebec legislature some months ago. So, we are short $75 million only in anticipation that we would have sold coins worth $175 million. In so far as the second question is concerned, I am hopeful that the government will be advancing acceptable legislation in the not too distant future.
April 23, 1975


PROPOSAL COMMUNIST CHINA PARTICIPATE IN GAMES RATHER THAN TAIWAN-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact Communist China has approached the International Olympic Committee with the proposal that it be accepted to the 1976 Olympics on the condition that Taiwan, which has a fully recognized national Olympic committee, be expelled, and because of the fact that these games will of course be held in this country and the federal government is in fact responsible for deciding who will be permitted into this country, can the minister advise, therefore, whether or not the Canadian government will support the participation of both nations at the games and, if not, what is the government's position in that regard?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, these decisions have to be made by the International Olympic Committee. We are the host for the Olympic games but we do not decide who participates.


THE MINISTRY
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister.


An hon. Member:: Welcome back.


An hon. Member:: What a beautiful tan.


George Harris Hees: It is nice to be missed, Mr. Speaker.
In view of the announcement in the last 24 hours of the shuffle of six deputy ministers in an attempt to make the operation of the government more effective, is it the intention of the Prime Minister, when he returns from the south, to make a similar type of announcement regarding members of his cabinet? It is well-known that the ineffectiveness of the government is due to the operations of the ministers and not the deputy ministers.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, this is not one of the prerogatives of the Acting Prime Minister.


FOREIGN INVESTMENT REVIEW BOARD
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister, in connection with the announcement yesterday regarding the royal commission. Before deciding on establishing a royal commission, did the government consider the possibility of enlarging the responsibilities of the Foreign Investment Review Board in order to put Canadian mergers under scrutiny? It seems to me that that could
Oral Questions
have been done, and the question of the Argus-Power merger could have been dealt with effectively.


Mitchell William Sharp: It seems to me that it would have been most improper to have amended the statute, which was directed to the problem of foreign takeovers, or potentially to the question of foreign investment, to apply to purely domestic matters.


Max Saltsman: Since the government did not feel it had the authority to amend or to send that as a term of reference to the board, did the government consider coming to the House of Commons and asking the House to amend those terms of reference so that there could be a very quick referral of the Argus-Power situation, rather than waiting for a royal commission to report, which would probably be after the fact?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think the Chair might have taken some exception to amending an Act, which is designed to deal with foreign takeovers and foreign investment, to include mergers within Canada. Moreover, generally speaking, I think it would be more appropriate to proceed under other legislation, and if we do receive recommendations to that effect and adopt them, we will have no hesitation in bringing legislation before the House.


Max Saltsman: Is the Acting Prime Minister saying to the House that he is going to have a different set of rules, or is it the intention of the government to have a different set of rules regarding takeovers, the question of concentration in size as it affects Canadian corporations, as against foreign corporations?


Mitchell William Sharp: There are various approaches to this. There is no doubt whatever that foreign takeovers can produce mergers and concentrations of power. Those factors are taken into account when decisions are made whether to permit foreign takeovers to occur, but I think that the two issues are separate and should be treated separately.


COMBINES
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Acting Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am glad to see that the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings and I receive the same response from the House. I always like to see this equality.
Coming back to my question I would like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether, in light of the fact that the government is setting up a royal commission to look into corporate power-


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Oh, oh!

April 23, 1975
Oral Questions


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I wonder if the hon. member for St. Boniface would keep quiet just for a moment.
I would like to ask if the royal commission is prepared to look into Crown corporations. I ask this particularly in light of the financial debacle of Air Canada and the fact that Air Canada and some other Crown corporations have in the past-this has been brought to light in our committees-had ambitions of various takeovers, and they are, of course, corporate bodies, the same as any other corporation.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as I read the terms of reference of the royal commission, one of which concerns the nature and role of major concentrations of corporate power in Canada, Crown corporations are not excluded.


John Edward Broadbent: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby on a point of order.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: One supplementary question for the hon. member for Calgary North.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I take it that the terms of reference do include Crown corporations, without equivocation?


Gerald William Baldwin: Ask your neighbour, Mitch.


John Edward Broadbent: The government and the Prime Minister-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, there was so much noise in the Chamber that I do not know whether the Acting Prime Minister heard my question so I should like to put it again. Do the terms of reference, without equivocation, cover Crown corporations as well as other corporate bodies in Canada? We would like that clarified.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, in my previous answer I pointed out one of the terms of reference is:
... to inquire into, report upon, and make recommendations concerning:
(a) the nature and role of major concentrations of corporate power in
Canada:
In so far as Crown corporations are corporations and are an aspect of corporate power, there is nothing to prevent them being inquired into. The hon. gentleman will realize, however, that those under public control are in a rather different position from those that are privately owned.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby on a point of order.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, since the Acting Prime Minister just quoted from what he called the terms of reference of the royal commission, I wonder if he would be good enough to table that so that all members of the House could see it and also have it appended to today's Hansard?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I only have it in one of the official languages but I can get a copy in French as well as

in English. Perhaps, I might have permission to table the copy in English now.


COMMONWEALTH CONFERENCE
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, my question was for the Prime Minister but since he has left I will put it to the Acting Prime Minister. With respect to the forthcoming Commonwealth conference to be held in the Caribbean, could the Acting Prime Minister inform the House and the country what areas of discussion are contemplated for that conference which might affect Canada and whether it is going to be an informal discussion with the major concern, as reported in today's press- how does one fire a cabinet minister?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think one of the great contributions of the Prime Minister to Commonwealth discussions is the degree of informality that he has introduced. That was very desirable-


George Harris Hees: Like sliding down a bannister!


Mitchell William Sharp: And it would be highly desirable that the informality of these meetings should be continued. I cannot say if there is any agenda but I would hope it would be as informal as possible so that there is a free exchange of views.


George Harris Hees: What is he going to do? A handstand on the city hall steps?


TRANSPORT
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Minister of Transport if there is one in the House today. On February 24, the minister said he was opposed to further horizontal increases in freight rates. Noting that the railways filed an increase set for May 5 which would bring the total percentage increase in rail freight rates to nearly 50 per cent in the first five months of this year, could the minister set an example by exercising the power and authority of his office or the authority of the government in overturning the CTC ruling which might uphold this further increase in freight rates?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Acting Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, in replying for the Minister of Transport, I am not altogether certain that authority for railway freight rates rests with the minister except, I believe, in response to some kind of written submission or complaint from users or other citizens. I shall be glad to convey the question to the Minister of Transport, however, and try for a more detailed answer later.
April 23, 1975


FARE INCREASES BY AIRLINES AND BY CANADIAN PACIFIC FOR COMMUTER SERVICE-GOVERNMENT ACTION
J. Michael Forrestall: A supplementary question. On Friday April 18, the minister stated that he would ask Air Canada and CPAir to reassess their proposals to raise domestic air fares some 8 per cent to 15 per cent with some rising as high as 61 per cent, to be effective on May 19, and that he would also ask CP Rail, which filed a 26 per cent increase in Montreal commuter fares to reassess their position. In order to assure that these different modes of transport will heed the words of the minister, could the acting minister ask him to consult with other members of cabinet with a view to putting some kind of clout in this position and that of the government to show that they are prepared to do battle on inflation and defer these increases where they do not meet or are not consistent with the government's attitude toward inflation?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I am quite certain that the representations to which the Minister of Transport referred last week have been transmitted to the airlines. The hon. member also involved commuter fares in his question, but I am sure he knows there is a difference in approach in the filing of fares with regard to air traffic as opposed to rail, so the approach must differ in each case. I can say for myself and for the Minister of Transport that we will make the strongest possible representations to the transport companies with a view to getting them to conform, as we hope others will, with the government's objectives regarding inflation and increasing prices.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Gerald William Baldwin: I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, which deals with his two colleagues, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Hum-boldt and the hon. member for Langelier who are wandering around western Canada now. Can the Acting Prime Minister indicate which of those two gentlemen will be speaking for the government on questions of transportation?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I did not understand the purport of the hon. gentleman's question. Perhaps he would put it in a little clearer language.


Gerald William Baldwin: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I am talking about the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Transport. When these two gentlemen make statements at variance with each other, which is speaking for the government on questions of transport?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am sure I could answer that question better if I had some evidence of the contradiction.


Gerald William Baldwin: Which speaks for Transport?
Oral Questions


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a question to the Acting Prime Minister.
In view of the longshoremen's strike and, more recently, the checkers' strike which have been paralysing the movement of grain in the ports of Quebec, since also these strikes have caused irreparable prejudice to Quebec cattle producers and since grain handlers are not on strike, may I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether immediate measures will be taken to give easier access to the ports to grain handlers, so that they may proceed to the loading of the trucks which supply mills and through them farmers, because this matter is extremely serious and, on behalf of Quebec farm producers, I would like to ask the Acting Prime Minister to assure that this matter will receive serious consideration by the Cabinet.


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may answer the hon. member's question. We realize how very serious this particular problem is, and it is the government's intention to take as immediate action as possible to resolve this dispute.


Mr. Andrb Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a supplementary question.
As the Minister of Labour probably knows, injunctions of the court have been issued to clear the access to elevators and these orders were not respected. Can the Minister of Labour say whether discussions were held between his department and the provincial department, with whom lies the enforcement of the injunctions so that they can be respected?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, those who have taken out the injunctions are considering the necessary legal remedies that can be taken against those disobeying them. I am not aware of precisely what happened, but I know that type of consideration has been given and is being given.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: A last supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
Since the raison d'etre of a government is to set order where there is disorder, may I ask the Minister of Labour whether this important matter relating to the problem caused by the strikes in the harbours of Quebec has been discussed by the cabinet, whether he considers this problem of national interest, and whether an immediate solution will be advocated to settle it?


John Carr Munro: Subject to proper consent being given, Mr. Speaker, we intend to move ahead today with necessary legislation that we hope will resolve this dispute. I think this is indicative of how seriously this government regards this particular problem.

April 23, 1975
Oral Questions


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, in the Prime Minister's absence may I direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. Considering Canada's constantly increasing inflation, does the government intend to back up its bid for price and wage guidelines with legislation which would force business to freeze prices or roll them back. If so, when can we expect the government's prices justification bill?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, that particular subject is under discussion in connection with the discussions that are going on between the government and various economic sectors.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: So, something is going on.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare I direct my question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Given the remote location of many northern nursing stations and the difficulty of supplying alternative services in the event of an early strike of federal nurses, a strike which could come as early as next week, will the minister indicate if a contingency plan has been developed to ensure that medical services will be available on a continuing basis to these remote northern communities.


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I will have to pursue this matter with my colleagues. I understand the majority of these nurses are in designated positions. I assume that would cover our nurses in the north.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State may I direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. I have in my hand the April issue of a magazine called Indo-Canadian. On page 5 appears an advertisement by Safeways Travel Agency which is laid out in part as follows:
We Arrange Passport:-
Canadian-4 days.
Citizenship: Canadian-30 days.


Mr. McCleave:: And all for $5.


Benno Friesen: Does that tavel agency have a special arrangement with the government. If so, will the Acting Prime Minister tell the House what it is.


An hon. Member:: A Liberal lawyer.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the question is, no, there is no such arrangement.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. If there is not an arrangement with the government, will the minister investigate this travel agency, to see what kind of breach of advertising ethics is involved in this particular advertisement.


An hon. Member:: Lay a charge.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the officials of my department are already looking at this matter and, as I understand, they are exploring avenues to reimburse people who have been adversely affected. As soon as I have further details I will communicate with the hon. member.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Is the minister aware of the publication of the book entitled "Bended Elbow", by a resident of the Kenora area, one Eleanore Jacobson? Has the minister examined the distribution of this book from the point of view of laying charges under the existing hate literature legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


J. Judd Buchanan: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Peter Kelly, the president of the Grand Council of Treaty III, gave me a copy of the book. We share his concern. We are looking into the matter, to see what action should be taken.


POST OFFICE
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General. In view of reservations being expressed publicly by representatives of both the Letter Carriers Union and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers with respect to the inadequacies of Treasury Board as the sole bargaining agent in the current sensitive contract negotiations, can the Postmaster General assure the House that he is continuing his involvement in the negotiations, so that a direct communications chan-
April 23, 1975

nel is established between employer and employee in these delicate negotiations?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, any mandate which Post Office negotiators have is subject, of course, to Treasury Board approval, as that mandate involves a monetary package. But, according to the spirit of co-operation which prevails in this party, direct negotiations are taking place between negotiators of the Post Office and the Letter Carriers Union, so that the union should have no misgivings about our direct involvement in these negotiations.
Let me tell the House that I appreciate the responsibility of the Letter Carriers Union, which yesterday decided even though they are in a legal position to strike to return to work, at my suggestion, in return for the assurance that we will continue bargaining later this day. I intend to see that that particular promise on my part is respected.


MONTREAL-PROBLEM OF CASUAL EMPLOYEES-MINISTER'S POSITION
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: May I direct a supplementary question to the Postmaster General, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister inform the House if he is maintaining continuous contact on the issue of casual employees and the suspensions arising therefrom at the Montreal post office.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, the other, independent issue, namely, the whole problem of casuals across Canada which is principally a problem particularly for the Canadian Union of Postal-Workers, will be negotiated at the national level when we begin that round of bargaining. The local problem of casuals in Montreal is really not a problem concerning casuals but a problem as to how this difference of opinion which periodically arises is to be resolved. I simply repeat, today, that so long as there are militants in the Post Office who think the proper way of resolving this difference of opinion is through violence, they will continue to be suspended indefinitely as quickly as we note such type of action which I am sure the majority of workers find distasteful.


FISHERIES
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of the Environment. Has the minister, or officials of her department, been in contact with Ontario and Michigan state officials concerning the possibility of contamination of Ontario and Canadian fish resources by the disease myxosoma cere-bralis which has all but destroyed the Michigan state hatcheries program?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the details of this. Perhaps
Oral Questions
the hon. member might direct his question to the Minister of State in charge of fisheries.


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of State responsible for fisheries. May I repeat it, in case he was not listening. Has the minister, or officials of his department, been in contact with Ontario and Michigan state officials concerning the possibility of contamination of Ontario and Canadian fish resources by the disease myxosoma cerebralis which has all but destroyed the Michigan state hatcheries program?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, I have asked for further information on this.
I will endeavour to give it to the hon. member within the next 24 hours.


Stan Darling: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister please inform the House what the federal responsibilities are concerning contamination in a case such as this where natural fish movements across international boundaries could lead to contamination and eventual destruction of entire hatchery and fish populations?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, the problem of disease in hatcheries is one of complicated jurisdiction at which we are looking right now.


ALLEGED HERRING FISHING BY FOREIGN VESSELS IN TERRITORIAL WATERS
Mr. Albert Bechard (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State (Fisheries).
Could he answer the question I asked yesterday concerning the problems created by the French, violating our territorial waters in the Gulf of St. Lawrence?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I have been able to control the facts respecting that situation, and I can inform the hon. member who asked me a question on that matter that, indeed, there are French trawlers in the gulf, because of the agreement providing for a progressive reduction up to 1986, and allowing French trawlers to fish, provided they do not increase their fishing effort.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. Is the minister ready now to table the terms of reference, or originating document, or the letter from him to the RCMP respecting the SIU probe and also those portions of the conclusions which he earlier indicated he might be able to table.

April 23, 1975
Oral Questions


William Warren Allmand: I am considering the matter. I am not ready to do that yet.


RENTAL OF SPACE IN CHAMBLY BUILDING-PAYMENT OF RENT BEFORE OCCUPANCY
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, my question, too, is directed to the Solicitor General. Is the hon. gentleman aware that the RCMP has rented seven floors of office space in the new Chambly Building at the corner of Cooper and Bank Streets and that though the premises will not be ready until November 1 they started to pay full rent as of February 1 amounting to between $600,000 and $700,000? Is this an example of government restraint as practiced by his department?


William Warren Allmand: I was not
aware that the RCMP was renting that space.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


William Warren Allmand: I would point out that under his terms of reference the Solicitor General is not responsible for the day to day administration of the RCMP.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Warren Allmand: I can say that the RCMP is a part of the government which exercises very great restraint in the spending of public funds.


FINANCE
Mr. Peter Bawden (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Minister of Finance. In view of the report that Bank of Canada traders officially intervened in the foreign exchange market on Monday, reversing a sharp decline in the value of the Canadian dollar, will the minister advise us whether the Bank of Canada is implementing government policy having regard to the statement by the Prime Minister in the House on the same day that the Canadian dollar was floating freely?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Acting Minister of Finance):: I think it is well recognized-it has been stated on a number of occasions-that the dollar is free in the sense of being subject to long term movements in the international marketplace. However, to avoid sharp fluctuations there is intervention by the Bank of Canada periodically.


Peter Colwell Bawden: In view of the fact that this was a fairly massive intervention, one which did reverse the decline of the dollar, would it be true to say there has been a change of policy and that Canadian currency is not now floating freely?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I think that would be a wrong conclusion to draw.


HOUSING
Mr. Ken Hurlburt (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for Urban Affairs. It arises from the fact that many mobile home owners are faced with signing five year leases in order to receive the $500 grant under CMHC provisions. Will the hon. gentleman tell us whether this clause could be amended to read "one year"? This would prevent discrimination against first time trailer home owners.


Hon. Barney Danson (Secretary of State for Urban Affairs):: The hon. member has drawn attention to one of the problems which has arisen. The five year land lease requirement was necessary to establish regular residence. The intention is, of course, to avoid subsidizing the purchase of what are strictly travel trailers. I cannot give the hon. member the assurance he seeks right now, but I am looking into the matter.


Mr. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: With mobile homes presently consitituting 13 per cent of all residential housing in Canada, is the minister considering regulations to encourage the purchase of such homes?


Barnett Jerome Danson: We already have measures designed for that purpose. I consider mobile and manufactured homes to be a major factor, particularly in some parts of the country, and as a very real answer, temporary in cases, to some people's housing needs.


INCOME TAX
Mr. John Wise (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. In view of the uncertainty and delay in mail services and in view of the government's own tardy record in supplying T-4 slips on time, has the hon. gentleman considered any extension of the date of submission of income tax returns?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of National Revenue):: The
answer is, no. I am not aware of any difficulties which preclude people from putting their tax returns in the mail, which is the date that governs.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works. Has the minister checked to determine whether any illegal immigrants are working as cleaners in buildings under the supervision of the Department of Public Works or whether any illegal immigrants are employed by building cleaning contractors working for his department?
April 23, 1975


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not run such a check.


PUBLIC BUILDINGS
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. In reply to a question addressed to him several weeks ago he undertook to look into the matter of the calling for tenders for space in Vancouver for the offices of the National Revenue Department, taxation division. I should like to ask the minister what action has been taken as a result of the investigation, since there seems to have been no result at the Vancouver end.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I regret to say I do not have the notes with me today, but I will be glad to bring them tomorrow. I thought the subject had been abandoned.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: No.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, my question was intended for the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State but in the absence of those two members, may I direct it to the Acting Prime Minister? It being now some time since the fact was first mentioned in the House that as many as 22 CBC personnel were asked to cover the Prime Minister's forthcoming journey to the Caribbean, which exceeds coverage by the other sections of the news media by 500 or 600 per cent, can the Acting Prime Minister tell the House whether steps have been taken to curtail this large expenditure of public funds to a level in keeping with the already established news value of the Prime Minister's trips.


George Harris Hees: One man!


Mitchell William Sharp: The
CBC makes its decisions in accordance with what it considers newsworthy. A trip by the Prime Minister of Canada to a British Commonwealth meeting in the Caribbean is considered big news in some parts of this country even if it isn't big news to the hon. member.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: One further question to the Acting Prime Minister on the same subject. Is the government attempting to use the publicly-owned CBC as a means of propping up its own and the Prime Minister's sagging image?
Speaker's Ruling-Bill C-44


Mitchell William Sharp: Since the premise to the question is false, it of course requires no answer from anybody on this side of the House. But I suggest the hon. member should not ask so many silly questions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: A question of privilege, Mr. Speaker!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: Yesterday, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) raised a point of order in connection with Bill C-44. The importance of the point of order was amply demonstrated by the rather full discussion which took place in the House and in addition, I hope, by my efforts to come to a decision by eight o'clock. That was not possible, but as a result of further study and examination of the question I am now able to inform the House of my decision on the matter.
The procedural questions in connection with some of the amendments made to the bill in the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates are important inasmuch as they involve two or three fundamental principles of our procedure, not least of which, of course, is the question of the financial initiative of the Crown. Another question involves the relationship between proceedings in a standing committee and the Chair, and the third involves the relationship between the committee and report stages of legislation.
Dealing with the first point, namely, the financial initiative of the Crown, it is obviously one of our most basic and fundamental procedural principles that only a minister of the Crown may originate legislation which proposes a charge upon the revenue, and then only when last legislation is accompanied by a recommendation from the Governor General. No amendment can exceed the terms of that recommendation, no matter by whom it is moved, and no action taken by the House, by any member of the House, by any standing committee, and least of all by the Chair, must in any way weaken that very basic and fundamental principle of our practice.
The foundation for the point of order raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is that subclause (2) of clause 2 of Bill C-44, which was adopted in the standing committee, firstly establishes commissioners who will review future salary changes, secondly advances the implementation of the indexing process from the date originally contemplated, and thirdly expands the concept involved in the indexing itself, none of which was contem-

April 23, 1975
Speaker's Ruling-Bill C-44
plated in the original recommendation, and that therefore the amendment ought to be held to be out of order. No serious argument to the contrary was advanced, and in any case, even if there had been one I would have no difficulty finding the point well taken. In my view the subclause is out of order.
The difficult question, however, relates to the action that ought to be taken at this time. In this regard I must stress that the circumstances are unique. There are precedents regarding defects in bills as a result of amendments in committee, but most relate to proceedings in committee of the whole or to other circumstances in which the report stage as we now know it did not exist or was not operable.
Since the report stage is a relatively recent proceeding under our rules, its precise nature is still a matter of some disagreement. There is no disagreement, however, that the report stage is one of reconsideration of events that have taken place in the standing committee. I am sure hon. members are well aware of the extensive powers relating to the retabling of amendments that have been procedurally or otherwise rejected or which have been passed. The power to propose amendments at the report stage and to cause the House to reconsider those questions amply stamps the report stage as one of reconsideration of the events which took place in the standing committee.
There remains the question, however, whether it is a separate stage from the report stage or whether it is a continuation of that stage which begins in the standing committee and which is not finalized until the motion for concurrence is dealt with in the House. Furthermore, if through the process of reconsideration the report stage allows, in effect, an appeal to the House of decisions taken in the standing committee, even to the point as is mentioned in Standing Order 75(6), of permitting the filing of a new financial recommendation-although here, again, I accept the argument that the recommendation now listed at the report stage is in respect of amendments which will be dealt with at the actual report stage. Nevertheless, if in fact the report stage is an opportunity for appeal and for reconsideration of decisions taken in standing committees, then it might be asked, why should the House or the Chair concern itself at all with proposed or alleged procedural irregularities in the standing committee? And if the Chair or the House should concern itself with those problems, what about the timing? Is it appropriate that they should be considered after we have embarked upon the report stage by the actual filing of amendments, or must it be done prior to that point?
Obviously, I am not answering those questions; I am only putting them forward to demonstrate that we have never addressed ourselves to a precise understanding of the nature of the report stage and of its relationship to the committee stage of a bill. I also want to stress that it has been suggested that I send the bill back to the standing committee for further consideration. I make it clear that I have no authority to do so. That is a decision of the House, not a decision of the Chair. That decision may still be taken on third reading. Secondly, it is suggested that if it did go back to the committee, it would have to be accompanied by a direction to the committee to somehow cure its own procedural irregularities. I should not like, and I am sure the House would not like, to have the task of

trying to frame that direction, and in any case, if it were a good idea in principle, which I feel it is not, it would be most difficult to find the actual wording.
Finally, this is an extraordinary situation because we have already arrived at the notice of the report stage. Amendments filed by both sides of the House including an amended recommendation, make it clear to me, that the House-that is to say, the whole House-is about to embark upon consideration of those very questions which we would be proposing to ask the standing committee to consider. Therefore, it does not seem useful to suggest that the matter be sent back to the standing committee to consider the very things that the House itself is about to consider.
I do not have the power to order the bill sent back to the standing committee, and I would not do so even if I had the power. For the same reason, I cannot justify simply holding that the bill cannot proceed and then leaving it to the House to try to frame that sort of order.
I wish to make it clear, first of all, that having already embarked upon the report stage and the filing of these notices of amendments and the amended recommendation, no precedent can be taken from this circumstance as to what will happen in the future if such an argument about a procedural irregularity in a committee is made before we actually get to this point. Secondly, there is a necessity for clarifying the very nature of the report stage, the relationship to the committee stage, and also the proper procedure which must be followed if objections of this sort are going to be taken in the future, and particularly in regard to the timing that must be involved. I look for, and accept, an undertaking of the House leaders that this matter will be considered in the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization at the earliest possible opportunity.
In these circumstances, which I regard as singular, I reiterate that I find the amendment made in the committee, being subclause (2) of clause 2 at page 2 of Bill C-44, in that it has exceeded the original recommendation that accompanied the bill, out of order. Secondly, I reject the notion of returning the bill to the standing committee. Thirdly, however, I cannot allow the bill to proceed, knowing, as I have found, that it contains procedural irregularities.
Therefore, on the basis of precedents which I would be pleased to provide for members who are interested in examining them, I take another course, which is to direct-and I hereby do so-that the procedurally unacceptable amendment, being subclause (2) of clause 2 of Bill C-44, be stripped from the bill and that the bill be reprinted as otherwise amended and reported by the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates; that notices of report stage amendments now filed be removed from the order paper; and that upon the filing of the reprinted bill, which I will announce to the House when it takes place, the time for the filing of notices of report stage amendments pursuant to Standing Order 75 shall begin to run as though the bill were at that time being reported from the standing committee.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I take this rather unique and singular step relying, as I say, on the Standing Committee on Procedure
April 23, 1975

and Organization to examine this problem and to come to some answers as to how we should deal with the matter on a continuing basis. I take the step also because I wish to stress that there are deep differences among members and parties in this House, and whatever course I take should give recognition to the fact that the House should move as quickly and as directly as possible to a debate which would permit full and further discussion of those differences, not only regarding the procedural aspects of the bill but its substantive aspects as well. I have taken this course in order to ensure free liberty by all members of the House to file such report stage amendments as they desire, with plenty of advance notice in order to make sure that all questions are fully and openly discussed in the House.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of privilege arising from the remarks made a few moments ago by the Acting Prime Minister. Last Friday the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), and a few moments ago the Acting Prime Minister, referred to questions that I had asked in this House as silly.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, while I quite realize that I would have a very difficult time to be as silly as the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay), I submit this is nothing more than an attempt to hide the giving of embarrassing information. Nevertheless, I believe that any member has a legitimate question of privilege when both the Prime Minister and the acting Prime Minister come into this chamber and mock the democratic process by arrogant, flippant and insulting answers.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Surely, Mr. Speaker, there never was a more arrogant or worse government in the history of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, I cannot conceive why the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt) chose to put me in the same boat. I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that if the hon. member for Leeds has doubts concerning himself, for my part, I have none. Anyhow, I would like to indicate to the House that when I ask a question, it makes sense.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
Second report of Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, in both official languages- Mr. Dupras.
Order Paper Questions
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table the report of Chief Judge A. B. Gold, conciliation commissioner, in the dispute affecting the Maritime Employers Association and the International Longshoremen's Association, local 1657.


BROADCASTING, FILMS AND ASSISTANCE TO THE ARTS CONCURRENCE IN THIRD REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques) moved: that the third report of the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts, presented to the House on Thursday, April 17, 1975, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[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: 924, 1,819, 1,875, 1,912, 1,944, 2,108, 2,132 and 2,216.
Mr. Speaker, if questions Nos. 708, 2,038 and 2,116 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Alexander: 1.	How many persons were in receipt of unemployment insurance payments in each month of 1974, at the time each month (or during the time period each month) in which Statistics Canada took its sample of unemployment levels?
2.	In each month, what was the level of unemployment?


Robert Knight Andras: 1.

April 23, 1975
Order Paper Questions
Beneficiaries of Unemployment Insurance (1) (000'B) Regular Beneficiaries (2)
No Earnings Reported (3)	With Earnings Reported	Special Benefits (4)	TotalJanuary	609	40	70	719February	626	43	75	744March	605	46	73	724April	552	43	66	661May	467	41	60	568June	395	34	54	483July	388	25	52	465August	383	22	51	456September	327	25	51	403October	346	28	57	431November	366p	29p	54p	449pDecember	488p	34p	56p	578p(1)	Claimants who received payment for the same reference week in the month as that used by the Labour Force Survey to determine the number of unemployed.(2)	Regular unemployment insurance benefits including benefits for trainees who have completed their courses but have not found work.(3)	These claimants reported that they had no earnings and were ready, willing and able to work during the reference week. (This category comes the closest to the definition of unemployed in the Labour Force Survey which counts those who are seeking work and did not work at all during the reference week.)(4)	Special benefits include sickness, maternity, retirement, fishing and benefits paid to trainees while on approved training courses.2.	The following table shows the number of unemployed for each month of 1974 based on the Labour Force Survey conducted by Statistics Canada. Unemployment levels ('000) for 1974 (not seasonally adjusted): January, 637; February, 635; March, 599; April, 568; May, 524; June, 469; July, 465; August, 447; September, 431; October, 430; November, 439; December, 597.


Mr. Cossitt: What were the total amounts spent or budgeted over each of the past five years by the government in regard to the federal-provincial programme for the promotion of bilingualism in education and, of these totals, how much went to each province?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Expenditures under the Federal-Provincial Programme of Bilingualism in Education:
Province
1970 71 $
1971-72	1972-73

1973 74 *
1974 7ft $
Newfoundland
Prince Edward Island
Nova Scotia
New Brunswick
Quebec
Ontario
123,485
101,490
733,615
3,694,660
29,986,813
12,164,400
181,629
128,905
847,575
6,664,993
42,600,236
21,438,234
224,091 227,429 953,185 5,766,983 34,165,243 18,230,841
193,331
184,183
794,088
6,524,305
52,404,251
22,248,455
| Mr. Andru.)
April 23, 1975

Order Paper Questions
Province	1970-71	1971-72	1972-73	1973-74	1974-75*	*	$	*	*Manitoba	849,557	1,133,693	1,189,253	2,121,525	Saskatchewan	597,06.3	432,914	784,269	570,894	Alberta	865,359	1,075,811	1,026,007	884,404	British Columbia National*	883,558	1,018,744	819,857	1,019,025 1,000,000	Total	50,000,000	75,522,734	63,387,158	87,962,461	91,299,000**
Interprovincial Second Language Monitor Programme: no breakdown per province available. "Forecast expenditures 1974-75
AIR CANADA-NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES IN RECEIPT OF *25,000 A YEAR


Mr. Mazankowski: What are the names and positions of Air Canada executives making more than $25,000 per year (a) which ones have been (i) promoted through Air Canada ranks (ii) recruited from outside ranks (b) how long has each worked for Air Canada (c) how long has each been in his present position?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Tranport):: The
management of Air Canada advises as follows: Information concerning individual salaries of Air Canada executives has traditionally been treated as proprietary. To
reveal this information while other Canadian airlines are not required to do so could be prejudicial to Air Canada's position in a highly competitive manpower market. A list of names and positions of Air Canada executives, as well as their length of service with the company is attached, (a)(i)(ii) All those named on attached list may be said to have been promoted through company ranks with the exception of Mr. Y. Pratte, Mr. P. J. Chartrand and Mr. L. M. Raverty. Also, Mr. M. d'Amours began his career in Air Canada as Vice President, Eastern Region and Mr. M. H. Cochrane as Controller, (b) See following list, (c) See following list.
Air Canada Executive Management by Length of Service at March 14, 1975
			Assumed
			Present
		Length of Service	Position
G. C. Goode	Vice President-Payload and Operations Control	36 years 8 months	1973K. E. Olson	Vice President-Purchasing and Facilities	36 years 6 months	1970H. D. Laing	Vice President-Western Region	35 years 2 months	1970J. W. Norberg	Vice President-CAN AC	34 years 7 months	1974K. J. Davis	Vice President-Flight Operations	33 years 6 months	1971D. C. Tennant	Group Vice President-Technical Services	32 years 9 months	1974O. H. Glenn	Vice President-Fleet Planning	31 years 10 months	1970J. M. Cullen	Vice President-Central and Southern Region	29 years 4 months	1970J. P. Labrie	Vice President-United States Region	28 years 8 months	1970F. C. Eyre	Vice President-European Region	27 years 8 months	1974C. I. Taylor	Vice President-Public Affairs	26 years	1973I. E. McPherson	General Counsel	22 years 10 months	1966P. J. Jeanniot	Vice President-Computer and Systems Services	19 years 2 months	1970*R. T. Vaughan	President	13 years 1 month	1973II. Kan tor	Director, Payload and Operations Control	12 years 4 months	1974J. W. McGill	Vice President-Eastern Region	12 years 2 months	1974M. E. Fournier	Company Secretary	8 years	1971Y. Pratte	Chairman	6 years 3 months	1968M. d'Amours	Group Vice President-Sales and Services	4 years 7 months	1974M. H. Cochrane	V ice President-Finance	4 years 5 months	1973P. J. Chartand	Vice President-Personnel and Organization	Development	3 years 5 months	1971L. M. Raverty	Vice President-Maintenance	10 months	1974
Joint Secretary-Air Canada and ON, 1962-72.


Mr. Laprise: Did the government grant a subsidy for the printing of the book entitled Les patenteux du Quebec and, if so (a) in what amount (b) to whom was it granted?


James Hugh Faulkner: Although not an agent of Her Majesty, the Canada Council has provided the following information: "Les patenteux du Quebec" was on a list of Canadian books published by Parti-Pris book publishers in 1974-75, under a Council block grant. Publishers who are awarded a block grant may allocate it across their current publishing program at their own discretion, (a) and (b) Not applicable.

April 23, 1975
Order Paper Questions
Note: Council subsidized in 1973, under its Explorations Program, a photographic study of the various creations of Quebec handymen, hobbyists and home craftsmen, a study which eventually resulted in the publication of "Les paten-teux du Quebec". The grant, worth $6,500, was awarded to Lise Nantel.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	How many dollars were expended by CIDA through the Canadian Commercial Corporation during the years 1973-74 and 1974-75?
2.	To whom were the respective contracts allotted and for what goods and services were purchases made?


Mr. Herb Breau (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. The amount expended by CIDA through the Canadian Commercial Corporation is as follows: 1973-74, $55,625,265.71; 1974-75, $69,569,999.03.
2. The analysis required to obtain this information would be prohibitive in terms of time, manpower and financial resources.


Mr. Kaplan: 1.	How did Information Canada determine the charge of $4.95 for the Royal Commission Report on the Status of Women in Canada?
2.	How many copies did Information Canada expect to sell at that price?
3.	Was a comparative study conducted on the sale price and, if so, had a price of $2.50 per copy been charged, what greater demand would have been anticipated and what costs savings would have resulted from the greater production run?


John Carr Munro: In so far as Information Canada is concerned, the answers are as follows: 1. The price was determined in counsultation with the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in Canada according to the rates prescribed by the Treasury Board.
2.	16,471 copies in English and 3,285 in French have been sold since November 24, 1970.
3.	No.


Mr. Hurlburt: For the year 1972-73, what was the dollar value of repairs and capital cost improvements to military bases in (a) British Columbia (b) Alberta (c) Saskatchewan (d) Manitoba (e) Ontario (f) Quebec (g) Prince Edward Island (h) Nova Scotia (i) New Brunswick (j) Newfoundland?
Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National
Defence): The dollar value of repairs and capital cost improvements to military bases by provinces in Canada for fiscal year 1972-73 was as follows:
(Mr. Faulkner.|
Construction Maintenance $ $
(a)	British Columbia	4,664,298	7,227,721(b)	Alberta	6,027,251	9,178,095(c)	Saskatchewan	290,763	2,120,055(d)	Manitoba	1,744,089	2,334,068(e)	Ontario	7,924,030	24,158,615(f)	Quebec	17,411,686	12,519,880(g)	Prince Edward Island	91,775	1,857,916(h)	Nova Scotia	3,336,041	8,245,749(i)	New Brunswick	727,024	4,016,821(j)	Newfoundland	392,420	351,649Total	42,609,277	72,010,569


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): Which sections of CBC spent or overspent their annual budget prior to the end of the fiscal year ended March 31, 1975 and, in each case (a) on what date was the budget spent (b) what was the total amount of overspending as of March 31, 1975?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: It has not been customary to require the CBC to supply such details of its internal management and administration.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


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



MINISTER OF MANPOWER AND IMMIGRATION-JOB PLACEMENT DRIVE

Mr. Marshall: 1.	With reference to the "Job Placement" drive announced by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration on February 20, 1975, what are the names of the 34 cities and CMC Centres in which this Programme would be operational?
2.	During 1974, with respect to each Canada Manpower Centre (a) how many persons were placed in (i) jobs (ii) training courses (b) how many persons were given mobility grants?
Return tabled.



LIP-GRANTS IN COMPTON CONSTITUENCY

Mr. Allard: 1. What was the total amount granted for 1975 under the Local Initiatives Programme in the Constituency of Compton?
April 23, 1975

2.	How many project applications were (a) submitted (b) rejected (c) accepted?
3.	What are the names of the projects that were (a) accepted (b) rejected?
4.	What reasons were given by the government for rejecting or accepting the projects?
5.	What amount was granted by the government for each such project?
6.	How many jobs were created by each such project?
Return tabled.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might briefly, on a question of privilege, make reference to three questions standing in my name on the order paper. I am sorry I do not have the numbers immediately at hand. These questions were responded to in a standing committee last night. It is surprising to me that you can get answers in a standing committee to questions placed on the order paper, but cannot get them responded to in the normal way in the House. I wonder if the hon. parliamentary secretary would take note of that. Perhaps other members in the chamber who want answers to their questions should raise them in committee, as opposed to waiting for the parliamentary secretary to respond.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I might say that I am equally surprised.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all motions stand.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


John Carr Munro: for leave to introduce Bill C-59, to provide for the resumption and continuation of longshoring, checking, cargo repairing and related operations at certain ports in the province of Quebec.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. member shall have leave to introduce the bill.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I might say that I am a bit surprised that this has not been done in the usual way, namely, by way of a request earlier in the day's proceed-
Labour Dispute
ings. May I indicate that despite the fact that by the rules this should not take place until tomorrow, we are prepared that first reading be given now. We are also willing at this moment to consent to a second reading debate following that motion today. We suggest that the government not ask for any further concessions at this point.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, may I just follow up on what was said on the point of order of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). In so far as we are concerned, with regard to future concessions we will consider the exigencies of the situation as they develop and then consider any suggestions that may be made by the minister.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the House leaders of the other parties for the co-operation which I requested. Certainly, we on this side of the House would be prepared to see the bill proceed to second reading debate immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall it be so ordered, that second reading be taken forthwith?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Carr Munro: that Bill C-59, to provide for the resumption and continuation of longshoring, checking, cargo repairing and related operations at certain ports in the province of Quebec, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
Mb. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): Mr. Speaker, I rise on another technical point of order. Since we have passed the motion that the bill be given first reading and be printed, I should like to know if that has been done and can copies be distributed to all hon. members?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The bill is now being distributed as it has been printed. It was evident that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) proposed to make some initial comments on the bill, and I thought I should recognize him while the bill was being distributed.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I would join the government House leader in thanking the House leaders of the other parties and hon. members for their co-operation.
Let me say at the outset that it gives me no pleasure whatever to introduce this emergency, back to work legislation respecting the St. Lawrence River ports' longshoring operations. The government is committed to the free collective bargaining system and this dispute has not shaken our faith in collective bargaining as the most satisfactory method for determining wages and conditions. Unfortunately, bargaining in this dispute discontinued more than three weeks ago, and despite the best efforts of an experienced and respected mediator we were unable to get the parties back to the bargaining table.
Confronted with this situation, the government could have allowed the dispute to take its own course in the hope that eventually the loss of wages and the loss of

April 23, 1975
Labour Dispute
business would compel the parties to reach their own solution. This parliamentary intervention in the affairs of the Maritime Employers Association and the longshoremen would not have been necessary had the longshoremen restricted their activities to their own industry and allowed employees of other organizations who were not on strike to do their jobs without hindrance. I am referring particularly to those employees not on strike who are engaged in the movement of grain at elevators on the waterfront.
As members of this House well know, I support the right to strike as a basic freedom of Canadian workers, and I certainly supported the right of longshoremen in this dispute to strike. But I cannot and do not condone illegal activity by strikers and I do not support activity which impinges on the rights of other workers. The actions of certain individuals created an intolerable situation for the feed grain industry and employers and employees not involved in the strike, and placed in jeopardy the livestock industry of an entire province.
I should like to make it clear that labour solidarity is a respected and desirable practice among members of the trade unions. Workers who join longshoremen in peaceful picketing should not be criticized, but it is unacceptable to me and to the government for workers on strike or workers who sympathize with those on strike to engage in acts of vandalism or intimidation. All such activity places the trade unions and collective bargaining in disrepute.
It will, I hope, be accepted that, under the unfortunate circumstances that prevail, the government has no option now but to consider such legislation as is proposed. Let there be no mistake about the government's intentions: while this is the second occasion in recent times that back to work legislation has been or will be passed by parliament, in so doing there is not, of course, the least intention on the part of the government to start a trend or a pattern of government intervention. Indeed, such a trend would be repugnant to this government. I say this so there can be no doubt whatever.
My hon. friend from Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) mentioned the railroads. May I remind him that they voluntarily came to settlement earlier this year, ensuring peaceful negotiations during the whole of the term of the collective agreement and ensuring continued operation of the railroads. I think this is evidence of how free collective bargaining can work constructively when both parties have a willingness to do so. As I say, it is repugnant for the government to order back to work legislation and to constantly intervene. I say this so there can be no doubt whatever that the course of action which this government has embarked upon is a course of action thrust upon it by the particular circumstances and demands of this dispute situation.
It should also be made clear that this bill is by no means intended to establish a precedent. I want to serve notice on the parties in this dispute, and on the parties in any dispute that may take place in the future, that there is no certainty as to this government's course of action with respect to intervention or the nature of the legislation itself. The parties should not look upon parliament as

being part and parcel of the bargaining system, the place where they go to get an extra concession which they could not negotiate at the bargaining table. This is far too often the attempt of one side or the other. Those who attempt to use parliament in this way will be sorely disappointed.
The principal subject matter of this legislation is the dispute between the Maritime Employers Association and the International Longshoremen's Association, specifically local 375, Montreal; local 1739, Quebec City; and local 1846, Trois-Rivieres. I will refer later to the secondary dispute which this legislation also concerns. The parties to the principal dispute have been unable to negotiate revisions to their three collective agreements, which expired on December 21, 1974, in Montreal and on January 15, 1975, in Quebec City and Trois-Rivieres. The total number of longshoremen involved stands at some 2,400.
It would be pertinent for me to briefly recapitulate the sequence of events that have led to the present situation. The parties met in direct but unsuccessful negotiations on a number of occasions prior to the expiry of their old collective agreements. Consequently, on December 24, 1974, I appointed Judge Alan B. Gold of Montreal as conciliation commissioner under section 164 of the Canada Labour Code. At that time I also authorized Judge Gold to commission an independent study into the matter that is primarily responsible for the present dispute: the longshoremen's job security plan. I will refer to this later.
Between December 30, 1974, and February 24, 1975, Commissioner Gold met separately with the union and the employer and held a number of hearings. Commissioner Gold's report was received on March 14. This report was, as we know, accepted by the Maritime Employers Association but was rejected by the union membership at all three ports. Some two weeks later I appointed Charles Poirier as mediator in the dispute, pursuant to section 195 of the code. But despite Mr. Poirier's best efforts, the longshoremen began legal strike action on March 31, a strike which is continuing to this moment and which is unacceptably damaging not only sectors of the local economy, particularly the agricultural sector that is dependent on the importation of feed grain, but the national economy as well.
It will be noted that the second part of this legislation involves the Maritime Employers Association, local 1657, Montreal, and local 1605, Quebec City, of the ILA-the latter representing some 320 checkers and cargo repairmen. In this instance, the parties were also unable to negotiate revisions to their two collective agreements which expired on December 31, 1974. On March 10, I appointed Judge Gold as a conciliation commissioner and he handed in his report on April 9. As with the other dispute, the Maritime Employers Association accepted the report and the union did not. The union struck on April 17 and remains on strike as of today.
Before referring to the proposed legislation itself, I would like to add some appropriate observations concerning the conciliation commissioner, Chief Judge Gold, on whose reports the legislation is founded. Judge Gold's knowledge in the field of industrial relations is unquestioned; and, equally important, his expertise in industrial relations as practised at the St. Lawrence River ports is unequalled. It is unnecessary for me to provide a detailed
April 23, 1975

biographic note on Judge Gold, but it would be appropriate to recall that in 1968 and again in 1971 he was appointed chairman of conciliation boards that dealt with the most complex and difficult longshoring disputes. On the former occasion, both parties saw fit to vest in him the powers of an arbitrator and by the following year were able, through the efforts and skill of Judge Gold, to agree to a comprehensive three-year agreement.
It will be obvious from this government's legislative proposals, then, that the government has utmost confidence in the abilities, judgment and expertise of Chief Judge Gold. Indeed, it is certain that without this confidence the government would not now be proposing the legislative provisions it is, writing into law Judge Gold's considered recommendations. The indisputable fact of the matter is that nowhere can be found another individual with the specific qualities which Judge Gold is able to call upon, and most certainly nobody else with the knowledge which Judge Gold has accumulated in the course of his lengthy exposure to St. Lawrence River ports' operations. I can say without equivocation that Judge Gold is respected by both parties to this dispute.
I will now refer to the proposed legislation itself, namely, the St. Lawrence Ports Operations Act, 1975. This legislation is in two parts, dealing separately with the longshoremen and the checkers/repairmen. However, to simplify an explanation of this legislation I will now relate the provisions as they affect both parties. The legislation provides for the immediate resumption of longshoring, checking, cargo repairing and related operations, and for all employees to return to work under the terms and conditions detailed in Judge Gold's reports.
With respect to the longshoremen, this means a change in job security from a weekly to a seasonal guarantee, with provision for weekly wage payments. The new seasonal guarantee, which it is hoped will prove a more realistic and manageable burden for the employers association, is of differing length depending on the port concerned, with Montreal longshoremen being guaranteed 1,600 hours over 40 weeks, those at Quebec City 1,400 hours over 35 weeks, and those at Trois-Rivieres, 1,200 hours over 30 weeks. None of the longshoremen, however, retains the weekly guarantee which previously dictated that however much overtime was worked in one week or at weekends, none of these hours would be credited to a subsequent week.
Mr. Speaker, it might be helpful if I were to give the House an explanation of the job security provision as proposed by Judge Gold, which is part of the legislation, according to my understanding of his proposals. The job security clause of Judge Gold operates in two phases. It is based on a seasonal guarantee of paid hours, rather than being based on a five-day week guarantee as it was under the last collective agreement. Each employee is guaranteed 40 hours of pay every week whether he works or not. If work is offered, he must be available or he will lose the call and eight hours of his guaranteed work for the season. If he works more than 40 hours in a week and does not owe any time under the guarantee, he keeps all his hourly income for that week. If he puts in, let us say, 32 hours in a week he will be advanced an eight hour credit and thereby
Labour Dispute
will get 40 hours pay for that week, but he will owe the fund eight hours of work. If in the next week he were to work 48 hours, he would get 40 hours of pay and the extra eight hours would be used to refund the advance he received the previous week. He will also add to this week's income the overtime premium rate of pay.
The second phase of the guarantee proposal of Judge Gold is computed at the end of the season. If an employee has not been offered 1,600 hours of work, the employer will pay the difference at the appropriate hourly rate. If the employee received an advance at any time during the season and did not later make it up, he could owe the fund the same number of hours at the end of the season. He would then be obliged to make a refund to the guarantee plan in a lump sum or to make the payment from his vacation pay or other money owing.


Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, before the minister goes on, in view of the fact that we did not have an opportunity to study the bill, could I ask him a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: This can only be done with the permission of the minister.


John Carr Munro: May I finish my speech first, and then I will answer the hon. member's question? I would now like to refer to the commissioner's wage proposals which, in my opinion, adequately compensate for the loss of the weekly guarantee. As an example, a Montreal longshoreman will receive a guaranteed minimum, by the end of the contract, of $12,800 a year. He will receive this amount whether he worked or not. This does not count overtime, which is usual. Across the board, the proposals compare favourably with hourly rates paid at any port in North America.
Under these proposals, the current base rate of $5.10 per hour will be increased in four stages to a maximum of $8 per hour effective January 1, 1977. The intermediate increments are of 90 cents-to $6-as of January 1, 1975; of 40 cents-to $6.40-as of October 1, 1975; and of $1-to $7.40- as of January 1, 1976. In percentage terms, the increase would be 19.6 per cent for the first year, 15.6 per cent for the second year, and 8.1 per cent for the third year, for a total of 43.3 per cent over three years.
Earlier in this presentation I expressed my distaste at having once again to use parliamentary procedures to get striking employees back to work. I repeat this sentiment of repugnance at being forced to chisel away at what I and many other people regard as a structural part of Canadian democracy, the free collective bargaining process. But at the same time I must point out that such recourse is a necessary part of our system-indeed, a vital part of our system-which will continue to be used, albeit with the reluctance I have referred to, whenever the circumstance demands it, on an ad hoc basis, such as we are dealing with here. This is certainly the antithesis of compulsory arbitration which, as I have indicated many times, I do not favour and it is contrary to the fundamental principle and democratic elements of the free collective bargaining process. I only hope that in the future the circumstance does not arise as frequently as it has in the recent past.

April 23, 1975
Labour Dispute
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to refer to certain press reports which would indicate that legislation ordering a resumption of longshoring would not be obeyed. I can understand the disappointment of both the employees and the employers being the subject of parliamentary intervention. It is obvious that one party or the other, or both parties, will not be satisfied with the provisions of the legislation. But this is an inevitable consequence of the failure of the parties to find their own solution. While I can sympathize with the sentiments which lie behind the news reports from the St. Lawrence River ports, I know that common sense will prevail and the longshoremen will go back to work under terms which compare favourably with any in the longshoring industry in this country.
I wish to thank hon. members for giving me the attention they have. I hope that although they have not had time to consider the legislation in detail, through the course of the afternoon they will be able to study it and, I hope, support the proposed action of the government.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister for an explanation since this matter came up very quickly. Am I right in my understanding that under the previous agreement, longshoremen were guaranteed a base minimum of 40 hours for some 37 weeks, which works out to 1,480 hours, and that under Mr. Justice Gold's proposal longshoremen at the port of Quebec will be reduced to 1,400 hours, and at Trois-Rivieres to 1,200 hours? In the hasty arithmetic I have done, that would indicate that unless there is a great deal of overtime the guaranteed pay that they will receive at Trois-Rivieres and the port of Quebec, even with an increase in wages, could be less than they are getting at present. I wonder if the minister has looked at this matter and is prepared to take it into consideration. The minister has said that this legislation will relieve the employers, but I do not think that is its primary purpose.


John Carr Munro: I would like to check the point that the hon. member has raised, quite rightly, with respect to the ports of Quebec and Trois-Rivieres. I would point out, of course, that the guarantee has been increased for the port of Montreal from 1,480 hours to 1,600 hours. I am trying to check whether there was a differential from the previous collective agreement.


Mr. Orlikow:: I have a question for the minister, Mr. Speaker. The minister used the illustration of a longshoreman who worked 32 hours in one week and was paid for that, then the next week he worked 48 hours: the eight hours of what was formerly overtime would be charged against the hours of the week before when he did not work 40 hours. At what rate of pay would he be paid for the extra eight hours? Would he be paid at the regular rate of pay, or would it be at overtime rates?


John Carr Munro: He would be paid at overtime rates. The portion which was normal overtime would be credited to the previous week, but he would be paid at overtime rates.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I would like to make one thing clear. The minister indicated that he would give

further information in reply to the question of the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas). This will not be possible after I have recognized another speaker because the minister, when he replies, will close the debate. Therefore, I hope hon. members will be satisfied if the reply is given at that time. Otherwise, it will have to be done in committee or in the committee of the whole House, as the House wishes.


Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to lead off the debate on second reading on behalf of my party, I want to say first that my party will support in principle the legislation which the minister has brought before the House. We will support this legislation because, as all hon. members know, my colleague the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle), along with my colleague from the Creditiste party, the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert), introduced motions a week ago today calling for a special debate, with specific reference to the very serious situation which was plaguing farm producers of the province of Quebec because of their inability to obtain, on a stable basis, sufficient supplies of grain to feed their livestock.
In addition, my party supports this bill for some of the reasons the minister put forward in his brief remarks a few minutes ago. As I said a week ago, I believe all hon. members of this House agree that illegal action on the part of some people involved in an otherwise legal strike cannot be tolerated in this country. However, having said that, we will support this bill. Having made quite clear that this support is a result of our belief that the situation has reached a point of some urgency and that action has to be taken, we say to the minister and to the government that we are not completely happy with the formula the minister is using and which is incorporated in this bill. We are not completely happy with it because, once again, hon. members of this House, no matter to which party they may belong, are being asked to determine among themselves an appropriate award in a very complicated dispute between the Maritime Employers Association and three locals of the longshoremen's union.
I am charged by my caucus with responsibility for the question of labour. We have said before that it is not the function of parliament to try to determine what is a fair settlement between the parties to a dispute. I cannot emphasize this too much. I have here the Gold report which is the basis of the legislation. Admittedly, it is not a perfect copy but I count about 60 pages before I even get to the appendices which Chief Justice Gold attached to it. This report came into my hands within the last few days. I am sure that most hon. members have not yet had the opportunity of seeing it, and they are not likely to have a chance to see it before we have gone through all stages of this bill which imposes upon the parties the recommendations of Chief Justice Gold.
I say to the minister most sincerely that I agree with him when he says it is probably impossible to obtain the services of anyone better than Chief Justice Gold. But that is not the whole question. The question is whether we have a satisfactory approach to this kind of problem. I know the minister's feelings about the importance of the right to strike in a free community. I think he knows my feelings on that, too, and I think we agree that in a
April 23, 1975

country of free men and women there must be the right to strike. I am sure hon. members opposite will agree when I say that every right has a limitation. It is easy to say repeatedly that we believe in the right to strike, but as a consequence there has not been any need to find a more effective way to settle this kind of difficulty. The minister says that this is the second occasion recently.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The third.


John Allen Fraser: I know that the minister is referring to only a few weeks ago.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: His memory is short.


John Allen Fraser: I know the minister well, and his memory is better than that; it goes back to before I was a member of this House. He will remember the legislation in August of 1972 which put the longshoremen back to work. He will remember the legislation, when we were both in the House, of the last weekend in August of 1973 which put railway workers back to work. He will remember that in May of 1974, rather than let the grain handlers strike he invoked sections of the labour code to forbid a strike during an election. I do not want to remind the minister of all the unhappy events surrounding that particular dispute. He will remember that in October he introduced legislation in this House to put the grainhandlers back to work. The minister will also remember that in March of 1975 he introduced legislation to put the longshoremen on the west coast back to work. And now there is legislation to put the longshoremen at the three river ports back to work.
The government seems to approach this matter on the basis that it is exceptional. It is not exceptional. It is, to a dangerous degree, beginning to establish a regular pattern. I know that there are hon. members from both sides of the House who will agree with me. We do not have, and the government has not yet seen fit to provide, a mechanism whereby strikes which affect an essential service, where it is intolerable to allow that service to be discontinued, or strikes which affect the national interest in such a way that we have to do something about it, can be dealt with. There is no capacity for identifying such disputes and reporting back to the government so that we know in advance whether we are dealing with a labour-management dispute which is going to affect the national interest and sooner or later parliament will be called upon to take action.
The minister is absolutely right when he says that some parties sit back and do not negotiate as expeditiously as they might, or even sometimes as sincerely as they might, if they know that all they have to do is cause sufficient inconvenience across this country and parliament will step in. This is not always on one side; it is often on both sides. We have not developed-the government has had a number of years to do it, and plenty of evidence that it is necessary-a mechanism whereby these kinds of disputes can be determined in advance as having the effect which everyone in this House knows they will ultimately have. Despite all the rhetoric which may be heard from certain members in this House, the situation finally reaches a point where public opinion builds up to the point that we come back here and take action. Some complain more than
Labour Dispute
others, but everyone goes along with finally using parliament to put people back to work and to impose a settlement.
In committee, at the time the legislation affecting grain-handlers was before the House in October, 1974, the minister will remember that we had a very interesting exchange. It was directed at discussing this very important problem and trying to find solutions. I put it to the minister then that in that particular case they took a conciliation report which happened to favour the union, stated in advance that they would support it, and then asked the parties to continue negotiating. We said at the time that was an incredible position for the government to take, to state that they were going to accept a conciliation report and then ask both parties to negotiate.
I asked the minister if this was a precedent and if future conciliation reports were to be the basis of legislation, and the minister said no. But now we have a conciliation commissioner's report, which I admit is in different form-I see the minister shaking his head; I am going to come to that-and this time management accepted it and labour did not. Once again, however, it forms the basis of legislation. This is something that we cannot properly do, Mr. Speaker. How am I to get through the Gold report between now and committee of the whole, and how are other members to become au fait with the argument?


John Carr Munro: You said yesterday that you liked it.


John Allen Fraser: The minister is interjecting, and quite properly. As he has said, we have here a conciliation report written by one of the most capable persons that could be found; indeed, there may be nobody more capable. It is also written in such a way that it amounts to a draft of a collective agreement. Some conciliation reports are not nearly as definitive as this one. But I think the minister is in considerable difficulty with this ad hoc method of doing things, namely, bringing in a report and saying, "Here it is". The effect is to ask us to apply our minds to the complexities of Mr. Justice Gold's recommendations and agree, within a few hours, that it is a fair settlement. I do not think that is possible: it is playing a game with ourselves and, if it continues, with labour and management and the general public.
When we had the rhetoric about the right to strike we had a gentleman's agreement, if you like, that at a certain time we would bring in an ad hoc arrangement to take away the right to strike. In many cases, to ask members of parliament to try to determine, in a couple of hours, what is a fair settlement is absolutely impossible, Madam Speaker.
When we look at the merits of this particular dispute it is interesting to note that following the protracted negotiations between the Maritime Employers Association and the longshoremen in 1972, the Globe and Mail of April 5, 1972, had a headline which read, "Big pensions, end to featherbedding bring peace to Quebec ports." On an inside page an article read, "Job security, end to featherbedding in Quebec ports pact." At that time, Madam Speaker, we thought these major difficult issues between the parties

Labour Dispute
had finally been resolved, but the very fact that we are here this afternoon indicates that is not so.
Whatever comfort the government may take from deciding that in the interest of the right to strike no public mechanism is needed, the fact of the matter is that the rhetoric of 1972, and the government's attitude at that time that negotiations had led to a happy conclusion, indicate that we still have not found an effective way of settling these matters when everybody knows that sooner or later the national interest will be affected and parliament will move in.
I can understand why in this particular instance the minister has chosen the Gold report as the basis of the legislation, but I say it is a dangerous precedent. There should be legislation to restore normalcy as far as work is concerned, but determination of the final terms of settlement should be left to somebody independent of this chamber. That is the only proper way to approach this situation, and in the long run only on that basis will both sides to the dispute accept the terms of settlement. They know that we are not in a position adequately to deal with these complicated issues. The questions asked by two members of the New Democratic Party at the close of the minister's remarks indicated just how complicated the issue is in this particular dispute and how difficult it is to get answers. I am sure the minister will try to answer those questions when we get into committee of the whole.
We shall support this legislation, Madam Speaker, but we are going to ask some questions. Surely it is time all hon. members of this House face the fact that we are not taking this action occasionally any more; there is a real pattern of this sort of thing. Everyone engaged in labour-management negotiations knows that in matters which affect the national interest, sooner or later they can expect legislation to sometimes rescue and sometimes impale them, depending on their point of view. As long as we continue this way, there will be a cloud over collective bargaining in the areas of essential services and national interest.
I remember a spokesman for the railway workers saying two years ago that they always negotiated under threat of parliamentary action and legislation. In his opinion that worked against the employees but, of course, in other cases management believe it works against them. In the absence of mechanism to identify labour disputes which affect the national interest or essential services, this pattern will continue. The pressure by unions will be more and more difficult to overcome and more and more demanding as time goes on. In the absence of some sort of program other than this elusive consensus we have been hearing about to curtail inflation, I think we will be back here taking this action again and again. As far as the public is concerned, that is just not good enough. Surely the responsibility lies with the minister and the government for solving these problems in a better and fairer way than we are solving them now. Perhaps legislation could be introduced.
This strike began on March 29. Over and over again members of my party from Quebec, and other members of this House representing Quebec constituencies, have

expressed concern about the difficulties farm producers in Quebec are facing. One after another they have risen in their places during the question period and asked, what is the situation; what is to happen; can the government guarantee grain supplies to Quebec farm producers; what will the government do as ships are being diverted and in some cases not being unloaded because longshoremen take the position that some ships and their cargoes are "hot"?
Day after day members on the government side did not tell us what the facts were. They gave no explanation. Certainly, the government gave no indication that this matter would be settled ultimately by legislation. One week ago an extraordinary debate took place as a result of the motion proposed by the hon. member for Bellechasse and the hon. member for Joliette. They are Quebec members. The debate began at eight o'clock and ended just before four o'clock the next morning. Many Quebec members spoke in that debate. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) who admittedly had been engaged on other matters earlier in the evening, returned to the House but did not speak. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) was not in the House at any time during that debate; neither was the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand). If you examine Hansard you will see that not only opposition members, but Quebec members in general expressed their concern about the situation. The government did not attempt to answer those concerns or indicate what would happen. The remarks of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) are interesting because in them one will not find any suggestion that the situation was so severe that within seven days of the debate the government would ask the House, on short notice, to get on with the business of ending the strike.
In the short time I have been a member of this House I have seen this pattern repeated over and over again. Week after week goes by: the members of the House know that in the absence of a settlement, legislation sooner or later will be introduced. But week after week we do nothing and the damage is compounded day after day. Surely that approach to things is utterly ridiculous and nonsensical. That approach seems to be based on the myth that if only we wring our hands enough and utter enough pious hopes, the situation will go away. In the end, we always act in the same way: we bring in legislation and justify it by saying that the strike affects the national interest or some essential service. But surely those areas ought to be identified well in advance. 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:: But you can't do that.


John Allen Fraser: An hon. member says we cannot do that because it would interfere with the right to strike. What can be more ridiculous than knowing what 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." Is it utterly impossible-I see my friend on the government side shaking his head-to establish a mechanism whereby we can be warned in advance of what is
April 23, 1975

likely to happen in this field, so that the public, the House and the cabinet may know in advance what will be the ultimate effect if a work stoppage takes place? Should we not say in advance what will be the effect on the national interest? Surely the games we have played lately are not the only way of resolving these problems. Surely even my friends opposite are skeptical. Surely they have not lost complete faith in their ability as human beings to face facts and resolve these disputes more effectively than they are now being resolved.
My party will support this legislation; I emphasize that. There may be certain difficulties connected with the use of a conciliation commissioner's report as the basis for legislation. I have expressed my reservations and I am sure the minister knows exactly what I am talking about. I sympathize with him in this particular dispute. I doubt if any conciliation commissioner more effective than Judge Gold could be found. I also pointed out earlier that the conciliation commissioner's report is in specific terms and, indeed, amounts to the drafting of a collective bargaining agreement. As I said, my party will support this legislation. We will, of course, wish to ask the minister questions about longshoremen's wages, and so on, when we consider the bill in committee of the whole. We shall be pleased to see this debate proceed and, hopefully, end as soon as possible.


Mr. Lies Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Madam Speaker, for the fourth or fifth time since becoming a member of parliament I rise to take part in a debate such as we are now engaged in. All the arguments I have heard-and I include arguments which I shall put forward-are a repetition of arguments we have heard on previous occasions. My party is not opposed in principle to getting these ports back in operation. Let me repeat an argument we have made on every previous occasion: if parliament is to legislate people back to work and take away the right to strike and to continue collective bargaining, the terms of that legislation must be fair.
I listened carefully to the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser). He spoke about the public interest and essential services, but I did not hear him recite a list of what is in the public interest or what is an essential service. Surely, therein lies his problem. Who is to say what is an essential public service, and when? Is such a service to include longshoremen, railroaders, garbage collectors and the medical profession? I wish the hon. member for Vancouver South had presented his criterion. I am sure I have touched on the difficulty, on the conundrum which every member of this House must consider. I am sure the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) would welcome such a list. We have all been wrestling with this difficulty.
I heard some talk from the member for Vancouver South about identifying problems in advance and preventing strikes before they even happen. This would cause the minister some difficulty, and it is this: employers and employees in those sectors of the economy which might be designated as essential services would say, "We do not need to bargain." One side or the other, or both sides, could say, "We do not need to bargain, because parliament will legislate." If we begin specifying all the essential services in each industry, employers and employees will
Labour Dispute
ask, "What is the use of our bargaining? Let parliament do it." The simplistic approach taken by some people does not grab me. I do not think it grabs anyone else, either, unless it is the hon. member and his friends.
I said the legislation should be fair. It is true the public is upset about industrial disputes and strikes. But I do not believe anyone wishes parliament to legislate people back to work on an unfair basis; and this feeling extends to the farmers with whom I have spoken. I submit, on behalf of my party, that there are provisions in this legislation which are unfair. As I read the news reports, we can assume that the wage award embodied in this bill is acceptable to the employees because, according to one news report, an officer of the union concerned said the wage award was not bad. Since it has been accepted by the employers, I think this portion of the legislation would be agreed on by both sides. This, I submit, is about as far as a government should go in legislating specifics.
I would remind hon. members that the issue of job security is one which arises in virtually all the collective bargaining which goes on in this age of automation. It is crucial. It is of even greater importance than wages and hours of work. In this area, we are being asked to act unfairly; in fact, most employees will be worse off under the proposed legislation than they were before.
A few moments ago I suggested that the public generally, in its desire that something be done about strikes and disputes, does not expect parliament to legislate people back to conditions of work which are unfair. The Gold report makes recommendations in the area of job security which, if I read them properly, are less than equitable. I confess I have not had a chance to read the whole of the report; I have had to rely on news reports. We saw the bill before us for the first time this afternoon, and I saw the Gold report for the first time an hour ago.
From what I have been able to gather from that report, these people, who used to be guaranteed a 40-hour week for 37 weeks, will receive a minimum gross income of $11,840 in 1977 in accordance with the pay increase recommended. From what appears in the Gold report and subsequently in the legislation, even in the case of the port of Montreal, where 1,600 hours a year is guaranteed, the award would amount to $8 an hour in 1977

in other words, $12,800 a year-and at that point the Montreal longshoremen will be $1,000 a year better off than under the old agreement. The "hooker" in all this is that any hours of overtime work from Monday to Friday, excluding statutory holidays, is to be deducted from the 1,600 hours. So one can anticipate a situation in which for three or four weeks during those 1,600 hours the port is extra busy, the employees go on overtime, and at the end of the year they end up having to pay back a fairly large sum of money one way or another as a result of the hours of overtime worked. Even if they are paid at overtime rates, those hours are deducted from the 1,600 hours guaranteed in the legislation.
The situation is even worse at Quebec and Trois-Rivieres. The Gold report and the legislation say the workers in Quebec will be guaranteed 1,400 hours. Mr. Speaker, they already had a guarantee of 1,480 hours. Once again,
5128

April 23, 1975
Labour Dispute
hours of overtime worked on regular working days are to be deducted from the 1,400 hours. At Trois-Rivieres, the number of hours guaranteed is 1,200. Under the old contract it was 1,480 hours. We submit it is unfair to legislate the recommendations of the Gold report in terms of job security. We intend to ask the government to bring in amendments at committee stage to remove this unfairness and to do what was done in the case of the Vancouver settlement.
We can safely legislate the wage award because, as I say, it has been agreed to by both sides, though maybe not in writing. But as to the other matter, we should do as we did in the Vancouver case-provide for the appointment of an arbitrator whose decision would be binding on both sides. The parties could then go back to the bargaining table and work out a fair settlement in the area of job security, a settlement which the arbitrator would apply to both sides.
Argument will no doubt be put forward to justify the position taken by the government in supporting Judge Gold's conclusions as to the differential between Montreal, Quebec and Trois-Rivieres. I do not question for one moment the competence or the ability of Mr. Justice Gold. He is probably the best man who could be found to undertake the task of conciliation. But one criticism I have of his report is that it seems to reflect the callous attitude of the Maritime Employers Association as it concerns the situation in Montreal vis-a-vis the situation in Quebec and Trois-Rivieres. I say this in light of a statement which appeared in the Montreal Gazette of October 29 last. I quote the following paragraph:
"The port of Montreal is doing well and the other two are having difficulties," says one shipping agency president here. "Why should we pay for the others? Let each one stand by itself and if one port has trouble-well then, just close it."
I am sure that the people in Quebec City and Three Rivers will be glad to hear that from the president of one of the shipping firms in Montreal. But surely that kind of callous attitude and state of mind on the part of employers reflects to the detriment not only of the employees but also to the detriment of two of the major ports in the province of Quebec.
May I suggest, as one way to help resolve the difficulties that occur in our ports, that if you had a harbour or port authority which had authority to assign the loading and unloading of cargoes in terms of how many ships go where, when, and how often, there is no question that you could make certain that there was a sufficient level of shipping being handled at Three Rivers and Quebec City and there would be no difficulties. We know that as a result of the natural growth alone of the requirements of the port of Montreal, that port will do well anyway. Any harbour authority that would have control over what shipping is unloaded, at which port and how many vessels should be unloaded, I submit would make it unnecessary to have a differential of this magnitude between the longshoremen at the three different ports.
Another point I want to make is this: I remind, as well as warn all hon. members of the House that when we legislate differentials like this among employees who do the same work, belong to the same union and work for the same employer, a differential that gives one section more

than a second section, and that second section more than the third, we are doing nothing but asking for disruption, wildcat strikes and refusal to obey orders given the longshoremen by their own officers, let alone the government and their employers. We will be compounding the felony if we legislate differentials of this nature between these three ports. We will be asking for a great deal more trouble within a matter of weeks or months.
Surely we can do better than this in legislation that is going to take away the right to strike and force these people back to work. As I said at the outset, we are not opposed to the principle of getting these ports opened and operating. But if we are going to do that, we must do it in a fair manner, a manner that does not abuse the people we are sending back to work.
We will have some suggestions to make in the committee. We will be moving amendments if the government does not, and I hope that members of all parties, particularly from the province of Quebec, will receive them with some sympathy. We should do no more than we did in regard to the situation at Vancouver harbour so we do not do violence, in an economic way or in the way of job security, to the men we are sending back to work.
There is another area I want to deal with. It is the issue that brought this matter to a head at the outset, as it did on Wednesday of last week. I refer to the movement of grain, particularly feed grain. In the emergency debate that we had, many questions were asked, I find it passing strange that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) is not here today. Neither is the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Lang).
With regard to the movement of wheat for export or feed grain, there need not have been, and there need not be today, any difficulty, though there may be some inconvenience. I am wondering why the Minister of Labour has not asked the Minister of Agriculture to instruct the Canadian Livestock Feed Board to implement plan C. I do not know whether all hon. members received this little leaflet which arrived in my mail this morning from the Canadian Livestock Feed Board, but any or all feed grain requirements of the province of Quebec can be met whether or not the ports of Montreal, Quebec City and Three Rivers are operating.
There are three alternatives for any buyer or user of feed grain in eastern Ontario and the province of Quebec when purchasing feed grain either directly in western Canada or through various companies. Plan C provides that the grain be shipped direct from country elevators to Granby, Quebec, for example, by rail. In fact, according to the Canadian Livestock Feed Board, when you deduct what you get under the Canadian feed freight assistance act from the total cost of moving feed grain by rail, the cost to the purchaser of feed grain amounts to 31% cents a bushel, which is fewer cents per bushel than if the grain is moved in the usual way, namely, from a country elevator to the terminal at Thunder Bay, then from the terminal at Thunder Bay by ship to Montreal, and then by truck from Montreal to, say, Granby, Quebec. Shipped this way, it costs 35 cents a bushel.
Plan B provides for shipping it by rail from country elevators on the prairies to the terminal at Thunder Bay, then by rail from Thunder Bay direct to consumers of feed
April 23, 1975

grains, bypassing the ports of Montreal and Three Rivers, Quebec or any other port. The cost amounts to 35 cents a bushel after deduction of feed freight assistance.
I bet you a dollar to a hole in a doughnut, Madam Speaker, that there are several hundred, if not one or two thousand, carloads of grain sitting at this moment at the Winnipeg rail yards in normal course of transit to Thunder Bay. I bet you a dollar to a hole in a doughnut that there are three or four hundred carloads that contain barley, oats or feed wheat. It would require one train of 100 to 120 cars a day on each railroad to lay down half a million bushels of feed grain per day in Quebec.
Had the Minister of Agriculture or the minister repon-sible for the Canadian Wheat Board instructed the Canadian Livestock Feed Board to require the private grain trade to start moving grain under plan C, or under a combination of plan B and plan C, the day the strike started or even a week after it had started, this strike would have no effect whatever on the people requiring feed grain in the province of Quebec.
I say to my good friends, the hon. member for Belle-chasse (Mr. Lambert) and the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) that their concern regarding the requirements of agricultural producers in Quebec for feed grain was perfectly right and justified. But they should remember and should tell the farmers of the province of Quebec that the mechanism for moving the grain is there now and always has been there, and that their requirements for feed grain can be met whether or not the ports of Montreal, Quebec and Three Rivers are operating.


Mr. La Salle:: Not during the strike.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I would point out to my hon. friend from Joliette that under plan C of the Canadian Livestock Feed Board, carloads of grain hauled by rail do not go anywhere near the strikebound harbours of Montreal, Three Rivers and Quebec. These carloads are delivered to large feed mills, feed wholesalers or feed retailers in places like Granby and many other locations. They go direct. Under the feed freight assistance act, any additional costs are picked up. There are no additional costs to the feeders in the province of Quebec, be they poultry producers, livestock breeders or what have you.
I point out to the Minister of Labour that the grossest incompetence has occurred on the part of his colleagues responsible for grain movement. I include in that the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand), and the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. It is also my opinion that in the area of export grain, the Canadian Wheat Board is doing a magnificent job. It has been and is now bypassing the ports of Montreal, Three Rivers and Quebec City, and except for two ships at Quebec City and perhaps one at Montreal that are tied up, all the other grain for export has been moved by laker from Thunder Bay to other ports where ocean-going vessels have then been loading export grain. My information is that there has been no hold-up or problem in respect of export grain.
I think I know why there is great reluctance on the part of the Minister of Agriculture and the minister in charge
Labour Dispute
of the Canadian Wheat Board to implement plan C or a combination of plans B and C, and that is that this will harm the private grain trade. It is my opinion that the private grain trade is reluctant to implement plan C or a combination of plans B and C because it means that large lots of feed grain will have to be transferred to other shippers or other companies and the private trade which holds that grain will lose some of its premium and some of the other profits it might make through speculation.
I hope at the next cabinet meeting the Minister of Labour will point his finger at the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board and say, "That is what you get for taking feed grain out from under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board and putting it on the open market." The private grain traders who operate out of the Winnipeg commodity exchange, and some who operate out of Montreal, Three Rivers and Quebec City, are not interested in the emergency movement of grain by rail or by a combination of rail and the Thunder Bay terminal. They are not interested in that because it means they will lose some of their premiums and some of the profiteering they do on the open market on the backs of the farmers of both western and eastern Canada.
While this whole issue of the supply of feed grains in Quebec is serious and of legitimate concern to members of parliament from that province, we should remember that the shipping alternatives were there, are there now and always will be there. They have not been used.
This brings me to a further point. When we get into a situation like this, even when there is no strike but suddenly a surge of export sales or a surge in the requirement of feed grain because something has happened to the United States corn market, or some such thing, we need a transport controller who can say to the railways that they will each have to place 500 boxcars in service for the movement of grain, and the locomotives required to move those cars to eastern Canada, so that the grain is moved by rail. He should say to the railways that they have two choices: it is compulsory, or they have to do it. The machinery is there, the equipment is there, and the grain is there.
If the Canadian Livestock Feed Grain Board's figures are right, then with the benefits of the feed grain assistance measures it would be cheaper for the users of feed grains in the province of Quebec to ship it by rail all the way from Moose Jaw than to run it through the terminal, down the lakes and up the St. Lawrence Seaway. I suggest it would be cheaper by three or four cents per bushel.
What is the government doing today? I submit this is the old divide and rule game that is going on, keeping the workers fighting with the farmers, and vice versa. The mechanism is there, but it has not been used. The Minister of Labour is the one who is stuck here; his colleagues who are responsible for this situation do not even have the courage to come into this chamber. The Minister of Labour is left to hold the bag in piloting legislation through the House that runs against the grain of every member who has any respect for the right to strike and the right to free collective bargaining. The minister is stuck with this and it is about time he started throwing his weight around in cabinet. The next time he is asked to do something like
29557-491/2

April 23, 1975
Labour Dispute
this, he should tell them they can take his job and give it to somebody else.
The grain issue in respect of this strike situation is as phony as a three-dollar bill. There are other reasons why the government feels it has to legislate and other reasons why members of parliament feel we are now faced with a situation in respect of which we have to do something; but as far as I am concerned those reasons have nothing to do with grain movement. The private grain trade is the fly in the ointment in respect of this whole issue of grain movement and the supply of feed grain in the province of Quebec. I hope this situation will teach the government a lesson. I hope it will show them how effectively they have allowed themselves to be prevented from doing something toward minimizing the impact of this strike on the public.
We submit this legislation must be changed so it is not unfair to the longshoremen. Let me suggest to the minister that unless I am incorrect in my understanding of the Gold commission report and the bill, surely he does not want to proceed with the implementation of the Gold report in respect of job security. While I agree it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for us in a matter of hours to come up with a specific alternate solution, I submit that this legislation should read the same as the legislation which put the dock workers back to work at the port of Vancouver.
This legislation should appoint an arbitrator to go into the whole matter of job security and his decision should be binding on both sides. That certainly could not be worse than what is in this legislation or what is in the Gold report. Surely, after examining both sides and examining carefully what Judge Gold had to say, the arbitrator could come up with something better than a differential between the ports of Montreal, Three Rivers and Quebec City. That is just intolerable. I am sure the minister would agree that to require the men in the other two ports to work with much less secure positions than those in the port of Montreal is intrinsically unfair, and I would be surprised if he wanted that particular provision in this legislation. I hope that in the next hour or two he can persuade his colleagues in government to amend the legislation so that it is not necessary for us on the opposition side to do it.
Failing that, and if the legislation as it now stands is passed, then mark my words: if you think you have a mess now in these three ports, just wait a few more months. Employees at the low end of the scale will not stand for this, and I suspect that if we were in that situation we would take the same position.
This brings me to the point on which I should like to conclude. I understand and sympathize with the hon. member for Vancouver South-we all do-when he says there must be a better way of settling industrial disputes and providing a mechanism or a system which sets out what is and what is not an essential service. I defy anyone to come up with a list in that regard which would receive significant acceptance in our society by both the employer and the employee. We in the New Democratic Party submit that if you wish to obtain ready acceptance on the part of the great majority of people, you need an incomes policy that does not pick on those at the lower end of the

scale but starts at the top when it comes to showing restraint.
The other day I read some material which suggested that a family consisting of a husband, a wife and two or three children in the city of Toronto, with only one car and an average home, hoping that one or two of those children would go to university, could not expect to make it on less than $15,000 a year. But the minister and the government tell people on wages of $7,000, $8,000, $9,000 and $10,000 a year what they are going to get, or to show restraint while those on high incomes continue to do well. This legislation, I submit, will aggravate disparties in the longshoremen's group at these three ports. If you expect that they will hold still, stand up and say, "Aye, aye" to the Minister of Labour and the Parliament of Canada, that will not be the case.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Would the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) allow a question?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Certainly.


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, when I was talking about gross incomes in excess of $12,000 under this legislation, I was referring to what the guarantee worked out to; I was not talking about the average earnings at these ports. If the hon. member wishes to talk about the average earnings, I would ask if he is aware of the distinction. The average earnings are substantially higher than the guarantee in respect of straight time.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I appreciate that. I was talking about the minimum, because the overtime earnings under the old agreement would be, on average, higher than the minimum. But now, under this legislation, the job security provisions provide that in Montreal the hours of overtime will be deducted from the guaranteed 1,600 hours. This may not hurt the Montreal people too much, but those in Quebec City whose guarantee is only 1,400 hours in the Gold report already had 1,480 hours guaranteed under their old agreement.
The situation is even worse in Three Rivers. Does the minister think the men working in Quebec City will be happy when they see what is happening to them, compared to the people in Montreal? This situation will apply even more so in respect of Three Rivers compared to Quebec City and Montreal. If I understand the legislation correctly and the guaranteed number of hours of work, many of these men will find themselves in a bad situation at the end of the year when they have "X" number of hours overtime deducted from the guarantee of 1,400 hours. They could even find themselves in the position of having to repay some money or having their holiday pay money held back in the amount that is in excess of the guarantee.
If I am mistaken in this, I hope the minister will explain it in the committee. I do not think I am mistaken because I have not heard any response; but if I am, I hope we will have a more detailed explanation. If I am correct, then surely the minister can agree to do no less than was done in the case of the Vancouver port strike settlement and
April 23, 1975

leave it, as the hon. member for Vancouver South said, to someone outside this chamber and the government who will arbitrate and bind both sides to something that is much more fair than this legislation.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Madam Speaker, after waiting for 15 days and repeatedly attacking the government to inform it about an exceedingly serious situation in the province of Quebec, especially as concerns feed grain supplies for farm producers, the government has finally understood that the situation is truly urgent, even after negating this urgency.
I remember that in all good faith, all hon. members asked many questions, sometimes to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro), sometimes to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), in relation with the consequences of the longshoremen's strike in Quebec ports.
I understand that the ministers did not have to give us all the information that they had when we asked our questions, but I also understand that Parliament must be kept informed as much as possible about situations which interest the whole population, whether they affect producers or consumers.
I have always thought that a government exists in a society to put order when problems are caused by conflicts between the various categories of persons, associations or workers of a country. And I have never thought that when the government acts, it is by introducing an oppressive measure concerning one class instead of another.
I do not believe that the bill now introduced by the Minister of Labour falls into this category. It is an extreme measure, aimed at finding a solution to allow the continuity of a production required by Canadians and to prevent considerable losses for several types of farm producers who are fed up because they cannot get supplies.
On April 9, Madam Speaker, because I was aware of this situation and had received many telegrams from farm producers and their associations in the province of Quebec, I had taken it upon myself to present a motion under the terms of Standing Order 26 to ask for an emergency debate. The Chair had decided to adjourn the holding of such a debate.
However, the situation having deteriorated in the following days, I returned to the charge on April 16 with a similar motion, at which time the Chair decreed an emergency sitting.
During that debate, Madam Speaker, I endeavoured to show what the situation really was, even to the extent of quoting authentic figures on the quantities of feed grains available at the elevators in the port of Quebec City. At that time I refrained from quoting figures on Trois-Rivieres or Montreal elevators, because there was no need for it. There was no way feedmills could get into both ports and have their supplies in a normal way.
I regret that the Minister of Agriculture is not here, but anyway if my remarks do not agree with the information published in newspapers, I know beforehand that he will correct remarks published by the press.
Labour Dispute
Since he was not present at the outset of the April 16 debate, newspapers reported that the Minister of Agriculture said this:
An emergency debate never moved grain.
I also know that such a debate never moved grain. Every member knows that. Such was not the aim of the debate, but rather to allow those moving it to have access to the ports and to obtain that longshoremen fulfill their duties, discharge their responsibilities by unloading the ships and loading the elevators.
In view of the serious situation prevailing, I thought we had a duty to act in that way. I realize more than ever that we were right in so doing. Not only did we draw the government's attention, but we also gave hope to people, organizations and farmers victimized by the situation.
Today, on this 23rd of April, the situation is no better. I suspect the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) must have been informed. Right at this time, there is in Quebec City's elevators 48,000 bushels of wheat, 45,000 of oats, 48,000 of barley, 396,000 of corn. That does not mean that every teamster, every miller coming to Quebec City's port will have its truck loaded with grain. This grain belongs to a few millers, Out of the hundred, two or three only can get their supplies. They could do so, as a matter of fact, but they no longer can since the checkers have also gone on strike. The latter struck and are now keeping the trucks owned by the millers from picking up their grain in the port of Quebec City. The situation is even worse than that. They even stop the owners of the feed grains from picking up their own feed, their own property.
On the other hand, a grain barge entered the port of Quebec. The grain handlers are unloading it, just the way it is done on the black market. This is no joke: in Canada, right in the port of Quebec City, the oldest port on the North American continent, labourers are forced to work as if we were at war, on the sly, as if for a black market. And that goes on in 1975! That means the situation is extremely serious. In this case we are concerned with supplying the domestic market. The longshoremen have nothing to do with that, not even normally. They are there to unload the ships, the ocean liners. In the case of barges that transport goods for the Canadian market, it is not up to them to load or unload them. In this case, we are dealing with grain handlers. They perform their work with great difficulty. We are left then with trucking. The former speaker, a while ago, mentioned the possibility of transport by truck or by rail.
I would like to give some particulars on the great transport opportunities by truck or by rail and the supplies needed in Quebec and then we could see whether it is urgent for Parliament to pass that bill.
According to the information that I obtained today, it is related to a question asked yesterday in Quebec City to the Minister of Agriculture. On April 22, the Minister of Agriculture stated in answer to a question that 150 railway cars reach the province of Quebec every day.
We went to the sources of information and checked further. It was revealed that in the last nine days, a daily average of 48 cars-a far cry from 150-were dispatched to the ports of Quebec, each car containing some 2,000 bushels or a maximum of 2,500 bushels.

April 23, 1975
Labour Dispute
Two injunctions were therefore requested by the Trois-Rivieres Feed Mill Owners Association. The injunctions were not obeyed. Since the volume of grain moved is not as told, injunctions are sought to get supplies from a port where there is an abundance of grain; according to my information, there are actually in the port of Trois-Rivieres, 1,300,000 bushels awaiting takers. A large quantity of those 1,300,000 bushels belong to feed mill owners, grain that was bought in December or January, that is ready for delivery but out of reach.
This morning, on April 23, again in the province of Quebec, the port was exceptionally crowded; even taxis could not pick up passengers arriving on other ships. That means people were coming and going in the port, but the movement was not such as to allow farm producers and feed mill owners to get grain supplies.
The weekly consumption of feed grain in the province of Quebec amounts to 2 million bushels. One can readily appreciate the predicament in which Quebec producers are. They are concerned, and duly so.
We can read in newspapers that feed grain shortages causing irreparable wrong to Quebec livestock producers. Some people think that we are joking, that hogs could never eat one another. That is quite normal. When there is not enough food to go around, all hogs in the pig sty will fight and the big ones will eat the small ones. That is the normal way for hogs to behave in society; we must call things by their names.
However, when reasonable men who are endowed with intelligence, judgment and experience are behaving exactly the same way, I say this is unacceptable! Well, if such things are unacceptable, we must take steps to prevent them, for they must not occur. To prevent that, we must ensure the sound distribution of goods and of whatever is required for production and consumption. I think that it is the duty of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) to find a temporary solution. However, while temporary, I would not like that solution to be a drawback for the workers. I understand the workers have rights but they also do wrong, just as we do in certain other areas of society. It must be understood that we have rights andthat sometimes we do wrong when we do not fulfill all our responsibilities.
So the government's role is to keep a lookout, to check what exactly is going on in every field of human endeavour, so that we respect each other, so that we act like men do, like intellegent men do. I would not like to read in the newspapers tomorrow or the day after that the hon. member for Bellechasse or still Parliament have declared war on workers. Absolutely not! I respect the right to strike as a fundamentel one. It is endorsed by law. But when it is time for a collective agreement to be renewed, when we fail to come to an agreement and when talks are dragging on, then it is imperative that an authority intervene and try to conciliate disagreeing parties and see to it that lengthy discussions do not cause considerable damage to other workers in the same society.
It is in this spirit that Parliament must consider today's legislation to which we did not have the opportunity to give much consideration because we just received it, along

with the report of Judge Gold, conciliation commissioner. We have had precious little time to study it. Still parliamentarians should not be expected to perform miracles, to try to become acquainted with a bill or a document before they receive it. One must be reasonable. I surely hope that during the procedure in committee of the whole the minister and his officials will be in a position to answer the questions that will be put to them by members so that, if necessary, amendments can be made to the bill so as to make it fair and efficient.
Madam Speaker, this morning someone asked me why the Agricultural Producers' Union-which, all things considered, is a labour union-did not itself take an injunction against longshoremen in the ports of Quebec City, Trois-Rivieres and Montreal. I think that might have been possible. I think that might have given results a little sooner. But let us imagine ourselves in their shoes-workers against workers coming face to face. They both have rights, they both have obligations. So, in a given situation there is a confrontation and one of the two unions asks the court for an injunction to prevent the other from exercising its right to strike. Such situations are extremely difficult. I do not say it is impossible but I do say it is difficult and I think that although it is difficult it might have been normal to try that procedure, not to place those people in conflict, a potentially dangerous confrontation, but to test our policies in such a situation because I think for my part that, to my knowledge, it is the first time such a thing occurs.
Given the gravity of the situation, associations, particularly the APU, turned to Parliament. Will we, parliamentarians, try to turn to others to avoid our responsabilities? I say no. I say we must take our responsibilities because the interest of the whole community is at stake.
During the weekend I saw with my own eyes 36 calves killed, hooked on a cable along a road because they cannot be delivered on the market, nobody wants to buy them. Everything is disorganized, and the ravens will eat that meat, and this fall people will not be able to buy meat.
But if this is a recurring situation, it means that we shall be wasting a possible production which might be needed in six or eight months. Same thing with respect to egg production. We heard about eggs at length last year. We even had a special committee of the House which met a number of times to study egg marketing. Well, if this situation is allowed to go on, I think they will no longer have to have special meetings on egg marketing, for considering the number of hens sent to the slaughterhouse for want of feed, I guess the problem of egg overproduction or marketing will no longer arise. And we have the same situation in respect of poultry meat.
Now, with respect to all those equally serious questions, even if it hurts, even if we may be somewhat unpopular for a while, even if we give workers the impression that we are passing legislation to force them to do something against their will, I answer that when we think back upon it, after we have had the advantage of analysing every situation, we will all agree that those measures were necessary and even in the interest of workers.
I wish us to have the common weal in mind throughout this debate. I personally do not want to accuse anybody. I do not hold anybody responsible for the present situation,
April 23, 1975

but I will hold our Parliament and government responsible tomorrow and on the following days if, in the light of the situations we are witnessing, we do not amend our labour code so as to have a permanent mechanism at our disposal to make conciliation and the renewal of collective agreements easier, instead of allowing situations to deteriorate. We should heed from day to day the progression and the way of looking at things, the way workers put their claims, and the way employers answer workers' demands. Workers are not the only ones involved, Madam Speaker, there are also numbers of heartless employers, people who do not want to admit that they should not operate only to make profits, but that consideration should also be given to services to be provided to people. We must admit that those who contribute to assure these services or to produce this or that product also have rights and that these rights must be recognized. The employers are not sensible enough to recognize them in practice. It is therefore the government's duty-and Parliament's duty, since it is the supreme authority in this country-to pass legislation which will force these heartless organizations to be more reasonable.
I heard today on the radio a statement of the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) on cartels and large corporations, and I understood that a commission would be formed to study what goes on in that field and that the government will also introduce legislation establishing the regulations these cartels and large corporations will have to comply with. I hope it is true, but I would not want another inefficient piece of legislation. We have the anti-combines and anti-cartel acts, but they are practically never enforced, and the penalties are so small that when the companies that openly violate these acts are convicted, they do not care a bit about justice because the penalties are so small.
We need a sharp-edged legislation, so that when a corporation is sued for having violated the law, for having abused the public or for having made excessive profits to the detriment of workers, the legislation will be enforced to teach a good lesson to the others who would be tempted to do the same. That is called an efficient Parliament, a government which is aware of its responsibilities and which is willing to assume them.
One must not only create the impression that something is being done, that legislation is being passed, but those laws must not become a dead letter. We must have operative and effective laws upon which all Canadians may rely. So I hope that once this bill is passed we do not remain idle saying that everything has been done. No, we will have to work to improve bargaining conditions in all areas so as to avoid those strikes that plague this country. It is discouraging. It has come to the point where people are worrying about the future, asking themselves what is going to happen or whether such or such service will be working.
We do not live within a stable society. And such an unstable society involves small cells of disruption. Those who set up cells are allowed to disrupt society, to organize revolution without admitting it but through very active means. We give them tools without knowing it. To govern
Labour Dispute
is to foresee, to look after the common good as far as it is humanly possible to do so.
I believe that in such a situation, we will take the trouble of scrutinizing the law. That cannot be perfect, it is made by men and therefore can be changed by men. We will try to scrutinize the law to see if it is really effective. Are we going to do injustice to a given class of people? Is it worth while doing so, so as to progress and enable other classes of people, of producers to keep on playing their part? It seems to me there are enough problems nowadays in the agricultural field and that we should not create any more. Now it is in that spirit that I address myself to this bill and I am sure that if we all get together and try to make this legislation into the best possible law, nobody will be dissatisfied and a great step will be taken on the road to social, economic and political stability in this country.


Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, I am very happy to take part in this debate today. May I say right off to the hon. minister responsible that we will support, without hesitating his bill which finally meets with the wish expressed over a week ago.
I must also congratulate the hon. members who took part in the debate, bearing in mind their information and intentions. We support this bill which we feel is most urgent. To my mind, it is the totally logical result of the special debate held last week.
Madam Speaker, I know some hon. members may have found me severe, and I said so last week. I was not the happiest of men when I moved my motion, as did the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert), even though it had the support of my colleagues.
I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the hon. members on both sides of the House who took part in the debate last week. Generally speaking, I believe that we have discussed this problem sufficiently to make the government understand the importance of resolving it and the difficulties which the farmers are facing.
The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet), replying on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture who is justifiably absent, had accused us of suggesting this debate for unfounded or illogical reasons. The hon. member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Bech-ard) has already started to interrupt me, but I shall forgive him since I know that this is one of his habits.
Last week, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs said that our debate was unfounded, but I believe that today, the Minister of Labour, by the decision that he made, has replied very objectively to our invitation and that of all hon. members who were asking last week that the government take its responsibilities.
It is certain that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs found that we could not offer any answers, but the answer that we requested last week is the same that we request everyday from the government-that it take its responsibilities. This is what the minister is doing today. The government has some authority and, in view of the situation, it is finally replying to our invitation of last week.

April 23, 1975
Labour Dispute
Madam Speaker, I must also point out that a government member had the courage to talk about the need for special legislation. I am speaking about the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Marceau), who made an excellent speech last week. We recognize this and I believe that he had already foreseen a solution. And one can wonder why we have waited so long, and what are the possibilities to right the wrongs.
Certainly some members are still convinced that the farmers did not lose anything, that they did not have any difficulty. Maybe they should read from time to time the news releases from the APU president and other representatives of the millers association and, especially, from the farmers themselves, to realize the enormous difficulties the latter have met.
The hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) told us the numerous difficulties he noted in his riding last weekend. I think all hon. members from rural ridings know that full well.
We therefore had valid reason to request concrete action from the government and today, we wholeheartedly responded in the affirmative to a legislation which, on the one side, will not be accepted right away by the workers of this sector, but, on the other side, corresponds to a real need.
We regret being forced to favour the implementation of such a measure, taking into account the workers, but, even then, I wonder to what extent we must say that nobody is responsible.
To my mind, contrary to what the hon. member for Bellechasse said earlier, there are responsible people and, as member of this House, as representatives, \ye have responsibilities to take on both sides of the House. Our present duty is to ask the government for immediate measures. That is what we are doing, and I think our responsibility then is part of the commitment we all took in our ridings.
I wish to say, Madam Speaker, that the government through this emergency measure presented today is answering our questions. We have been asking questions for three weeks. The government is taking a responsibility for which we have been calling for three weeks. I believe it is important that not only government members but also the whole labour sector concerned know that we have been demanding this measure for the sake of 6,000 egg producers. It was also for the sake of 15,000 poultry and turkey producers. We did it for 23,000 industrial milk producers, 5,000 fluid milk producers and 6,000 hog producers, as well as for all Quebec consumers, millions of them, who were waiting and calling for concrete government action. I think we are indeed meeting a big enough need of the community.
Therefore, all the feed supply in Quebec was, for all practical purposes, interrupted, breeding was in a difficult situation and egg producers would once again become the victims of American imports. Many of them would face bankruptcy. There was a rush on slaughterhouses and the food market would also be disturbed. Our farm producers support the consequences of a sixth strike within a year.

We had the strike of pilots, railway workers, inspectors, handlers, labourers and, today, longshoremen.
The situation is, and already was two weeks ago, dramatic and all the more abominable that agriculture in Quebec knows one of the worst crisis of its history, and rely on supplies of feed for more than 60 per cent to feed cattle.
The temporary measures of the government which the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) pretended to be efficient last Wednesday, have proved completely unsatisfactory for three weeks because they were too late, too slow and too expensive.
Therefore, the government now recognizes the validity of our assertions and of the questions which all members in this House have put for three weeks. On both sides of the House, members felt it a duty to put some embarrassing questions to the minister; we now ask: How is it that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), or the Canadian Wheat Board, or the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) did not give any answer to these repeated calls? Of course, it could be said that the guys in the opposition put questions so as to make headlines, and so on.
But there are still serious members on the other side of the House whose riding is affected. I was very happy to see those members show their interest in this area but, unfortunately, they did not get any answer. For three weeks, they did not come up with the answers we were expecting. I do not think that we could be reproached with not interfering. The Minister of Agriculture has been saying for three weeks that we were panicky, pessimistic, and that the information of the member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert), of the member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) or, recently, the information of an NDP member, was not complete. There were many questions. The more we were trying to make the government aware of that alarming and dangerous situation, the more they answered us that it was untrue.
Last Wednesday, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) was saying that supplies would last a month. Some were talking about half empty elevators. They did not say that access to the ports was impossible, and that regularly. Therefore faced with such positions, we were justified, I think, to ask for a special debate last week. Today, it is quite obvious that the opposition was right since the minister is forced to act now. Indeed just three days ago I was asking the Minister of Labour how negotiations were progressing, what news did the mediators report. Since April 2, we were told that negotiations were broken and that the time had not come to try to bring the two parties together again, no matter the situation in which the Quebec farmers found themselves.
Therefore, Madam Speaker, we were entirely right. It will surely be stated that we want again to play politics in this debate. I do not want to do so, but I want to remind those who have accepted parliamentary duties that they have failed to assume their responsibilities during the past few weeks. And we are pleased today, even if it will cost money, that the government has at last decided to take position.
Some members and even some ministers, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) for example, surely do not
April 23, 1975

relish the idea of passing an ad hoc legislation, they would still rather see the victims get a series of injunctions from the court. That, Madam Speaker, is either hypocrisy or perhaps artlessness, because the systematic resort to court injunctions is tantamount to the denial of the right to strike. We know that perfectly well, but we are afraid to say so. Last week, we were asked by the government members: "Tell us whether you are for or against the right to strike?"
Asking the question in those terms is much too easy, Madam Speaker. But we are all perfectly aware that as long as the government keeps urging companies to resort to injunctions, it renounces its responsibility to decide and act. "Well, let companies resort to injunctions". Yes, but it means for all practical purposes doing away with the right to strike.
So, the government decided to get rid of its reponsibili-ties and turn them over to the courts. Courts will settle the problem. The worse of this business, Madam Speaker, is that the labour movement once again used farmers to force the government to give in, while the government used ship owners to curb labour demands. All during that time, Quebec farmers and-by way of consequence-consumers became the hostages of longshoremen as well as the Ottawa government, as my colleague the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) was saying last Wednesday.
We are already wondering whether these longshoremen will abide by the law, or whether, as some indicated as recently as this morning, they will oppose the will of Parliament.
I should like to remind these working men for whom we have great consideration and for whom we wish a fair treatment, I should like to remind the inspectors and longshoremen that the alternative is not, as some of their representatives have mentioned at a given moment, whether Parliament must first protect the hogs or the longshoremen. Such a solution, in my opinion, is far too simplistic. Such a position only goes to show the misgivings, and even the contempt, that some of our fellow citizens might have vis-a-vis our farmers.
I feel that the choice must be made at the following level. The rights of longshoremen must be recognized, of course, for instance security of employment and a minimum income for their work. No member of Parliament, in my opinion, is obstinate or hesitant in recognizing them such rights. But there are other workers.
The real victims throughout this conflict, Madam Speaker, are not the people of Bay Street or St. James Street: the real victims are the agricultural workers.
I believe the best thing those concerned in the conflict, that is the workers, could do for Workers' Day next May 1, would be to go back to work willingly. I hope that they do so for the sake of the farmers, whose job security and income are much more threatened than those of unionized workers.
However, the longshoremen should not be alone in suffering from the bad effects of their strike, which we recognize as legitimate and legal. Later, in committee of the whole, we shall ensure that there is greater job secu-
Labout Dispute
rity. There does not seem to be any now according to the Gold report.
If the longshoremen have to go back proudly to work tomorrow, the government, once this measure is passed, will have to consider that its role is not finished. I believe that this may be the most important aspect of this issue, Madam Speaker. Today, we are discussing a special measure. Unfortunately, we have waited for it too long, and the workers as well as the members of Parliament knew very well that the government would be pressured, conditioned and forced to take some action. Indeed, the minister said earlier that he did not want to make this a case of first choice. This is not the first time that we have to legislate. It is not a precedent, as the minister said a while ago, far from it, for the government to be forced to introduce special legislation.
But tomorrow, as concerns the farmers, for instance, what guarantee do we have that the Quebec farmers, and especially those in eastern Quebec, will be compensated for the losses they have suffered during this conflict. We know that for those who could not get any supplies, the loss was much greater. What guarantee do we have from the government that the farmers will not lose their necessary profits? What guarantee do we have that the government will eventually make provisions for permanent measures which will allow us to be better prepared for such situations in the future? These are questions which we hope the members of the government, and especially the minister, will answer during the minutes to come.
And above all I wish to join with every party concerned with the new system of collective agreement, since the current one does not satisfy anybody anymore. Of course people are afraid. Politically speaking, this is dangerous matter, a vote here, a vote there if we start contesting labour unions, current methods. Still, I believe we must fact the facts. We must have the courage to say that we are not satisfied, that currently things are going wrong in every area.
I think the government has a responsibility to meet with the unions and review the so-called right to strike. There is no question of taking away the right to strike without compensation, some security, certain safeguards ensuring a fair deal to workers. But how far must we go? Today members say: "We will vote this special legislation but we will not remove the right to strike". But I submit we will be forced to call other workers back to work. If we are not affecting the right to strike, what then are we doing now? Are we not again taking the right to strike away from workers? So, a mechanism that used to do the job does not seem to meet today's requirements. Strikes break out in increasing numbers, at what cost and with what economic disruption! How long is this going to last? We have asked labour union representatives whether the right to strike is not used as a common tool nowadays.
Considering consequences, how far do they go in the assessment and weighing of their actions? These are questions that every member asks himself, but we do not dare deal with the issue in public, because there is always the danger of displeasing one category, which would be quite dangerous come election time. If, to be elected, we have to remain silent on problems that call for our attention, on solutions we should be promoting to protect the common
5136

April 23, 1975
Labour Dispute
interest, I believe we are intellectually dishonest as a group in this House.
We have a responsibility to ask the government to call that important meeting, not only with labour unions, but also with businessmen, some of whom border on exploitation. I think that together they can find that sharing formula, that minimum income which is necessary not only to the farmer but the worker as well. And if the government does not move to bring those people together to set up fair standards for everyone I say it is failing in its responsibilities. That is exactly what happened a month ago. With respect to Quebec problems, that is not the first time. A month and a half ago we were discussing an almost identical problem in Vancouver.
So the union has responsibilities vis-a-vis consumers, the people of this country. It is necessary to remind that to the union, just as it is necessary to remind the government which says publicly it has powers that it also has responsibilities. Powers exist to be used. Today they are being used, and it took one month of shouting to get the government to move. We know how much farmers are going to pay for this, and it is impossible to assess the consumer's bill.
We know perfectly well, Madam Speaker, that the public is tired. For the worker what is important is his strike. They condemn the other guy's strike but try to justify theirs. We must try to restore the mechanisms that correspond best to this stability we want, the just society we have been hearing about for a very long time. I think that just society will not build itself. It will be achieved to the extent that we will have at least the courage to bring together the people responsible for the economy, including those in the fields of food and farming, and make them understand that it is time to find a solution, acceptable compromises from which will stem the sharing formula that is absolutely necessary.
Madam Speaker, I will conclude by saying that we support this legislation and we are not attempting to prolong the debate.
I would also like to remind all those who accused me last week of being a member of a political party which does not serve the interests of the province of Quebec, that we proved them wrong last week, in the special debate. Today, however, it is not without a certain degree of hesitation that all my colleagues in this party are assuring the government of their co-operation in dispatching the bill through the House, bearing in mind the urgency of the matter and the interests of the farmers of Quebec and of all of Canada.
Madam Speaker, I hope the government will be doing this again, repeating what he is doing today, saying: We take our responsibilities.
This is not a long-term solution; again, we will see that other similar conflicts will come up and that, if there is no change in all the mechanisms, in all the methods which have become a necessity today, if we do not want to be forced to return to Parliament to pass special bills such as this one-


Mitchell William Sharp: Madam Speaker, I believe there is a general disposition to continue the debate beyond six o'clock this evening, and accordingly I have a motion that the hours of sitting be extended beyond that time.


Mr. Jones:: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, I do not know of any agreement to extend the hours.


Mitchell William Sharp: I intend to make a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 6(5). It would, of course, not be our intention to sit after six o'clock in the literal sense-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the motion in writing?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes. I move:
That the hours of sitting be extended beyond six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Those opposed to the motion will please rise.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order. I would like to remind the hon. member that he will have a chance to rise on a point of order later.


André-Gilles Fortin: Madam Speaker, in this case I raise a question of privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order. When the House is called upon to vote it is not in order to raise a question of privilege.

All those opposed to the motion will please rise.


Gerald William Baldwin: May I rise on a point of order, first?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. May I put the question? All those who are against the motion will please rise.


Gerald William Baldwin: Madam Speaker, if you feel I should not speak I will not do so, but surely we can work out some order from this situation. If the motion is passed as worded we would sit continuously, and from this point of view I urge that there be unanimous consent that I be allowed to say something on this point right now.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Very well. I will call upon the hon. members for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin), Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and Moncton (Mr. Jones).

The hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin), the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Jones) will speak afterwards.


André-Gilles Fortin: Madam Speaker, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) moved this motion pursuant to a unanimous agreement and saying that there had been consultation. I have to protest, because we were not consulted and therefore we cannot take part in the conclusion
April 23, 1975

of a unanimous agreement at this level. This is why I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. From now on, when the President of the Privy Council really wants to move a motion on unanimous consent, he should not forget the 11 members of the Social Credit Party of Canada in this House.


Gerald William Baldwin: Surely there is a reasonable and civilized way to deal with this. We could probably come back here at eight o'clock and sit, I suggest, until ten o'clock, in an effort to determine whether satisfactory progress has been made. If, toward ten o'clock, we find the bill is almost disposed of we would not place any obstruction in the way of allowing any reasonable addition of time in which to finish the work. I might say, though, that the other place, I am instructed, will not be meeting until tomorrow-I may he wrong, but my instructions are that the other place is not sitting and that this measure cannot be reached by them until tomorrow. I should like to know what position the NDP is taking. I do not look forward to sitting here continuously from six o'clock onward.
I might point out that Your Honour could not interfere with the terms of an order providing for a continuous sitting after six o'clock. The hon. member for Moncton (Mr.Jones) has told us he is not prepared to give unanimous consent. I certainly do not think we should sit through from this moment continuously until late tonight.


Mitchell William Sharp: On the same point of order, Madam Speaker, I was aware of these difficulties but I was advised that, under the terms of the standing order, unless we were to proceed by unanimous consent, which might have jeopardized our sitting this evening, I could only move that the hours of sitting be extended beyond six p.m. It was my intention-I hope we will have unanimous consent-as I indicated in my preliminary remarks that we adjourn between the hours of six and eight. I want to say to my hon. friend that I would be very happy to fall in with this suggestion, but I am not sure whether it is entirely within the rules.


Gerald William Baldwin: Then on those conditions, and if the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) will give me his assurance-I know there are limitations to what he can do-that we will review the question at ten o'clock, I will agree to that. There is no point sitting here ad nauseam if the matter is not going to be completed tonight, particularly in light of the fact that it cannot become law until tomorrow evening by reason of the fact that the favoured people of my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre are not available until tomorrow.


Leonard C. Jones: Madam Speaker, I am becoming a bit concerned at the government House leader periodically getting unanimous consent for this thing and for that thing, and asking unanimity in connection with this and that. This matter was not discussed with me as a member of parliament, and when we sit in this House surely to goodness we sit as members of parliament without relation to partisan politics.
I am concerned about a lot of these things, and particularly about this type of legislation. I just do not like it. I
Labour Dispute
want to serve notice on this House through you, Madam Speaker, that I do not intend to strike but I do intend to withhold consent when unanimous agreement is asked for in the future until the House of Commons has the common decency (1) to make provision for independent members to become members of standing committees; (2) amends the Elections Act, the Election Expenses Act, and the Income Tax Act to give independents the same benefits as other members of parliament belonging to so-called recognized political parties; and (3) gives greater consideration to the rights of independent members of the House. I do not like being pushed around by the House leader on the government side saying there is unanimous consent on this and that matter, when it is not true.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, I just want to say that it is not often that I defend the government House leader. At least that has not been a practice of mine during the last few weeks. But I do not think that the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) said that there was unanimous consent.


Leonard C. Jones: Yes, he did.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think all he said was that there was a general disposition. In other words, he thought that the people he had talked to would agree, but he did not ask for unanimous consent. He asked to act under Standing Order 6.
I think we have had enough of these Wednesday nights and I do not like the idea of sitting tonight on this measure. But I might be persuaded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) to go along with the understanding that we sit at eight o'clock, provided it is clear now that we are going to close off at ten o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Pursuant to Standing Order 6(5) there is a motion to extend the sitting beyond six o'clock. All the members opposed to the motion please rise.
And fewer than ten members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: I declare the motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, can we now have a clear undertaking from the government House leader that what has just been discussed is what he intends, namely, that we rise at six, come back at eight, and that unless we review the matter we rise at ten?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am in general agreement, Madam Speaker. I doubt whether we will need to go beyond ten o'clock, but I am sure that if we were not quite finished with the bill there might be a disposition to go on. However, it is not my intention to go on all night or anything of that kind. Ten o'clock is the target that I have in mind.


Gerald William Baldwin: Madam Speaker, when the government House leader and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre come to a consensus ad idem, who am I to interfere, particularly when it was I who suggested it in the first place?
29557-50-/2

April 23, 1975
Labour Dispute


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is it agreed that we rise at six o'clock and resume at eight o'clock?


Leonard C. Jones: I do not agree to that, Madam Speaker.


An hon. Member:: You go home. We don't need you.


Leonard C. Jones: You may not need me but the people in my constituency need me.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is the House ready for the question?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, before putting the question on second reading of the bill, I think there is some agreement, which I hope is unanimous, that the bill be dealt with in committee of the whole rather than being referred to the standing committee. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Joyal):
That the motion be amended by deleting therefrom all the words after the word "referred" and substituting therefor the following words: "to a committee of the whole House".


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Leonard C. Jones: No. I want my vote registered.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Carried on division.
Amendment (Mr. MacGuigan) agreed to on division.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Motion as amended agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into Committee thereon, Mrs. Morin in the chair.


John Allen Fraser: Madam Chairman, I wonder whether in view of the hour we could call it six o'clock?


The Assistant Deputy Chairman:: Is it agreed that we call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Leonard C. Jones: No.


B. Keith Penner: There is no unanimous consent to call it six o'clock, the hon. member for Moncton having objected. Is there agreement to rise at six o'clock?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Why not rise now and come back at eight?


B. Keith Penner: Shall clause 1 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


B. Keith Penner: Shall clause 2 carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Chairman, may I suggest that you should not have called clause 1 at this point. You should have started with clause 2.


B. Keith Penner: Shall clause 2 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
On Clause 4-Longshoring operations to be resumed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Chairman, I wish to move an amendment to Clause 4. My hon. friend, the member for Regina-Lake Centre, pointed out when he was speaking at the second reading stage that we agree a case can be made for the wage settlement part of the Gold report but we do not feel that we should impose upon those longshoremen the provisions of the Gold report that refer to job security and some other matters. Therefore, Madam Chairman, we would like to see the portion of-
Madam Chairman, a moment ago I was chiding you for having called clause 1 when you should have called clause 2. I find that I am now standing here speaking on clause 4 when it is clause 5 to which I wish to move my amendment, so I guess we are even.
Clause 4 agreed to.
On Clause 5-Term of collective agreement extended.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Chairman, I believe I am now on the clause to which I wish to move an amendment. Clause 5, which starts on page 3 and runs over to the middle of page 4, includes sub-clause (3) which would put these longshoremen back to work under all the terms of the Gold report.
As I have already said, we recognize that a case can be made for the wage settlement proposed in the Gold report, but we think a strong case can be made against the part of the Gold report that fails to meet the employees in the matter of job security. It is our view, therefore, that paragraph (b), being line 13 to line 18 on page 4, should be deleted.
This is a little bit complicated because if that much is deleted it is also necessary to delete the letter "(a)" at the beginning of line 43 on page 3, and it is also necessary to delete the word "and" at the end of line 12 on page 4.
If there is anyone, I have not lost, may I go on to say that the simplest way to do all of this is to move an amendment to strike out all of sub-clause (3) of clause 5 and then put it back in without including the portion that we think should not be there.
I would therefore move:
That Bill C-59 be amended by striking out lines 39 to 48 on page 3, and lines 1 to 18 on page 4, and substituting therefor the following:
(3) Upon the coming into force of this Part, the terms and conditions of each one of the collective agreements to which this Part applies are amended by increasing each hourly rate of wages, as established by or pursuant to such agreement and in effect on the date the collective agreement expired, by the amount recommended
April 23, 1975

in the reports of the conciliation commissioner that were received by
the Minister of Labour on March 14, 1975, which increase shall,
(i)	in the case of the collective agreement referred to in paragraph (a) of the definition "collective agreements to which this Part applies" in section 3, be effective as of January 1, 1975, and
(ii)	in the case of the collective agreements referred to in paragraph (b) of the definition "collective agreements to which this Part applies" in section 3, be effective as of January 16, 1975."
That may look like a lot of words, but what it amounts to is leaving in all the words that are already there except paragraph (b), being line 13 to line 18 on page 4, and leaving out one or two connecting items.
The purpose and the intent of the amendment is to limit the compulsory feature of this legislation to the wage settlement and not to make it apply to other features of the Gold report. I hope the minister will look with favour on this amendment.


Leonard C. Jones: Madam Chairman, I move we adjourn until eight o'clock.


John Allen Fraser: On a point of order, Madam Chairman, I wonder if the hon. member for Moncton could again address the Chair as I did not hear his remark and I should like to hear it.


Mitchell William Sharp: Madam Chairman, before the hon. member does that I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Moncton, that we rise at six p.m. until the hour of eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
B. Keith Penner: Order, please. When the committee rose at six o'clock clause 5, to which an amendment had been moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, was under consideration. Is the committee ready for the question on the amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre)) negatived: Yeas, 2; nays, 34.


B. Keith Penner: I declare the amendment negatived.
Shall clause 5 carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Clause 5 agreed to on division.
Clause 6 agreed to.
On Clause 7-Parties to negotiate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Chairman, I wish to move an amendment which again is very lengthy. I hope that, when I have indicated what it is and where I obtained the wording, the committee might be willing to put it in the record without my reading it.
Labour Dispute


An hon. Member:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I detect a willingness that this be done before I indicate what it is.
There is a unique feature about this bill which gives us concern. I think I speak for most members of the committee when I say that none of us likes back-to-work legislation of any kind. This is not the way to settle an industrial dispute. However, usually when as a last resort the government brings in a measure to force workers back to work it provides for the immediate settlement of certain conditions and also provides for an arbitrator to settle some of the outstanding matters. In this case there is no arbitrator. In this case the entire Gold report is legislated and nothing is left for any further consultation or bargaining.
We feel that there should be written into this bill the same provisions for an arbitrator that the government put in the bill a few weeks ago when it sent the longshoremen on the west coast back to work. Therefore, Madam Chairman, I should like to move:
That Bill C-59 be amended by striking out paragraphs 7 and 8, lines 1 to 47 on page 5 and lines 1 to 15 on page 6; and by substituting therefor the following:
"7. (1) The Minister of Labour shall
(a)	appoint an arbitrator and refer to him all matters relating to the amendment or revision of the collective agreements to which this Part applies, with the exception of those matters referred to in paragraph 5(3); and
(b)	provide for the form in which the decision of the arbitrator in respect of the matters referred to him shall be set forth.
(2)	An arbitrator appointed under subsection (1) has, with such modifications as the circumstances require, all the powers and duties of an arbitrator under section 157 of the Canada Labour Code.
(3)	Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act or of the Canada Labour Code, the arbitrator shall be required to decide all matters referred to him under this Part within 60 days of his appointment.
8 (1) When an arbitrator appointed under section 7 decides all matters referred to him, the collective agreements to which this Part applies are deemed to be amended by the incorporation therein of such decision and by the incorporation therein of such other amendments as may have been agreed to by the parties thereto prior to the decision of the arbitrator, and the collective agreements as so amended constitute new collective agreements which shall have effect
(1)	in the case of the collective agreement referred to in paragraph (a) of the definition "collective agreements to which this Part applies" in section 3, on and from January 1, 1975, and
(ii) in the case of the collective agreements referred to in paragraph (b) of the definition "collective agreements to which this Part applies" in section 3, on and from January 16, 1975.
(2)	Nothing in section 5 or in subsection (1) shall be deemed to limit or restrict the rights of the parties to a collective agreement to agree to vary or amend any of the provisions of the collective agreement as amended pursuant to that section and that subsection other than a provision relating to the term of the collective agreement, and to give effect thereto."
As I said, Madam Chairman, my amendment is a lengthy one. I have read it all so it is not necessary to ask for the consent I referred to earlier. The point is that the language is taken verbatim, with the exception of changes in respect of certain clause numbers, from the legislation which sent the longshoremen on the west coast back to work. It provides for an arbitrator, a provision which we think should be a part of this legislation. I hope the government will give favourable consideration to this amendment. When we rose at six o'clock I gave the Minis-

April 23, 1975
Labour Dispute
ter of Labour a copy of all the amendments we intend to move at this stage.


B. Keith Penner: The House has heard the terms of the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said amendment?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Chairman, I was hoping the minister would rise at some point during committee of the whole stage to tell us how he feels about what we have said at second reading and at the committee stage regarding these three harbours and the job security provisions of the Gold report.
The Gold report is fairly thick but I suspect both sides will accept, either willingly or grudgingly, most of the recommendations in the report, with the exception of the job security provision which is the most crucial issue in this dispute. I would like the minister to let us know why he cannot accept exactly the same as was provided in the case of Vancouver. There an arbitrator was appointed and his decision was binding on both sides. There are arguments against that situation as well, but at least we would not be legislating a contract in the kind of detail that is in the Gold report.
Unless I am mistaken in my reading and understanding of the Gold report, we are legislating all of the longshoremen in Three Rivers back to work with a guarantee of
1.200	hours. Under the previous agreement they had a guarantee of 1,480 hours. Even with the wage package that is in this legislation they will be no better off, and possibly will be worse off, than they were under the old agreement. If, in fact, Mr. Gold's report says that the overtime they work from Monday to Friday will be deducted from the
1.200	hours, they will be in an even worse position. Surely we can do no less than legislate these men back to work in a way whereby they will be no worse off than before.
I ask the minister what is wrong with these amendments? They do exactly what was done before, namely, leave it to an arbitrator to examine Mr. Gold's recommendations on job security. The only point we are trying to make is with regard to the job security issue. As far as I am concerned the other 60 or 70 pages of Mr. Gold's report can go "as is", with possibly only minor changes. After meeting with both sides surely an arbitrator will endeavour to meet these points and come up with something that is more acceptable with regard to job security provisions.
If we in this parliament insist on legislating men back to work in Three Rivers with a guarantee of 1,200 hours instead of 1,480 hours, and other men with a guarantee of 1,400 hours instead of the former 1,480 hours, even with the pay increase they could well lose if the overtime hours are counted against them. An officer of the union said that what has been given in the wage package, which is not too bad, has been taken away once or twice in the job security provisions of maximum hours guaranteed in the course of a year's work. I just cannot see workers of any kind sitting still for that. Why does the minister not agree we can and should do exactly the same as we did in the Vancouver legislation?


John Carr Munro: Madam Chairman, I will answer the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and then get to the questions asked by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre.
With regard to the precedents we are dealing with here, the legislation we had dealing with the west coast longshoremen was in a situation where there was not a commissioner appointed. There was no board chairman appointed. In that situation the parties asked that there be no commissioner and no board chairman. They wished to negotiate themselves. However, they were unsuccessful in doing so. There was no report on which to base any legislation. That is why we just extended the collective agreement and appointed an arbitrator.
In this situation we have a commissioner's report. He made firm recommendations in contractual language. This is similar to the situation we had with the grainhandlers' strike on the west coast. In that case, Dr. Perry was the single man commission. He recommended all the provisions of the collective agreement, put it in contractual language, and parliament legislated the Perry recommendations in total as the collective agreement. In that particular case the commissioner's report had the support of the employees. Parliament supported the government. I believe the members of the New Democratic Party supported that legislation and, as I indicated, so did the union.
Here we have an analogous situation. We have a commissioner's report by Judge Alan Gold. Again, it is highly thought of by both union and management. Both agreed to him in this particular role as commissioner. He has come down with a report in detail. All the recommendations are in contractual language. However, this time it is agreed to by the employers and not the employees. We are following the same course, but it happens to be the opposite side of the coin in so far as who agrees to it. There is our precedent.
I will now turn to some of the points raised by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre. I might just indicate to him that what is recommended here in terms of job security is a job security study provision that has been plaguing the proper operation of this port for endless years. It has been studied by the most able man in this field, Judge Alan Gold. It is agreed that in industrial relations his ability is unquestioned. Equally important, his experience in industrial relations is practiced in the St. Lawrence ports.
I repeat that it is appropriate to recall that in 1968, as I indicated in my opening remarks, and again in 1971 Judge Gold was appointed chairman of the conciliation board which dealt with the complex and difficult longshoring problems. He is the one who dealt with this particular situation. With regard to the differential between Trois-Rivieres, Quebec City and Montreal, he had a special assignment by Professor Bellemare that also looked into this. The situation is that the traffic is not as heavy in Trois-Rivieres and Quebec City as in Montreal.
I would point out to the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre that job security in Montreal is higher, 1,600 hours as opposed to 1,480 hours. Of the 2,200 longshoremen, 1,600 are in Montreal. Therefore the vast majority do benefit. The recommendations are based on the most solid expertise we could get.
April 23, 1975

Even if the government followed another course, and this is hypothetical, and decided we would do something along the lines recommended by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, appoint an arbitrator and extend the current collective agreement, it is very unlikely we could find an arbitrator of the competence of Alan Gold.
These are essentially the reasons why we are recommending action along these lines. Once we have decided to proceed along the lines of incorporating a commissioner's report as the collective agreement, we cannot change that. Some of us may not like one particular aspect and want it deleted. Others may want other aspects deleted. Before we know it the whole thing could collapse and we would not have a coherent, cogent collective agreement incorporated in our legislation.


David Orlikow: Madam Chairman, I recognize the difficulty of the minister. In this bill he is essentially proposing that we follow the recommendations of Mr. Justice Gold. We do not question the ability of Mr. Justice Gold or his past experience, but we are wondering how this will actually work. The minister said that 1,600 to 2,200 workers work in Montreal. They are protected, of course, by the provision that they will be guaranteed 2,000 hours. But we are concerned about the 600 workers in Quebec City and the workers in Three Rivers. In the case of the latter, they will be guaranteed not more than 1,200 hours. That works out to a guarantee of 30 weeks' work and a gross income of $6 per hour, or $7,200 for the year. For a married man with a wife and two children, that amounts to less than the poverty level. I do not think the minister can be very happy about making that kind of proposal.
I suggest to the minister that if the workers in Three Rivers are guaranteed only 30 weeks, they will be entitled to 20 weeks' unemployment insurance benefits. That seems a very strange proposition for the government to make. The worker would be guaranteed 30 weeks' work in the industry, and if that is all the work there is they will be guaranteed 20 weeks' unemployment insurance benefits. They then become, not the responsibility of the industry to which they are tied as long as they work but the responsibility of the Canadian taxpayers. This would not be just for one year but on a permanent basis unless there is more work in Three Rivers than the minister seems to feel there is.
The situation in Quebec City, while a little better is really not much better. Instead of 30 weeks, the workers would be guaranteed 35 weeks' work. Surely the minister can come up with a better, more humane proposal than that contained in this bill.


B. Keith Penner: Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: No, Madam Chairman. The minister did not answer the points I raised. He discussed the integrity and the ability of Mr. Justice Gold, and there is no argument about that, but I hope he is not trying to tell the House that Mr. Justice Gold is perfect and that everything contained in his report is 100 per cent correct. No matter
Labour Dispute
who takes the role of conciliator or arbitrator, they are not perfect when they bring in their reports. Both sides to a dispute would agree with that. All we are saying is that we remove much of the specific decision-making that is asked of this parliament and turn it over to an arbitrator. The minister has not assured the House and this committee that several hundred longshoremen will not, in fact, be worse off than under the old agreement.
Since the issue is job security, I remind the minister that there used to be 3,400 longshoremen and there are now 2,200. That fact should cause some concern. With all due respect to Mr. Justice Gold, in regard to the job security provisions and the annual number of hours at these three ports he is wrong. Even if he is not wrong, surely parliament should not legislate in respect of that kind of detail: it is something an arbitrator should be doing. All we ask is that an arbitrator rule on that part of the draft collective agreement which Mr. Justice Gold submitted in the form of a report to the minister. I refer only to the job security provisions. If the minister wishes to legislate all the rest, I am in no position to argue with him because I have not had a chance to peruse it all. I refer only to the job security provisions, the 1,600-hour framework for Montreal, 1,400 for Quebec City and 1,200 for Three Rivers. It seems to me that is the meat of the issue which will have the minister and many others in trouble in just two or three months.
The amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre proposes that the arbitrator must report back within 60 days with his ruling, which will be binding on both sides. That will not put us into another strike situation. The contract will be for three years until the end of 1977. I agree that this is not exactly the same as the Vancouver situation, but the principle is the same.
Can the minister assure the committee that the recommendations will not in fact mean, with deductibility in respect of overtime hours, that workers-certainly those in Three Rivers, probably those in Quebec City, and among the junior workers in Montreal-will not be better off, and usually worse off, than they are under the existing agreement? How can we legislate that kind of settlement? I repeat what I said this afternoon: if we are to put them back to work, let us put them back to work fairly, and not unfairly.


J. Michael Forrestall: Madam Chairman, I wish to direct a related question to the minister. Having some sympathy for the point being made by this amendment-and I am speaking in a very personal way-and having some concern about this House having anything to do with legislation respecting terms of collective agreements, I ask the minister if he can shed some light on the position we are put into with respect to negotiations, for example, which are going on now at the port of Saint John. Negotiations are reasonably well advanced there.
I dislike dealing in hypothetical situations, but I think the minister at this stage of this legislation could let his mind roam and give us an indication as to whether what we are doing now could be considered a precedent in the- hopefully, unlikely-event that the good workers in Saint John will not be able to reach meaningful arrangements with the MEA. In the event they do not and a conciliator has to be named in Saint John, New Brunswick-and, as

April 23, 1975
Labour Dispute
well, with respect to the port of Halifax where negotiations will commence, probably, in September or October- will what we are doing tonight not establish a precedent which probably could place negotiations, particularly in Halifax, in a more militant posture and could have very serious consequences with respect to the finalization of the negotiations in the port of Saint John?
I wonder if the minister could shed a little light on that matter, because in no small way would it have something to do with my decision as to whether in fact we have any moral right to tamper with an issue which is in dispute and with my accepting the minister's arguments with respect to items which are in dispute. But with respect to items which are in dispute I am afraid of the precedent we might establish in terms of current negotiations and others which will be current before the end of the summer or the early part of the fall.


John Carr Munro: Madam Chairman, I indicated earlier that the action we are now recommending is not to be regarded as a prededent. I think the course of action followed by the government, when it has to legislate, should be one which, considering all the circumstances, is the best and is not tied to precedent, on the basis that often this is an argument which enhances the chances of a settlement outside parliament. The parties are not aware of precisely what they may face if they have to come to parliament. That type of situation may very well retard the efforts of one party or the other to get off the hook, so to speak, with their own membership. By letting parliament pass legislation that the employers do not like and would prefer to have foisted on them, or that the union leadership does not like because they do not want to take the risk of recommending it to the membership and having it repudiated, both parties avoid responsibility.
I do not think the hon. member should be too concerned about the precedent setting nature of this particular legislation. In answer to a question by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre I indicated that we had followed this course before. It is true that we did not do it with the west coast longshoremen, but we did it with the grain handlers and the Perry report.


B. Keith Penner: Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) negatived: Yeas, 7; nays, 65.


B. Keith Penner: Shall clause 7 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 7 agreed to.
On clause 8-Appointment of Referee.


John Allen Fraser: I wonder if I could ask the Minister of Labour in regard to this clause whether it is his understanding that the referee will be looking at the wording of the Gold report only and will not be referring back to any of the collective agreements that have covered relation-

ships between these parties over the last several years. In terms of the interpretation and implementation of this clause, is it his intention that the referee must confine himself to the Gold report and this legislation, and will not wander back into the collective agreements that are no longer in effect between the parties?


John Carr Munro: Yes, Madam Chairman. In the exercise of his duties he is restricted to refereeing the interpretation of the contents of the Gold report.


J. Michael Forrestall: Madam Chairman, clause 8(4) reads:
For the purposes of this part, a referee appointed under this section has, with such modifications as the circumstances require, all the powers conferred on a conciliation board under section 175 of the
Canada Labour Code.
Is the minister saying that the clause modifies the powers that are conferred under the appropriate act? Is he now saying it is restricted, without having spelled it out, while the latter stage of this clause is expanding the powers of section 175 of the Canada Labour Code?


John Carr Munro: No Madam Chairman, this clause refers to procedural matters. In other words he has the power, if he wishes, to call witnesses and that type of thing. He has powers of subpoena but on strictly procedural matters, not matters of substance.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Madam Chairman, I take it from clause 8(4) that the power of the referee is strictly that of a conciliation officer. He is not the arbitrator but is simply to bring parties together to try to get agreement on matters that might be outstanding.


John Carr Munro: The referee is not a conciliation officer. A conciliation officer is one who goes out to the parties later on as a matter of course and endeavours to bring them together before they move to the next stage of a conciliation commissioner. It is not that at all. It is the function of a referee to interpret whenever there is some difference of opinion about what we are faced with here, the contents of the Gold report. In so doing he has the powers of a conciliation commissioner, not officer-a conciliation commissioner or conciliation board, in terms of having the capacity to summon witnesses.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: course I should have used the term conciliation commissioner. He has the power of a conciliation board to seek to bring parties together on any matters that are still outstanding. I wanted the assurance of the minister that he has not got the power of arbitrator, that he cannot make any change unless it is acceptable to both parties concerned. Is that correct?


John Carr Munro: That is essentially correct, if we understand each other. He cannot go beyond Gold; that is his limitation. He may be called upon to interpret the language of Gold, however, if the parties themselves cannot do it.
April 23, 1975


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Madam Speaker, Clause 8(5) under consideration provides that the parties may amend the collective agreement. Does that mean that the parties may agree to amend part of the collective agreement, or all of it, by mutual agreement? Still, the last few lines read as follows:
-other than a provision relating to the term of the collective agreement.
Is this a restriction provided in case an agreement is reached on the clauses of the collective agreement, whereby the act would then prevent any agreement to extend or shorten the life of the collective agreement, complete agreement having otherwise been reached between the two parties?


John Carr Munro: Madam Chairman, if the parties agree, that is fine. They can make any amendments they wish, except those altering the termination date in the agreement. They can make any type of amendment they wish, provided both parties agree.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clauses 9 and 10 agreed to.
On clause 11-Term of collective agreement extended.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Chairman, we have now reached the part of the bill which deals with checkers and cargo repairmen. I wish to move an amendment which will endeavour to do for these people the very same thing we tried to do for the longshoremen, and do what the hon. member for Vancouver South this afternoon said we should do in the area of job security. The amendment would put the matter in the hands of an arbitrator who should make decisions binding on both sides. That is exactly the point made by the hon. member for Vancouver South this afternoon, with which we agree. The hon. member said that parliament should not legislate all these details. I hope the hon. member for Vancouver South, who said in a much better way this afternoon what I just tried to say, will support this amendment to clause 11.
I move:
That Bill C-59 be amended by striking out lines 3 to 20 on page 8, and substituting therefor the following:
"(2) Upon the coming into force of this Part, the terms and conditions of each of the collective agreements to which this Part applies are amended by increasing, effective January 1, 1975, each hourly rate of wages in effect on December 31, 1974, as established by or pursuant to such agreement, by the amount recommended in the reports of the conciliation commissioner that were received by the Minister of Labour on April 9, 1975."
The amendment, if accepted, would leave in the bill only those parts relating to wages, and would delete that part of the clause which talks about the incorporation of all the other matters recommended by the conciliation commissioner. It would do what the hon. member for Vancouver South this afternoon suggested should be done.
Amendment (Mr. Benjamin) negatived: Yeas, 8; nays, 63.
Labour Dispute


B. Keith Penner: Shall clause 11 carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division. Clause 11 agreed to on division.
Clause 12 agreed to.
On clause 13-Parties to negotiate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Chairman, just as we proposed two separate amendments respecting those involved in longshoring and related operations, so are we now moving similar amendments with respect to checkers and cargo repairmen. We have already dealt with an amendment which would have confined the compulsory nature of this legislation to the wage settlement. I now wish to propose an amendment which would put an arbitrator into the picture with respect to the checkers and cargo repairmen, in the same way as we proposed with respect to the longshoremen. The amendment is pretty long, so hon. members can relax for a couple of minutes. I move:
That Bill C-59 be amended by striking out clauses 13 and 14, lines 1 to 44 on page 9 and lines 1 to 18 on page 10, and by substituting therefor the following:
"13. (1) The Minister of Labour shall
(a)	appoint an arbitrator and refer to him all matters relating to the amendment or revision of the collective agreements to which this Part applies, with the exception of those matters referred to in paragraph 11 (2)
(b)	provide for the form in which the decision of the arbitrator in respect of the matters referred to him shall be set forth.
(2)	An arbitrator appointed under subsection (1) has, with such modifications as the circumstances require, all the powers and duties of an arbitrator under section 157 of the Canada Labour Code.
(3)	Notwithstanding any other provision of this act or of the Canada Labour Code, the arbitrator shall be required to decide all matters referred to him under this Part within 60 days of his appointment.
14. (1) When an arbitrator appointed under section 13 decides all matters referred to him, the collective agreements to which this Part applies are deemed to be amended by the incorporation therein of such decision and by the incorporation therein of such other amendments as may have been agreed to by the parties thereto prior to the decision of the arbitrator, and the collective agreements as so amended constitute new collective agreements which shall have effect on and from January 1, 1975.
(2) Nothing in section 11 or in subsection (1) shall be deemed to limit or restrict the rights of the parties to a collective agreement to agree to vary or amend any of the provisions of the collective agreement as amended pursuant to that section and that subsection other than a provision relating to the term of the collective agreement, and to give effect thereto."
The reason that language is so choice and fits the bill so well is because it is taken from the Minister of Labour who put those words in the last bill which sent longshoremen back to work. I move this amendment in the hope that, despite the refusal of the minister to accept my hon. friend's proposal, he will see fit to approve this proposition as it relates to checkers and cargo repairmen.
Amendment negatived; Yeas, 9; nays, 64.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clauses 14 to 18 inclusive agreed to.

Labour Dispute


Mark R. MacGuigan: On a point of order, Madam Chairman, there is a minor typographical error in clause 5 having to do with the term of the agreement. Would there be consent to re-open clause 5 in order that this amendment could be made?


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is not the only error in this bill.


An hon. Member:: This is typographical.


B. Keith Penner: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
On clause 5-Term of Collective Agreement Extended.


Mark R. MacGuigan: I move:
That Bill C-59 be amended by striking out line 33 on page 3 and substituting the following:
"the period beginning on January 16,1975".


An hon. Member:: The wrong year!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: On a point of order, Madam Chairman, I do not object to the clause being re-opened, but that is not a typographical error. It is just an error.


Mark R. MacGuigan: I do not wish to indulge in a debate on semantics with the Leader of the Opposition, but there are several other places where the same formula is repeated and this is the only one where there is that error.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is a mistake, not a typographical error.


Mark R. MacGuigan: In my opinion it is a typographical error.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise not only to express the thanks of my union, the International Typographical Union, for the support given to us by the Leader of the Opposition-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I repudiate it!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that he spoke too soon. I would point out that the so-called error appears both in the English and in the French versions. I suggest, therefore, that it was not a printer's error, but an error in the copy which was sent to the printer.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Stanley Howard Knowles: What about clause one? On clause 1-Short title.


J. Michael Forrestall: Madam Chairman, there are one or two things I want to get off my chest with respect to what has taken place this afternoon before we move on to third reading. I shall try to be brief.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


J. Michael Forrestall: Those members sitting in the back row opposite who supported that comment should wait until they have been around a little while and suffered the consequences of making a mistake about what they are doing here. It may all be a little humorous to a number of members opposite, but some of us who are concerned for labour and the rights of labour in Canada do not regard it as humorous. Rather than identify the individual to whom these remarks are directed-he is relatively new around here-I will let him get away with it for once.
The step we have taken tonight is not a very healthy one for this parliament. The minister himself has indicated that this was not the procedure he would like to find himself pursuing. I hope that is true of all of us. When the House of Commons finds itself called upon arbitrarily to settle the terms of a collective agreement between two parties, I think we ought seriously to review our procedures, not only those in Part V of the Canada Labour Code but those set out in other legislation dealing with relations between employers and employees.
I have reservations about this bill which go beyond the fact that we are dealing with the terms of a collective agreement. They concern the very nature of the relationship between the Maritime Employers Association, the longshoremen's associations and the Government of Canada. The government is not here with completely free hands. It is party to a guarantee to secure to the banks certain amounts of money-I think the total amount owed by the MEA is now some $18 million.
The people have a right to know what is being done in this chamber tonight. The situation is not without conflict, and this conflict arises when it becomes apparent to those who are familiar with the financial obligations undertaken by the government-obligations which must, I suppose, be honoured-that the government is committed to honouring a debt of the Maritime Employers Association. It is in the best interests of the government that this strike be settled. It is not necessarily in the best interests of the employers and members of the unions involved, save for one respect.
However, clearly there is a conflict among those in the government seats about using this way of getting around an obligation that could very well follow should the strike be prolonged in the river ports to the point where the Maritime Employers Association might be forced to default in their undertakings to two of the principal banks that advanced them money, firstly for their retirement program two or three years ago and latterly for other reasons. I do not think we should let the bill go out of committee without some observation being made in this regard.
I find this proceeding distasteful. I abstained from voting for that reason, in part. Perhaps, more fundamentally, I abstained because this is the second time in the nine or ten years I have been here that this chamber has been caught up in determining the terms of settlement for a collective agreement between two parties. I am also somewhat disturbed about this proceeding, even though the difficulty has arisen in large measure because of abuse of the legal right to picket by striking employees albeit on

April 23, 1975

legal strike. I find no capacity within my thinking to tolerate or accept this, and I do not think any other member of the chamber does. I regret very much that the laws that now exist are not sufficient to correct this situation and that the government has used this thinly disguised pretext for bringing this measure before us. I regret that the existing authorities could not be invoked to protect the right of Quebec producers to have access to feed grains.
Based on the debate that we had a week ago tonight, I suspect that the urgency of this matter is not the national interest but that much narrower concern. Had we been dealing tonight with that much narrower concern, I would have felt a lot better as a member of this chamber. But we are not. We are here, as we all know, arbitrarily imposing upon employer and employee the terms of their collective agreement for the next two or three years. I regret this and I hope it will not be a precedent. I hope the minister's caution to the parties to the collective agreements will be taken at its face value and that this parliament does not intend lightly to find itself back in this position. The collective agreements with respect to the ILA and the Maritime Employers Association are ongoing in Saint John and will come up again in Halifax.
I hope that members of the unions involved, particularly the member companies of the Maritime Employers Association, do not sit too comfortably in their chairs tonight- I am not suggesting that they will do so-laughing at some of us because, in their opinion, they feel we have been dupes or pawns, unaware of some of the ramifications and implications of what lies behind the action of this parliament in ordering men back to work on the basis of a conciliation report.
I hope the minister will flex his muscles a bit and find some way to force parties to collective agreements to get on with the job of working out their problems. In my opinion, it was not good enough for the mediator in this case to meet with the parties once or twice and then wander off for three weeks. I am suspicious of that. I do not think we put our fullest effort into bringing the two sides together. The fact that they said they were not going to talk, and broke off discussions because of an apparent inability to get together, is all part of the adversary system. We may not like that, but we accept it. But it does not mean that the two sides cannot be brought together. In this case it is a matter of personal regret that a greater effort was not made so that we might have avoided doing what we are doing tonight.


Mr. Andre:: Madam Chairman, I shall not keep the chamber long; I just want to add a few remarks to those of my colleague who has just resumed his seat. I have come out of this experience feeling used. In participating in the debate and voting for this bill which I think is necessary, essentially I am an arbitrator; I am arbitrating a labour dispute-and I just do not have the competence to do that. I submit that none of us in this chamber has the competence to make such a decision at this time.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That is what our amendment said.


Harvie Andre: This is the fourth time in the 2Vi years I have been in this chamber that we have acted on legisla-
Labour Dispute
tion like this. It is the second time that we have been arbitrators. Once we were partial arbitrators, and only once did we in fact ask for arbitration by a competent arbitrator.
Collective bargaining procedures in most cases make provision for the four steps of negotiation, mediation, conciliation and arbitration. Each of those steps requires expertise, talent and time for the individuals concerned to look at the facts, to hear both sides of the story and to do what they can to bring about a solution. In this case we are being arbitrators and imposing a solution with none of the necessary study or expertise required; and this leaves me, as I say, feeling used. I think it is a most unsatisfactory way of proceeding.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Did you support our amendments?


Harvie Andre: The hon. member from the NDP keeps interjecting and asking about their amendments. He would have us acting, of course, as partial arbitrators, which is the worst possible thing. The one advantage here is that we are acting upon the recommendation of a well known labour expert by the name of Judge Gold and there is some comfort to be derived from this. But even that is not sufficient because I do not have the competence, and I think no one else here has, with due respect to Judge Gold, to make a judgment without having participated in the whole process.
I suggest to the minister and those on the other side that it is time something was done to find a permanent and more satisfactory structure for resolving these sorts of situations. I think it is ridiculous to demean parliament by continuing this procedure at the rate we have. Surely some permanent structure can be worked out which will be fair, equitable and just and will not amount to asking this House to arbitrate a labour dispute in this manner. It is time some leadership was shown.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Madam Chairman, I wonder whether the minister is in a position to give us an assurance tonight that the House is not going to be asked to do any more of this sort of thing for the next three years because we are going to have a beautiful consensus in the country.


John Carr Munro: I am very optimistic, Madam Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
John Carr Munro: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, we agree with the views which have been

Labour Dispute
expressed by a number of members to the effect that this is a distasteful business. I have listened many times to speeches in which people have said, "Let it not happen again"-but it seems to continue to happen. Even so, I think when in the view of the government the time is reached when legislation of this kind must be introduced, it should be tempered as much as possible.
We felt very strongly, and acted accordingly in committee of the whole on the bill, that the compulsory part of this settlement should apply only to the wages and not to some of the other features of the Gold report, including those having to do with job security. We also felt that the provision for an arbitrator which has been included in other legislation should have been included in this bill, if we must have a bill of this kind at all. We feel very strongly that a bill which just legislates the whole package and leaves no room for adjustment other than such adjustments as both parties agree to is not an example of parliament at its best.
Mr. Speaker, we regret that the committee of the whole did not see fit to accept the amendments we proposed. We feel, therefore, that the House should have an opportunity to reconsider this matter. To be specific, we think the House should have a chance to reconsider the narrowing of the compulsory element in the case of both groups, the longshoremen and the checkers and repairmen, and that in both cases we should reconsider the question of appointing an arbitrator. For this reason, we intend to move, as an amendment to third reading of the bill, that it be referred back to the committee of the whole House for the purpose of considering the subjects to which I have just referred.
The technical way to do that is to move a reference back for the purpose of reconsidering the precise clauses that need to be reopened in order to deal with these two matters. I say that so there will be a clear meaning to the amendment I shall read momentarily. The amendment just refers to clause numbers, but if one looks at the bill and those numbers he will realize we are asking for reconsideration of two propositions, namely, narrowing the compulsory feature of the Gold report to the wage settlement, and the appointment of an arbitrator in both cases. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin):
That Bill C-59 be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole House for the purpose of reconsidering clauses 5(3), 7, 8, 11(2), 13 and 14 thereof.


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I shall only take a few minutes to ask the House, particularly my colleagues, the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre), the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) and the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall), to consider this third reading amendment on the basis of their argument and proposition. I say immediately that our amendment does not mean that there will be prolonged delay in the passage of this legislation. In fact, if the House accepts the amendment it means that we will revert to committee of the whole for five or ten minutes, accept the amendments we moved at the

committee stage, return to third reading and pass the kind of bill that my colleague the hon. member for Vancouver South and I suggested we should have so that we will not be legislatively arbitrating a settlement of the most contentious part of the dispute at these three ports, namely, job security. That is all our amendment is addressed to, and all we are asking the House to do now is reconsider what we failed to do in committee of the whole.
I reiterate that legislating that portion of the Gold report which is in very serious dispute can mean only that we will end up having even greater industrial strife at these three harbours in the months ahead. I hope I am wrong in this prediction, but from past experience in similar instances when we have dealt with legislation in the House in respect of industrial disputes and a settlement has been unfairly arrived at, it has lead to more industrial strife.
I agree with the hon. member for Calgary Centre that in respect of the amendment we are appointing an arbitrator to arbitrate part of the dispute in contention, but from what I have been informed and have read, the only really serious issue in contention is job security. I believe that most, if not all, of the other recommendations in Mr. Justice Gold's report are acceptable in whole or in part to both sides of the dispute, but job security is an issue which is of even more serious consequence than the issue of wages. I think both sides will accept, on the issue of wages, Mr. Justice Gold's recommendations.
If the House accepts this amendment, it will not mean there will be a prolonged delay of the legislation. We could still be out of here by ten o'clock. If we were to accept the amendment moved in committee of the whole, we would not be placing this parliament in the position of legislating a back to work law about which the hon. member for Vancouver South, the hon. member for Calgary Centre and the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East expressed fears, as I believe did the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert).
The issue to which I have referred is most contentious and could cause us serious difficulty in the months ahead. Let us take the matter of job security out of the legislation and put it in the hands of an arbitrator, whose decision would be binding in the same way as the decision of the arbitrator in the Vancouver situation. I admit this is only on that one issue, but it is the main issue and the one that caused this strike in the three ports. Surely it is not unreasonable to place this serious issue in the hands of an arbitrator rather than members of parliament legislating that kind of settlement.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to indicate that I find it difficult to believe that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) are serious in making a motion such as this, when the matter has just come out of the committee. I have to say that I find it difficult to take the motion seriously.
I want to add just one more sentence. I notice in connection with this kind of bill that judging from previous
April 23, 1975

occasions my friends in the New Democratic Party usually vote for the bill on second reading, then put in some amendments that are rejected in committee, and vote against the bill on third reading in order that they may be on both sides of the question right through the piece.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I merely want to correct an impression that might have been left by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin). He is absolutely right when he says I find it almost abhorrent to be called upon to be an arbitrator. I think it is wrong for parliament to be called upon to be an arbitrator. It is an inappropriate procedure.
The one redeeming feature of this bill is that the conciliation report on which this legislation is based was assembled by a man of high repute. His repute is indisputable. Therefore I guess we can put up with the embarrassment of being called upon to arbitrate this dispute.
To follow the suggestion of the NDP in this regard of looking at this conciliation report and saying this clause is fine, that clause is not, this clause is fine, that clause is not, is to in cast a doubt on this report by the commissioner. If we were in fact to do that, there is no way I could feel in justified in going along. The one redeeming feature is that we are basing our arbitration on a report by a man who is well reputed and whose judgment we can trust. That does not get away from the fact I still find it repugnant for parliament to be called upon the act as arbitrator.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to join in this debate because the case for our party has been fully put by other spokesmen. However, I cannot refrain from replying to the comment made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield).
The suggestion was made that somehow the NDP is doing something that is inappropriate when it agrees in principle with a piece of legislation, then tries to get it amended, and when it fails to get through the amendment that it desires, votes against it in the final stage. Surely that is what the parliamentary process is all about. Just because the Conservative party makes not effort to propose serious amendments to legislation is a rather poor reason for criticizing those who do.
In so far as the Leader of the Opposition thinks it is necessary to provide some argument to justify our position, I will add one other point. The NDP took the same position on the last back to work legislation we had before the House. We agreed with it in principle. Unlike the Conservative party, we proposed amendments which were accepted by the House, and we voted for the bill on the final reading.


Leonard C. Jones: Mr. Speaker, despite the feeling of some members of this House, I feel the amendment makes good sense, particularly if one has had any connection with labour and management problems. I am not only concerned because the right to strike has been taken away, but the right to further negotiate is being interfered with. If this amendment is not accepted we will be leading this country labour relations-wise into a real jungle of labour management problems and confusion.
Labour Dispute
Labour and management will always be dependent on government to write compulsory labour agreements. I do not think that is the function of parliament. It is not fair to the employee or the employer, and is not in the public interest. I think this is a darn poor precedent for this parliament to establish.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, as I said in my statement this afternoon, I thought this bill was based essentially on a report submitted by the conciliation commissioner, Mr. Justice Gold, to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) and dated March 14, 1975. In a letter sent on the same day to the Minister of Labour, Mr. Gold wrote, among other things:
I regret to inform you that, although both sides tried their best during our almost daily meetings since I was appointed as conciliation commissioner, on December 24, 1974, they have not managed to reach an agreement. You will therefore find herewith my report and recommendations by way of a collective agreement draft.
Mr. Speaker, I sincerely believe Mr. Justice Gold submitted that report to the Minister of Labour as the result of a very serious work; he himself reports: "Almost daily meetings". In other words, considerable attempts were made to reach an agreement, a conciliation, to sign a collective agreement which would satisfy both employers and employees. Unfortunately, after many meetings, they were unable to reach an agreement. And since March 14, the Minister of Labour let hold of events. We asked him questions in the House; we were concerned, and rightly so, about the effects of such unfortunate work stoppage, on behalf of workers and of those who suffer from this situation, in particular farming producers in the province of Quebec. More than a month later since today is April 23, the Government eventually decided to introduce a legislation, not of their own free will as the minister said, but because the parties of the dispute did not manage to reach an agreement even thanks to such a highly competent man as Mr. Justice Gold, who made every possible effort to try and reach an agreement acceptable to both parties.
This afternoon, a bill was introduced, Bill C-59. All the hon. members had the opportunity to give their opinion about the principle of the bill. Then, we studied it in committee of the whole. It is obvious that the bill pleases no one, at least not the hon. member for Bellechasse, but in view of the urgent need for a settlement, something has to be done in the interest of the public, and Parliament must legislate. I understand that NDP members have moved amendments with all their usual sincerity. I am convinced that these members wanted to take part in the debate and make, or at least suggest, amendments so that the bill would be more in keeping with the aspirations of the workers.
Since we have been in committee of the whole since the House resumed tonight at 8 p.m., and have made a clause by clause study of this bill, I believe that every effort has been made by Parliament to provide a measure as fair as possible to the workers and the employers. It is quite obvious that when we drive a car and must apply the brakes at a given time, the speed of the car is reduced. We reach our destination later, but this is sometimes necessary to avoid losing control in a detour. This is what we

April 23, 1975
Division
must do today in Parliament. We are aiming at bringing back together parties who do not agree, without taking sides. We want to solve a problem and we are giving them time, in the next weeks and months, to continue to negotiate and to understand each other.
Mr. Speaker, it is in this spirit that Parliament has made a serious study of this bill, and I hope that tonight we shall be able to go through the final stages of the bill in the House of Commons, even if we have to let the Senate do its own work later.
For my part, I am ready to support the bill, as I said earlier, so as to put some order in this matter and avoid the worst.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. The question, therefore, is on the motion for third reading. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Benjamin Blackburn Broadbent
Douglas
(Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands)
Gilbert
Jones Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) Orlikow-8.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.
On motion of Mr. Sharp the House adjourned at 10.19 p.m.

Thursday, April 24, 1975