1975-03-19

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43 on a matter which on the surface may not appear to be of urgent and pressing necessity but which recognizes that we are fast approaching the end of the month when pension cheques will be going out. The House is well aware of the firm belief of the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) in incentives within the work force as well as his commitment for increasing the efficiency of the Post Office. Since a great many businesses across Canada suffer from an interruption in the postal service, and since the lives of many Canadians, especially those depending on pension incomes, are frustrated by a disruption in the postal service, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday):
That the Postmaster General be instructed by this House to institute a policy whereby all postal employees will receive their pay cheques through the regular mail service using the postal code.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the terms of the motion. It being proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43, it cannot be debated without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to discuss a very urgent matter.
Owing to the very serious situation of eastern producers as a result of the new dairy policy, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin):
That an emergency debate be held in this House as soon as possible on the forthcoming new dairy policy, about which producers have not
been consulted, taking into consideration this strike which more especially deprives eastern producers of the feed grain essential to their production.


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 consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent; therefore, the motion cannot be put.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the B.C. Telephone Company is now requesting a rate increase of some 20 per cent before the Canadian Transport Commission and received an increase just last month, in view of the fact that the minister of communications of British Columbia has requested that an inquiry be made into the pricing policies of B.C. Telephone Company and its related companies, and in view of the fact that some $83.7 million was sent to its parent company in New York in 1973, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes):
That this House direct the Minister of Communications to forthwith intervene with the Canadian Transport Commission with respect to the pending application for an increase by B. C. Telephone to stop such consideration until a proper economic assessment is completed by the ministry into pricing practices of the B.C. Telephone with regard to related or associated companies and also an investigation be made into the amounts that have been paid by this corporation to its U.S. parent corporation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the terms of the motion. It being proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43, it cannot be debated without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

March 19, 1975
Order Paper Questions


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, under the terms of Standing Order 43, I request unanimous consent of the House to discuss a most urgent and important matter.
Because of the serious problems caused by asbestos fibre air pollution in the Thetford Mines area where, as early as 1949, at the time of the first strike in that sector, request was made to improve the situation but to no avail, and because of the serious problems created by data supplied by the CNTU and New York's Mount Sinai School of Medicine specialists, and all the more so because Thetford workers now on strike want their security guaranteed in this regard, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin):
That the House of Commons be allowed to discuss now this whole problem of asbestos fibre pollution, so that immediate steps can be taken in this regard, and that the federal Department of Environment assume as soon as possible its responsibility for setting up national standards by setting up a work schedule and the mechanism required to speed up the work of the research group in charge in the department.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 184, 185, 337, 1,297, 1,308 1,461, 1,587, 1,755, 1,761 and 1,810.
Mr. Speaker, if questions Nos. 39, 238 and 2,075 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.
Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred questions Nos. 1,271 and 1,799.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Orlikow: What was the comparison of capital cost allowances and depreciation (in millions of dollars) for corporations in Canada for each year since 1968 showing the amounts of (a) capital cost allowances (b) depreciation (c) the difference between capital cost allowances and depreciation?


Mr. Gaston Clermont (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: As reported in Corporation Taxation Statistics, information on capital cost allowances and depreciation for corporations in Canada, excluding insurance carriers, co-operatives, Crown corporations and tax exempt corporations, for years 1968 to 1971, the latest year available, is as follows:
	1968	1969	1970	1971
		$'000,000		
Capital Cost Allowance	3,930	4,448	4,873	5,218Depreciation	3,436	3,771	4,146	4,442Difference [DOT]	494	677	727	776


Mr. Orlikow: What was the distribution of net profit before taxes (millions of dollars) for all corporations in Canada in each year since 1968 between
(a)	taxes (b) dividends (c) retained earnings?


Gaston Clermont: Information on the distribution of net profit before taxes for corporations in Canada, excluding insurance carriers, cooperatives, Crown corporations and tax exempt corporations, is as follows for years 1968 to 1971, the latest year available:
1968	1969	1950	1971


[Stage Direction]
Book profit before income
taxes (net)1	9,050	9,951	8,785	10,605
Distribution				
Income taxes payable	2,634	3,014	2,901	3,200Mining taxes payable	63	68	71	44Dividends	3,026	3,004	3,428	3,712Retained earnings & other	charges and credits	3,327	3,865	2,385	3,649
<1) As included in Corporation Taxation Statistics.
March 19, 1975
Mr. Murta: 1.	Regarding the disposal of nine million eggs by the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency in August 1974 (a) where were the eggs destroyed
(b)	how were the eggs destroyed (c) what was the aggregate monetary cost?
2.	(a) Who authorized the destruction of such eggs (b) who was hired to carry out the process (c) for how much?
3.	Since the inception of CEMA have any other surplus eggs been destroyed before the August disposal of nine million eggs and, if so (a) what was the total aggregate cost (b) the location of the destruction
(c)	how were they destroyed?
4.	Since the inception of CEMA what are (a) the names (b) salaries (c) qualifications for both support and executive positions of the persons of the Agency?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. (a) At a storage facility in Freligsburg, Quebec, (b) The containers and the eggs were buried, (c) The aggregate cost of the eggs was $273,000.
2.	(a) The burial of the eggs in question was authorized by the General Manager of CEMA. (b) Nobody was hired as CEMA staff supervised the operation and the storage company staff conducted the disposal, (c) Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Beatty: 1.	What is the total cost to the taxpayer of the "Hire-a-Student" and "Have a Young Summer" buttons and the associated advertising campaign by the Department of Manpower and Immigration?
2.	Is the amount of money allotted to the 1975 Opportunities for Youth Programme higher or lower than that for the 1974 Programme and, in either case, by how much?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. The total cost of "Hire-a-Student" and "Have a Young Summer" buttons for distribution to employers is $3,886. The total cost of the "Hire-a-Student" advertising campaign is $275,000.
2. The amount of money allotted to the 1975 Opportunities for Young Programme is lower than that for the 1974 programme. A total of $29.5 million was allotted to the 1974 programme, compared to an allotment of $27.5 million to the 1975 OFY programme, thus constituting an amount $2 million lower than the 1974 programme budget. This reduction has been made in order to enable new programmes to be included in The Summer Student Employment and Activities Programme, thus offering a wider range of employment opportunities and summer activities to students.
4.	Name
Ed Morgan Ed Smith Jim Swinden Eric McFee Greg Power Sandra Sills
Title
General Manager Marketing Director Pooling Director Accountant Statistician Office Manager
As CEMA is a body corporate, the salaries and qualifications of individual staff members are not considered to be public information.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Are the Ministers of National Health and Welfare and Manpower and Immigration aware that employees are being fired in Canada in 1975 when their employers learn of a past history of epilepsy, even though this illness has been fully controlled?
2.	Is any action contemplated?


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, the answer to part one from the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) is no. The answer to the second part is that questions of labour practices do not fall under the minister's jurisdiction.
The answer to part one from the Minister of Manpower and Immigration is that the minister is aware that this situation exists. The answer to part two is that the Department of Manpower and Immigration, in operation of its Canada Manpower Centres, endeavours to find employment for all clients and eliminate causes of discrimination where possible.


Mr. Paproski: 1.	How many full-time employees were under salary in the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce on (a) January 1, 1974 (b) January 1, 1975?
2.	How many people in each of these years received salaries of (a) under $10,000 (b) between $10,000 and $20,000 (c) between $20,000 and $30,000 (d) over $30,000?


Gaston Clermont: 1. (a) Fulltime employees as of January 1, 1974, 2,460; (b) Full-time employees as of January 1, 1975, 2,635*.
2. Salary Band
January 1, 1974 January 1, 1975*
(a)	Under *10,000
(b)	110,000-120,000
(c)	*20,000-*30,000
(d)	over *30,000
1,055	844
715	884
625	684
65	223
These figures include a total of 127 employees of the Foreign Investment Review Agency.


Mr. Howie: Are there any plans to examine regional wage policies to ensure equality for all Public Service employees?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of Treasury Board):: Because the government's compensation policy is based on comparability with outside labour markets, it is felt that

March 19, 1975
Order Paper Questions
regional wage rates are appropriate for those occupations for which regional rates prevail in the outside markets and for which there is not a mobility requirement.


Mr. Herbert: Is a full-time public servant with a salary in excess of $20,000 required to declare to his or her superior any income, such as salary or fees, received for services rendered in (a) the private sector (b) another branch or department of the Public Service while that person continues to receive full salary?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Any public servant appointed under the provisions of the Public Service Employment Act and employed in a department or agency for whom the Treasury Board represents the employer has no restrictions on other employment or outside activities except those specifically prohibited by legislation, such as certain types of political activity, provided that it would not (a) interfere with the employee's ability to satisfactorily discharge the duties for which he/she was employed, and (b) result in a potential or actual conflict of interest situation, and (c) result in bringing discredit to the public service. The onus is on the public servant to notify their deputy head or superior of their intention to pursue such gainful activities. In certain exceptional cases, the Deputy Head may agree to an employee assuming additional activities either in the public or private sector for which additional remuneration may be forthcoming, provided such activities are of benefit to the Department or the Public Service.


Mr. Whittaker: 1.	How many new or additional positions will be required if the cluster management system is implemented by Pacific Region Manpower and Immigration in the following categories (a) SX 2 (b) SX 1 (c) PM 7 (d) PM 6 (e) PM 5 (f) PM 4 (g) PM 3?
2.	What is the estimated additional (a) salary (b) administrative (c) premises cost consequent upon implementation of the cluster management system in Pacific Region Manpower and Immigration?
3.	If new or additional positions are created in Pacific Region Manpower and Immigration as a result of implementation of the cluster management system, how will these positions be filled?
4.	Has the Minister of Manpower and Immigration assured employees by means of a video tape presentation, that there will be no forced moves or "red circling" as a consequence of reorganization within his Department and, if so, how does the Department propose to deal with employees who might find themselves without employment as a consequence of the re-location of present Area Offices in some areas of Pacific Region where those locations do not coincide with present Area Offices?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. No additional positions are expected to result from the implementation of the cluster management concept by Pacific Region. The managers of the six CMCs designated as 'cluster headquarters' will be responsible for general supervision of the managers of those CMCs comprising their respective clusters. Whereas the five existing area managers are classified as PM-5, it is expected that cluster managers will be PM-6 when classification action

is completed and the managerial level of area manager is removed.
2.	In balance, it is expected that the increase in salary paid to (PM-6) cluster managers over that presently paid to the managers of those CMCs concerned, plus the salary of the district director, Yukon and the increase from PM-6 to SX-1 of the Vancouver metro manager (both of which are other aspects of Pacific Region's reorganization) will be more than compensated for by the elimination of the salaries of area managers. Costs of premises should also reduce with the deactivation of area offices.
3.	To ensure application of the best available talent and expertise, the new cluster manager positions will be filled by competition. Incumbent area managers will be eligible to compete, as will the managers of the applicable CMCs.
4.	Yes, these assurances were contained in the audiovisual presentation of the Minister and Deputy Minister, as distributed to all staff during the period February-March, 1974. They were re-iterated in messages from the Minister of December 6, 1973 and April 11, 1974 to all staff. There are many factors which could influence the ultimate disposition of those cases where an incumbent area manager may not be the successful candidate for the cluster manager position in his present location. For example, he may succeed in obtaining the position of CMC manager in that or another location as our current general efforts to increase the base and broaden the range of CMC managers' classifications progress to fruition. Or he may win a competition for district director in another Region. Or some other factor of attrition, such as promotion or retirement of other staff members, may present a solution. In any event, the Minister's assurances shall continue to apply as the Department's reorganization and renewal program proceeds.


Mr. Herbert: In the Department of National Defence for the month of April 1975, what is the budgeted number of public servants (not including members of the Armed Forces) to work in the continental regions of (a) North America excluding Canada (b) South America (c) Europe (d) Asia (e) Australasia?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: The budgeted number of public servants for employment in continental regions described is as follows: (a) 7; (b) Nil; (c) 18; (d) 2; (e) Nil.


Mr. Reid: 1.	Since the proclamation of Part 1 of the Foreign Investment Review Act, how many applications have been received by the Foreign Investment Review Agency and how many have come to a decision by the Agency?
2.	How many applications were withdrawn before such applications came to a decision?
3.	From the date of applications being received (and in order) what was the average number of days passed before a decision was rendered by the Agency and reported to the Minister?
March 19, 1975

4.	From the time the Agency made a decision and forwarded it to the Minister, what was the average number of days passed before Cabinet rendered a decision?
5.	How many times has the Agency found it necessary to deal with an application over and above the 60 days mentioned in the Act, and has this provision acted to shorten the time usually taken by the Agency to make decisions?
6.	Has the Agency refused to provide reasons for its decisions in some cases while providing reasons in others and, if so (a) for what reason (b) in how many cases were reasons (i) given (ii) not given?
7.	What is the working definition used by the Agency of the phrase "significant benefit to Canada" in determining whether or not a particular transaction can be approved or not and what are the practical concessions or changes which the Agency seeks to obtain from participants whose transactions the Agency must approve?


Gaston Clermont: Mr. Speaker, as the reply to this question is quite lengthy, I would like to ask the House to take it as read?


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: The above mentioned reply reads as follows:]


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: 1. From 9 April 1974, when the provisions of the Foreign Investment Review Act that relate to acquisitions of control of Canadian business enterprises were proclaimed, until 7 March 1975, the Foreign Investment Review Agency issued certificates of receipt for 126 applications. The Agency has no authority to make decisions on applications under the Act. The Governor in Council allowed 52 applications, refused to allow 11 applications, and was deemed to have allowed 3 applications.
2. From 9 April 1974 to 7 March 1975, 16 certified applications were withdrawn by the applicant.
3 and 4. During the period under reference, an average of 100 days passed between the issue of a certificate of receipt for an application and the decision by the Governor in Council. This average covers both decisions to allow and decisions to refuse to allow. The Act provides that, before any decision can be made to refuse to allow, parties to the proposed transaction in question must be given the opportunity to make whatever further representations they wish. There is no statutory time limit on the period within which they may make those further representations.
5.	Applicants were advised of their right to make representations or further representations, under subsection 11(1), in relation to 83 applications between 9 April 1974 and 7 March 1975.
6.	As noted, the Agency makes no decisions itself on whether applications should be allowed or disallowed. Those decisions are made by the Governor in Council. Reasons for those decisions are given, by myself on behalf of the Government, whenever this can be done. See reply dated 26 February 1975 (Hansard page 3582). To date reasons for decisions to allow have been published in 32 cases out of a total of 52 allowed. From the outset the Government has recognized the need to avoid the disclosure of any information which could possibly jeopardize
Order Paper Questions
the legitimate interests of firms and individuals concerned. This is still the guiding principle, but experience has shown that it is possible to move towards wider disclosure than was the earlier practice without causing damage of that kind.
7.	The "working definition" used by the Government in determining whether there is significant benefit to Canada in any given proposal, and therefore whether it should be allowed or not, is that specified in the Foreign Investment Review Act. Whether there is significant benefit to Canada in any given case is determined by reference to the particular circumstances of the case and the relationship of those circumstances to the factors listed in subsection 2(2). The application of those factors necessarily varies from case to case.


Mr. Rodriguez: Was Colonel Dabros fired as Director of Security of the Canadian Armed Forces and, if so, what were the reasons for his dismissal?


James Armstrong Richardson: No.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	For each year since 1963, what was the value of munitions and military equipment sold by Canada to other countries?
2.	What type of military equipment and munitions have been sold?
3.	To what countries has Canada sold military equipment?
4.	What were the values of sales made to these countries?
5.	What countries sought to purchase military supplies and were refused?
6.	For what reasons were sales to such countries refused?
7.	What are the criteria required to justify sales of Canada's military equipment to other countries?
Return tabled.



INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY GOVERNMENT TO FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS ON INDIVIDUAL CANADIANS

Mr. Beatty: 1.	What departments or agencies of the government regularly supply data concerning individual Canadian citizens to foreign governments, institutions or individuals?
2.	(a) By department or agency, what is the nature of information supplied and what conditions are placed by the government on its use (b) what provision is made for informing affected citizens that a transfer of information has taken place and what provisions are made for affected citizens to have access to transferred information and to correct false information?
3.	To what agencies or departments of foreign governments, to what other foreign institutions and to what individuals is such information made available?
4.	In each case, what is the approximate number of individuals about whom information was made available by the government in 1973?
4240

Grain Handlers' Strike
5.	What departments or agencies of the government maintain files on foreigners not resident in Canada?
6.	By department or agency, what is the nature of the information on foreign citizens not resident in Canada maintained by the government?
Return tabled.



NAMES OF MINISTERS, ACTING MINISTERS AND SECOND ACTING MINISTERS OF DEPARTMENTS

Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): What are the names of the Ministers, Acting Ministers and Second Acting Ministers of each department or ministry of the government?
Return tabled.


Mr. Stevens:: Mr. Speaker, I should like again to draw attention to questions Nos. 636 and 637 which have been on this and the previous parliament's order paper for now over a year and are still not answered. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that the last time I raised this point the parliamentary secretary stated that it was really the ministers who were at fault. I ask him to explain why these questions are still not answered and to name the ministers who are involved, because I believe five ministers might be involved in answering my questions.



MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26   PUBLIC SERVICE EFFECT OF STRIKE OF GENERAL LABOUR AND TRADES GROUP ON GRAIN DELIVERIES

Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a motion pursuant to Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter. I present this motion cognizant of the fact that tomorrow is an opposition day held by a party other than mine, the Creditistes Party. My submission to you, Mr. Speaker, is that this is an important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely the present work stoppages which have ended all grain shipments from Canada affecting grain deliveries to all foreign countries, creating increasing unemployment, the loss of orders of grain and the grave potential for the loss of foreign grain customers generally.
I therefore move that this House do now adjourn.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to the terms of Standing Order 26 the hon. member has given the Chair notice of his intention to propose the motion for adjournment pursuant to that standing order and has supplied in support of that proposal some material in extension to that which he has put forward at this moment. In accordance with a directive to do so at least by the Chair the hon. member has been brief to the point of perfection in bringing forward his argument in support of this motion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The fact of the matter is that the subject of Canada's position vis-a-vis commitments for grain shipments abroad has been raised on several occasions over the past few days. The serious concern of course comes not only from the point of view of employment but of our business internationally and this has been discussed in questions and answers. The work stoppages involved obviously represent a very difficult situation. It is difficult for the Chair, in reviewing the rules under Standing Order 26, to see how one could possibly look for a more serious matter and one which would be more qualified for debate under the provisions of that rule.
The only point of concern to the Chair is that the latter provisions of the Standing Order require that the Chair direct its attention to the possibility of the subject matter being discussed in some other reasonable way, and in that respect, since tomorrow is an allotted day under our Standing Orders, the hon. member, if he is in a position to ask the House to sit overtime, for a special debate, should be able to persuade his colleagues that the subject matter of his motion would be important enough to deserve priority with regard to the use of tomorrow's opposition day. However, that possibility of dealing with the matter has been removed as a result of the information given by the hon. member that he and his colleagues are not in a position of authority or control over that subject matter because of internal arrangements among the parties that are well known to all members of the House.
Accordingly, I see no reason why I should not accept the motion put forward by the hon. member, which conforms with the provisions of Standing Order 26. Therefore, I put the following questions to the House: has the hon. member leave to move the motion for the purpose of discussing the matter stated by him?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I should indicate for the greater clarification of members that if leave is refused, some 20 hon. members rising in their place, as required under the order, would allow the motion to go forward at the incentive of such members. In any case, in conformity with the practice which has developed under this rule, it is my intention to dispose of the matter by setting the time for debate of this matter at eight o'clock this evening.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion for the production of papers No. 32 is acceptable to the government.

I ask that the other notices of motions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion 32-Mr. Ellis:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all Department of Public Works "Call for Public Tenders" from January 1,1975 to date.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to which I think there is an easy resolution. Two days ago I placed on the order paper a question in which I asked for the names of all the ministers, acting ministers and second acting ministers of the various departments and ministeries of the government. In view of questions that have been asked in the House recently, I felt that this would be useful information for all of us to have. That question has been answered today, it is question No. 2,075, but it has been answered by an order for return. I have it, but what about the other 263 members? I realize that the House has already ordered it as a return that is simply tabled and that order cannot be changed, but the answer to my question No. 2,075 could be made an appendix to today's Hansard, so that this information would be available to all members of the House.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might suggest that the first paragraph of the order in council plus, the list of the names incorporated be made an appendix to Hansard. It would save some printing.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the suggestion put forward by the parliamentary secretary acceptable?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Those other paragraphs are just words. It is the names we want.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the suggestion put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Reid) agreed to?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.
[Editor's Note: For text of answer referred to above see appendix "A"]


Mr. O'Sullivan:: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to be somewhat delayed in raising this point of order, but I was in the other place for first reading of a very important bill.
I am advised that the two starred questions in my name which have been on the order paper for almost a month, namely, 1,738 and 1,739, have still not been answered. As the parliamentary secretary can attest, this member is not one who has abused the privileges or the usage of the order paper, and I would hope that he, together with the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras)-in so far as these questions affect very serious matters regarding former members of his personal staff-will do everything possible to have these important starred questions answered just as soon as possible.
Oral Questions


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, there has been a motion on the order paper since October 9, 1974 to table correspondence from the Minister of Justice to the various attorneys general and ministers of health regarding the subject of abortion. My point is that there seems to be no reason whatsoever for this information to be withheld from the House, and I would urge the minister to table that correspondence.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. In view of his oft repeated conviction about, and respect for, the importance of collective bargaining when it has been granted, and in view of the reliable information that the Public Service Alliance and the Treasury Board have been very close for the last five days, perhaps less than two percentage points apart in terms of wages, has the President of the Treasury Board any reason to give the House why no progress has been made and why this stalemate has lasted for five days, if he believes as much in collective bargaining as he has indicated.

Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury
Board): Mr. Speaker, I said earlier that it was not appropriate to negotiate here in the House of Commons. I think that from the beginning of the dispute, we have made offers much higher than those we intended to make; we started with 18 per cent, and now we accept the conciliation report which is proposing a 25.8 per cent increase. We have made other propositions since then, but it is obvious that in the present situation it would not be in the interest of the country to accept every claim of the trade union.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: No one is talking about the government accepting every demand put before it, but I would like to ask the President of the Treasury Board whether, in view of his repeated expressions of support for collective bargaining, and in view of this stalemate within very narrow limits-and without negotiating in the House-he can give the House the assurance that the negotiators on behalf of the Treasury Board really have authority to negotiate, or is the Treasury Board simply standing pat?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: No, the Treasury Board negotiator has as much flexibility as the union representative.
28996-63'/2

Oral Questions


STRIKE OF GENERAL LABOUR AND TRADES GROUP-REQUEST FOR UP TO DATE INFORMATION FROM MINISTER OF JUSTICE
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for the Wheat Board. Since the Chair has granted the debate we have been asking for, the only question I have at this time is to ask the minister responsible for the Wheat Board if he has any more information to add, up to this point in time, before the debate begins in the House this evening.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Having ordered the debate for this evening, I think it is proper that all subjects pertaining to that debate be discussed in the House at eight o'clock this evening.


REQUEST FOR ANALYSIS OF 1972 NUTRITIONAL SURVEY
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Nutrition Canada's survey on the nutritional status of Canadians was completed in 1972. It is now well into 1975. Can the minister tell us when we can expect an analysis of the survey data based on family income levels?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the national report has been made public followed the report of every province a few months ago. As I get information from the public servants working in this area, I will make them available to the public.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Andrew Hogan: A supplementary question. In view of the fact that "Poor Kids", the report by the National Council of Welfare on Children in Poverty released this month reads in part:
"The cruel barbs about those on welfare-that they are lazy spongers or worse-cut deep into the psyche of the child who grows up on welfare."
Will the Department of National Health and Welfare initiate an educational program to offset these bad effects?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I think what is required is even more than an education program; we need a real social security program along the lines of what the government has been recommending for two years and which, I hope, will soon be implemented.


ALLEGATION CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS USED AS DUMPING GROUND FOR POOR CHILDREN-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Andrew Hogan: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the minister. We hope this will come very soon because this party has been looking for it for a long time. Will the minister have his department conduct research into selective provinces to see if correctional institutions are being used as dumping grounds for poor children as the report alleges?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, we are studying the matter of juvenile offenders. Moreover, the matter of correctional institutions is now the subject of studies and reviews by my colleague, the Solicitor General and by my provincial counterparts.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Is his department closely surveying the labels on Canadian products so that Canadian people and consumers be fully aware of what they buy?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


David Réal Caouette: I put the question because last weekend I happened to discover a rather serious anomaly, in my opinion, in the area of dairy production. In the northwestern region, the butter we buy is labelled: Dallaire Butter, Palmarolle Butter, Nedelec Butter. However, I was informed last weekend that the butter comes from Granby, Saint-Hyacinthe, or Australia and that the moment it reaches Rouyn or Laverlochere, it is wrapped in paper with a Dallaire, Palmarolle or Nedelec label on it. Does the minister feel that the situation may be improved to the point that the prospective buyer may know that he is not buying a Dallaire butter, but a butter from Australia, Granby or Saint-Hyacinthe?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, the regulations governing packaging and labelling were adopted in 1971, at a time when the hon. member was already in the House. He cast his vote on this legislation. He must certainly be aware of the limitations which restrict the authority of my department in this area. To refresh his memory I may send him a copy of these regulations. He will then realize that unfortunately my department lacks a lot of the power it would need to go as far as it would like to go.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. Considering what the minister has just answered and what he said on Monday in a CBC open line program, namely that nothing could be done to stop the
March 19, 1975

Oral Questions INDUSTRY
rise in the cost of living in Canada and considering the drought problems in the world and their consequences on the supply of food, can he tell this House, the hon. member for Temiscamingue and myself why, whereas we use butter from other countries, if the latter have drought problems, the government cannot control prices in Canada to protect the consumers?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was surely absentminded during this program. I do not know whether he lit a cigarette at a certain time, but I can assure him that he is considerably distorting my words by presenting them in this way to the House.


TRANSPORT
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. On March 17, the Prime Minister was asked if any member of the government was aware of any alleged massive fraud before the fall of 1972 and he replied:
... I am prepared to say that certainly no one in the cabinet knew ...
I would venture to say that no one in the public service knew either.
In order to clarify this matter, can the Prime Minister tell the House if any minister of the government had any knowledge of contract irregularities, allegations of improper tendering and suspicions of fraud regarding the Marine Industries Limited contract prior to complaints in the fall of 1972?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member refers to the question he will see that it is in the context and under the heading of "Dredging Contracts". If his question relates to Marine Industries Limited and dredging contracts, the answer still stands.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the context in which the answer is given. That is why my question was directed specifically to Marine Industries Limited contracts and allegations of improper tendering, suspicion of fraud and contract irregularities between Marine Industries Limited and the federal government prior to the fall of 1972. What would the Prime Minister answer to that?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the member is not referring, I understand, to massive fraud concerning dredging. If he is, my answer stands. If he is asking about other allegations of wrongdoing, particularly the one concerning a salvage operation, it is a new question and the answer would be different. If the hon. member wants to ask me a new question that is fine.


MARINE INDUSTRIES-ALLEGATIONS OF CONTRACT IRREGULARITIES, FRAUD AND IMPROPER TENDERING-INQUIRY AS TO GOVERNMENT KNOWLEDGE
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I know Your Honour would not allow me to ask various ministers supplementaries, so I will put the question to the Prime Minister but it involves three other ministers. Has the Prime Minister consulted with his colleagues in cabinet to ascertain if there were any allegations of contract irregularities, suspicion of fraud and improper tendering involving Marine Industries Limited and the Irving Whale case of 1971, the DDH280 program in the late 1960s involving overruns, and an internal report ordered by the Department of National Defence and submitted to the Department of Supply and Services recommending that action be taken and also, according to the Solicitor General in 1965, involving tendering on the Leighcliff Hall which went aground?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member realizes that detailed information such as that ought to be sought at a time other than the question period.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, may I rephrase the question because the Prime Minister did invite me to ask specifically about other matters. In reference to these other matters, without getting into a lot of detail, I will ask the Prime Minister if he has consulted with his colleagues about three other matters involving Marine Industries Limited. I could ask if Your Honour would allow me to put supplementary questions to the individual ministers involved but I know you would not and I can understand that. I just wonder if the Prime Minister could give me an answer on the three incidents I mentioned?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the hon. member is attempting to do by linking this question to the question the other day. It is obviously a completely different question. I repeat, my answer to the question the other day still stands. If he is now asking a question about a series of events going back to 1968, the answer is no.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: May I ask another supplementary?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have allowed the hon. member two supplementaries and in fairness I think we should go to some other hon. members.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a brief question to the Minister of Justice. In his capacity both as minister and as Attorney General of Canada, has he been consulted in any respect regarding the Hamilton Harbour and dredging matters

Oral Questions
pursuant to sections 4 and 5 of the Department of Justice Act and if so, when was this done?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, of course where matters requiring legal advice are involved the Minister of Justice is consulted. That has been done and is continuing to be done.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I realize the minister may not wish to give specific information, but can he say how long ago his advice was sought, in either one or both of his capacities.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, so far as I know, it was sought as soon as issues arose which required that advice.


TRANSPORT
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. As it is becoming more obvious every day that a public inquiry of all aspects of the dredging contracts mentioned is needed so that people will know what has been going on, is not the real reason for the Prime Minister's refusal to establish such an inquiry this: the Cliche commission in Quebec has demonstrated clearly that, from the government's point of view, it is impossible to know where such an inquiry might lead, and, before the government would know it, so to speak, the activities of the government and its hangers-on would be spread all over the front pages of our newspapers and people would know just what skulduggery has been going on.


An hon. Member:: Answer yes or no.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I can hardly allow a supplementary to a question which was not answered.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and concerns an alleged statement he made to Italian authorities regarding Canada's immigration policy. The Prime Minister is reported as saying that no significant change is being considered in Canada's immigration policy which would result in a significant reduction of immigrants to Canada. Will the Prime Minister indicate whether this view is applicable to Italy only, or to members of the European economic community, or does it apply to a government policy relating to immigration on a global basis?
[Mr. MacKay.l


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I cannot vouch for the quotation which has just been read or mentioned. I do not know who said that and where. Certainly, it does not correspond to what I said. What I said to the government authorities in Italy was that the position of this government is contained in the green paper, that we think immigration to Canada will continue, but that the questions of volume and trends are precisely matters which have been put before parliament and the people of Canada by way of the green paper, and that the policy which will issue from that green paper will be announced in due course.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. On his recent travels in Europe, did the Prime Minister assure the authorities of any country that present levels of immigration will be maintained regardless of the debate that has been taking place on the green paper.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. I indicated that it has been and will remain Liberal policy to maintain a non-discriminatory immigration policy, that in all likelihood immigration to Canada will continue, that I certainly would welcome that, but that questions involving trends, amounts, the rate of growth and the whole demographic policy are questions which are being discussed apropos the green paper.



OIL-REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION OF POSSIBLE FRAUDULENT INCREASE IN IMPORT PRICES

Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Because of recent reports that authorities in the United States are investigating what may have been widespread actions by certain companies there to improperly and fraudulently increase the prices at which they imported oil into that country, will the minister cause investigations to be carried out here, to see whether there may have been similar improper schemes carried out in connection with the importation of oil into Canada.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, as the House and committee have already been advised, the books of the importing companies have been examined by departmental auditors, by a special outside auditing firm and by the Auditor General.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. As the price of beef to the producer and the wholesale price has dropped drastically in the last few months, as some food chains are now paying 70 cents a
March 19, 1975

pound for it, compared with $1.20 per pound, when the price was sky high, and as many restaurants have not reduced the price of hamburger and steak to the consumer, is the minister's department investigating why this has not been done. Will he instruct the Food Price Review Board to investigate why this drop in the price of beef has not been passed on to the consumer.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Plumptre Board will give particular attention to what the hon. member said. Incidentally, I would like to remind him that we recently appointed a commission whose task is precisely to review the whole question of beef and veal in Canada. I am convinced that the members of that commission will examine the differences between prices in the Canadian beef industry.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister instructed the Food Prices Review Board to investigate this matter or does he hope that it will investigate. Is the department constantly surveying the general question of reduced prices to the consumer? Is it monitoring what happens, because a number of prices to the producer have gone down and these reductions have not been passed on to the consumer.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I think the answer I just gave fully replies to the concern expressed by the hon. member.
I do not have to give orders to the board. I think that last year it reacted rapidly enough and with much accuracy to the problems in food prices. I am fully confident that it will be able to react in the same way in the future.



ALLEGED FAILURE TO GIVE CONSUMERS BENEFIT OF PRICE REDUCTIONS-REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION BY FOOD PRICES REVIEW BOARD

Lorne Edmund Nystrom: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister, for the benefit of the House, ask the Food Prices Review Board to look into this particular question, and will he report to the House?


André Ouellet: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Since the unemployment rate has increased considerably in eastern Canada, particularly in the province of Quebec, and since 406 of the 446 employees of Belanger-
Oral Questions
Tappan Inc., operating in the town of Montmagny, have been laid off in the last 15 days, could the minister advise the House what are the real reasons for these layoffs and how the subsidies made to this company have been used to keep it in operation?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply in detail to the hon. member. If he agrees, I will take this question as notice, have an investigation carried out as to the circumstances of the matter and reply to him as early as possible.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a supplementary. Given this serious situation, after all, 406 family heads are deprived of their income, could the minister reassure us by telling us that he will consult his colleague, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, so that employees who will not be rehired by the company will be able to find work elsewhere under other programs and thus earn their living as well as that of their family?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can give the hon. member that assurance. As he says, my colleague is beside me. I will have my officials discuss it with him and we will make a joint report to the hon. member.



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Frank Hamilton (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Has a decision been made to establish the new, proposed Grasslands National Park in southern Saskatchewan. If not, what is the status of this proposed national park?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the final decision has not been taken. We are discussing the matter actively with representatives of the province of Saskatchewan and are optimistic that discussions will be ended soon.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs I should like to put my question to the Prime Minister. In view of the serious misunderstanding and controversy which has been permitted to develop as a result of invitations forwarded to nations taking part in

Oral Questions
pre-Olympic competitions in Montreal in 1975 by the Quebec Track and Field Association and subsequently retracted by COJO as far as South Africa is concerned, could the Prime Minister advise the House what co-ordination, if any, exists between the government and COJO officials with respect to dealings between Canada and other nations, specifically when they involve invitations?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs):: May I reply to this question as Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs? I understand the hon. member is referring to the invitation extended to South Africa. I am informed that an essentially private letter of inquiry was sent to the South African Track and Field Federation but that no formal invitation has been extended inviting them to compete in the pre-Olympic competitions. The letter referred to was apparently sent by the Quebec Athletic Federation in the name of the Canadian Track and Field Association to all members of the International Amateur Athletic Federation. Neither the Canadian government nor COJO is directly involved in sending such invitations to these events preceding the Olympic Games. COJO's role in this case is one of a supporting nature.


Otto John Jelinek: My supplementary is addressed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare who is supposed to be responsible, also, for amateur sport. Bearing in mind the large profits being reaped by COJO from the many commercial companies which are eager to pay for the right to display the Olympic logo as part of their advertising campaigns, would the minister assure the House that he will take the necessary steps to ensure that the Amateur Sports Federation which is now training amateur athletes for the Olympics will not once again be neglected but will receive a fair share of the profits now going to administer the Games-I am not talking about just stamps and coins.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to look into the question raised by the hon. member.



FINANCE


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Finance. In view of Canada's seriously deteriorating export situation and the huge trade deficit predicted for Canada this year, is the government considering the devaluation of the

Canadian dollar in relation to the United States dollar within the next six months?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: No, Mr. Speaker, but if we were we would not telegraph it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before I recognize the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich I wonder whether I might call the attention of the House to the fact that there appears to be more than one meeting going on at the moment and that it is becoming extremely difficult to hear what is said.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Thank you very much for your help, Mr. Speaker. My question is directed to the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. In the light of the fact that within the last week two Canadian diplomats have died abroad, both at an early age, has the ministry examined the conditions of service abroad to ensure that members of our diplomatic service are not kept under continuous strain and stress as a result of which their lives are shortened?


Some hon. Members:: What about Members of
Parliament?


An hon. Member:: What about ministers?


Mitchell William Sharp: I thank the hon. gentleman for his words of sympathy. The government, too, regrets very much the death of these two very able and rather young diplomats. I doubt very much, however, whether it was the conditions of service which led to their untimely deaths.


Donald W. Munro: Can the minister assure the House, then, that more rigorous medical checkups are carried out prior to posting to ensure that those who have a record of heart trouble are not sent on postings in circumstances where their lives would be shortened?


Mitchell William Sharp: I thank the hon. gentleman, who understands the conditions of service perhaps better than anyone else in the House since he has a very distinguished record himself. I will take up his suggestions with the minister.



FINANCE


Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of

Finance, but first I wish to thank him for his response to my representation made in February regarding the 3 per cent perpetual bonds. I note that according to today's press these bonds are to be redeemed at par on September 15, 1996-I hope he and I will be around at that time. My question is this: since the holders are now being offered only $38 for these bonds, will the government undertake to pay a progressively increased rate on this issue from now until the date of maturity?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman, as well as others in all quarters of the House, including the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, the hon. member for Don Valley, the hon. member for Ottawa West-


Mr. Kempling:: The hon. member for Hamilton-Went-worth.
Oral Questions


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry not to be able to tell the hon. member today whether an investigation is presently being made by the Health Protection Branch into the Connaught Laboratories. However, I will inquire about it, but meanwhile I can assure the hon. member that for every complaint, my department has made immediate inquiry and the Connaught Company has taken the necessary measures to eliminate the deficiencies that may occasionally have been identified. I am sure they will keep following that practice.


John Napier Turner: At least a hundred members of the House of Commons-


George Harris Hees: Don't forget the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings!


John Napier Turner: -have made representations about this matter. As the hon. member has said, we have set a terminal date for these bonds, namely, September 15, 1996. In terms of the usual mortality rates, the hon. gentleman and I ought to survive it-whether he does politically is another matter.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


An hon. Member:: He has a far better chance than you.


John Napier Turner: We redeemed these bonds because they were unique in character-they were limited to a $55 million issue-and they were causing hardship in a number of quarters; they were rarely being traded. I should say to the hon. member that trading is now taking place at about the $46 level as compared with $37.25 bid yesterday. By way of comparison the yield is now 8.52 per cent as against the 9.5 per cent government bonds due in 1994 trading at 8.70 per cent on a yield basis. So the yield has been restored at this point. I am grateful to the hon. member for having brought the matter to the attention of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



GASOLINE-POSSIBLE USE OF OPERATING COSTS OF SERVICE STATIONS TO JUSTIFY LIFTING OF PRICE FREEZE-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF INFORMATION

Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: A question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, Mr. Speaker. Did the oil companies, in arguing for a lifting of the voluntary price freeze on gasoline products, produce detailed figures for the government concerning the operating costs of service stations as part of their justification for a lifting of the price freeze?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would have to inquire about that detail. I will do so and give the information to the hon. member.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Will the minister be good enough to table that information for the benefit of the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works so that the committee might be in a better position to ascertain whether or not the 20 per cent increase in charges to service station operators by the oil companies is justified in the light of the lifting of the price freeze which was supposed to be adequate compensation?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: In the absence of any statutory authority, such as we would have under the terms of Bill C-32, we have had to secure this information on a voluntary basis. It has been provided to us, but since it is proprietory information affecting competing companies I am sure we would quickly cut off the flow of information if we were to table it for the use of a committee.

*
* *
*



CONNAUGHT LABORATORIES-POSSIBLE INVESTIGATION AND CORRECTIVE ACTION

Mr. F. A. Philbrook (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It concerns that fine Canadian institution, Connaught Laboratories. I should like to ask whether any ongoing investigation is being conducted into the operations at Connaught and, if so, whether any corrective action has been recommended?



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board, who has been playing musical chairs but is back in his seat now. In light of the fact that the federal civil service has grown over 10 per cent since 1973-74, would the
4248

March 19, 1975
Oral Questions
minister explain the necessity for increasing government spending on consultants' fees by 35.9 per cent over the same period?


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member will agree that this is a question that can be put to the minister during the examination of his estimates.



CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the comment made at the time of the incorporation of the Canada Development Corporation that it was anticipated that 90 per cent of the voting stock of the corporation would end up in the hands of individual Canadians and institutions, and in view of the statement in the 1973 annual report that it was anticipated that distribution would be made by May of last year, would the Minister of Finance inform the House whether such distribution of shares of the Canada Development Corporation is going to be made, and when?


John Napier Turner: Yes, Mr. Speaker, indeed, in proper market conditions.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the hankering of his colleague the minister of energy to incorporate still another Crown corporation, Petro-Can, has the minister given consideration to an early sale of part of the Canada Development Corporation's stock in order that he can use the proceeds to invest in Petro-Can, rather than have double investment?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, my colleague thinks that that might be worth considering.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I have a final supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the minister's early reply regarding suitable market conditions, and in view of the fact that the market has been considerably better, would he indicate if market underwriters have in fact refused to place shares of the Canada Development Corporation to date?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Canada Development Corporation, under statute granted by parliament, is left to its independent management in relation to the market. I doubt whether that advice would be useful to the House or to the eventual marketing of those shares.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs. Would the minister explain to the House what procedure his department is taking to inform those who might benefit under the rural and native housing program of the existence of the program?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, I think this question would better be put to my colleague the Minister of State for Urban Affairs under whose jurisdiction this program falls.


An hon. Member:: Where is he?


Dean Waldon Whiteway: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Might I direct the question to the parliamentary secretary of the minister of housing?


Some hon. Members:: To anybody?


George Harris Hees: Is there anyone at home over there?



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It arises out of a question asked by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville. Has the minister any information, either from his own knowledge or from the organization headed by Mrs. Plumptre, with regard to an alleged practice of kickbacks known as "inside money" whereby large chain stores demand and receive from certain suppliers of food sums of money by way of kickbacks, thus substantially increasing the price of food to the consumer?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I read that in the newspapers and I read that in some reports from my department just as the hon. member did. That has been made public several times. An investigation was made into the matter but I have not received a final report as to whether or not there are grounds for that practice.


Gerald William Baldwin: 
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if my memory serves me right, but I think that the board has already given consideration to this matter. I shall check and report to the hon. member. However, I think that it is one thing to raise a question in the House and another to try to find relevant proof. If the hon. member is aware of some elements which could enable us to find the whole truth on that, I will be pleased if he would let me know.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. In an attempt to get an answer to my last question I did direct the question in a final effort to the Prime Minister. I wonder whether he might undertake to answer.


Mr. Speaker:: With all due respect to the hon. member, he did not direct his inquiry to anybody. It seemed to me that he put the question and was hoping for some response, but he never did put his question to a minister.



TRANSPORT


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In light of the questionable harbour facilities at Vancouver for the efficient handling of grain, would the minister be prepared to agree to an order of the House giving permission to the transportation committee to travel to Vancouver and Seattle to check into better ways of handling our grain, so we might meet our world commitments and help the starving people of the world?


Mr. Speaker:: I have already ruled that in light of the emergency debate set for eight o'clock tonight to discuss the general question of grain handling, we should defer all questions on grain handling until that time.


Mr.   Homer@: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, my question was directed to the Minister of Transport and related to a specific order from the House. I wonder whether he would be willing to ask the House to permit the transportation committee of this House of Commons to travel west to check into grain handling facilities at Vancouver and Seattle so that the whole question could be aired more fully.


Mr. Speaker:: I understood the hon. member's question, but it seems to me that this whole question will be aired very fully beginning at eight o'clock this evening.


Mr.   Homer@: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, my question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member put his question and I ruled that it be deferred until eight o'clock. Then the hon. member raised a point of order and I ruled on the point of order. It seems to me the matter should now be dropped.
Oral Questions


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Then I rise on a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I do not deny you the right to rule on a point of order, but I do suggest to you, sir, that while my question might be relevant to the debate tonight it is a simple question requiring a yes or no answer, whether the Minister of Transport would agree to the order which could then lend some degree of hope to an improvement in the grain handling facilities on the west coast.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member touches the essence of his question when he indicates it relates to the grain handling facilities on the west coast. The hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth.



OLYMPIC GAMES


Mr.   Sean@: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. As rule 56 of the Olympic Games provides that the Games shall be opened officially in the presence of the head of state of the host country, can the Prime Minister advise whether he has extended that invitation to the Queen of Canada, and could he tell us whether this matter was discussed during his recent luncheon with Her Majesty?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will verify. I do not think the invitation has yet been officially extended, but I have been discussing the matter with the authorities of Montreal and Quebec.


An hon. Member:: How was the salad?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As far as the salad was concerned, it was
very crispy.
e (i5io)


Sean Patrick O'Sullivan: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Prime Minister did not hear the latter part of my question. Since the Canadian people and this House are more concerned, and I submit entitled, to hear the Prime Minister of our country discuss more pertinent matters than the crispness of the salad, I would ask the Prime Minister whether he discussed this invitation with Her Majesty during the luncheon, and can he now give us an indication as to Her Majesty's reply?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the reason for the second part of my answer is that obviously one of his own colleagues in the backbenches has a great interest in this and he asked me that question. I am sure the record of Hansard will show that. In so far as the question regarding discussions between Her Majesty and her first minister are concerned, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will recognize that they are privileged.
28996-64%

March 19, 1975
Oral Questions AGRICULTURE



POTATOES-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON SUPPORT PROGRAM

Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped to put my question to the Minister of Agriculture, but in his absence and in view of the urgency of the situation I will direct it to the acting minister. Has an agreement yet been reached with the producing provinces in eastern Canada on a price support program for potatoes to offset the depressed market and prices, and is the minister now in a position to inform the House when we can expect some action along these lines?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Acting Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. gentleman's question, I do know that meetings have been held by the Minister of Agriculture of Canada with the ministers of two of the eastern provinces. There was another meeting yesterday and I understand some progress is being made, but I am in no position to reveal what the minister has done in this connection at this time.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for regional economic expansion. In light of his continued difficulties in reaching an agreement with the province of British Columbia which would allow that province to participate in programs of regional economic expansion, and the difficulties experienced in central and northern British Columbia where they have a 15 per cent unemployment rate, and in view of the expiry of the ARDA agreement between the federal government and the province of British Columbia at the end of this month, will the minister tell the House whether he has discussed this matter with the province? Is the agreement going to be extended, or what is the situation at this point?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, as I understand the question, it has two elements in so far as the extension of ARDA is concerned. Let me make a distinction between general ARDA and special ARDA which is for native people. In both cases it is my intention to recommend to my colleagues that they be extended beyond the end of March, and I have every expectation that this will be the case. On the larger question of negotiations with British Columbia, if present arrangements can be completed, and I expect that they can, I will be in Victoria on Monday of next week to discuss the speedup of negotiations, with an effort to get at least a couple of supplementary agreements in place in the very near future.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister who will undoubtedly recall my consuming curiosity about the consensus, and my request yesterday that he make a statement before the Easter recess in respect of what the government is seeking a consensus on and what progress is being made. The Prime Minister said he would consult with his colleague, the Minister of Finance. Is he in a position to give the House this assurance today?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, not
today, Mr. Speaker.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, March 18, consideration of the motion of Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale) that Bill C-8, to establish a national petroleum company, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, as my colleague the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) has indicated, we are opposed to the passage of the bill now before us and the incorporation of Petro-Can. We believe there must be a halt to the continued growth of government in Canada. The weight of government grows-in fact to the point that it is now estimated that one in seven of our work force is employed by the government.
In March, 1925, when figures were first published, federal government employees numbered 39,000, compared with
121,000	in March, 1946, the beginning of the post-war period. There are now 443,192 people in the federal employ. It may be relevant to point out that in 1925 there was one federal government employee for every 238 Canadians. In 1946, the ratio was down to one in 102, and now the ratio is one in 50; that is, there is one federal government employee for every 50 men, women and children in this country. With today's automation, one naturally would have assumed that this ratio would have been somewhat reversed.
The cost of running governments, particularly the federal government, has risen at an alarming rate. In 1967, the end of our first 100 years, the federal budget was approximately $10 billion and today it is more than triple that amount. Expenditures must be covered by revenue, and total government revenue expressed as a percentage of gross national product has risen from 16.8 per cent in 1926 to 30.4 per cent in 1946, the last of the war years. In 1958,

that figure had dropped to 25.5 per cent. Today, however, 38.2 per cent of the total gross national product accrues to the government in the form of revenue.
If this trend continues, it will, in my opinion, place an unbearable load on the productive sectors of this economy, bearing in mind that it is the private sector which is geared to efficiency. I think it can generally be said that within business it is widely felt that a dollar saved is a dollar earned. In government, however, we find the philosophy is a dollar not spent is a dollar lost from next year's estimates.
We in the official opposition believe that the public sector must be limited in its invasion into the private sector. It was rather startling to hear our Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) say today, in respect of the Canada Development Corporation which was incorporated on the strict understanding that 90 per cent of its stock would be turned over to individuals or institutions in Canada, that to date no arrangements have been made to sell even one share of that Crown corporation, and that in fact it is likely that the underwriters involved have refused to sell any of the corporation's stock.
Yesterday evening I was reviewing the record of some of our Crown corporations and I pointed out that if parliament is foolish enough to go ahead with the incorporation of Petro-Can, it will be the sixtieth Crown corporation to be owned by the federal government. I could also have pointed out that while there are 60 Crown corporations, there are in existence approximately 120 subsidiaries of those corporations. So approximately 180 legal entities are operating under the ownership of the federal government.
Before we plunge into the incorporation of this new entity for which the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) is hankering, surely it would be only prudent for every member of this House to consider what has transpired to date in respect of federal government enterprises. In this regard I would refer hon. members to page 271 of The National Finances for 1974-75. There they will find that the total assets of federal government enterprises are listed at $17.3 billion for the year ended December 31, 1972. At that time, the net worth held in those corporations by the federal government on behalf of all Canadians was $3.4 billion. But here is the real grabber: when we look at the profit and loss picture of these corporations we find that over the last few years, in spite of the fact that the federal government has $3.4 billion invested, they have been run at an over-all loss. In one year, 1972, the year for which the most recent figures are available, they earned a total of only $25 million on a net worth investment of $3.4 billion-less than 1 per cent.
With that type of background, I ask the backbench members of the Liberal Party why they are so anxious to push this bill through the House. I would like them to show good faith with the Canadian public by offering to invest $1,000 each in Petro-Can and put their money where their vote and their mouth is. I think you would find a very different attitude if Liberal backbenchers were asked to contribute $1,000 each to a concept like Petro-Can. Then we would find the true facts. They must know that this will be a losing proposition, yet they totally ignore the
Pet ro-Canada
trust that has been given to them to sit in this parliament and invest public moneys prudently.
I should like to review some of the other situations which pertain in respect of these Crown corporations. Last evening I referred to the CBC. I suggested that when one looks at the statements of the CBC it would be refreshing to consider similar statements of the private television networks in the United States and Canada and compare their expenditure ratios and the profit and loss picture. If we look at ABC, NBC and CBS in the United States, we find that those three companies, in relation to their broadcasting activities alone, make more money than the total loss of the CBC.
Let me put it another way: the CBC lost almost as much in the year 1973 as those three companies earned. Surely, as the senior parliament of this country, we must start asking why. Is it proper use of Canadian taxpayers' money when there is a loss, in the case of the CBC, of over $200 million in one year?
In the last decade there has been a change from public to more private initiative in many of the socialist nations of the world, while many of the western industrialized nations-including Canada under the Trudeau, Liberal government-have been following the reverse course. I would suggest that lately among academics and bureaucrats in the west there has been an almost unquestioned presumption in favour of public participation and something approaching hostility to private initiative.
Prior to the First World War western attitudes saw business in a different light. It was agreed that business was then the centre of the economic world and government tended to be incidental. Today, governments no longer operate in a business-centred environment; it is a social-centred environment with which they are concerned. This is where I believe confusion has arisen in the past 30 years between the people and the governments of the western nations, including Canada. In their anxiety to relieve social needs, governments have continually and needlessly infringed on the private sector; they have responded to current problems on an ad hoc basis with little reference to longer range considerations. This develops an uncertain economic climate within which it is difficult for businessmen to operate.
Since 1939, government expenditures in Canada have risen from a total of less than $1 billion, or 16 per cent of the gross national product, to $45 billion, or 38 per cent of the GNP in 1973. In the current year it is estimated that the government "take" will be about 40 per cent.
Governmental activity in Canada falls into three broad categories. The first is the traditional role of surveillance, protection and regulation on behalf of Canadian citizens. This would include, for example, the setting of monetary and fiscal policies and the application of regulations where there are natural monopolies in the country. A second field is the transfer of income by government from region to region or from person to person. A third activity is the direct participation in the production of our resources, the manufacture of goods, the providing of commercial services and the operation of business generally.

Petro-Canada
In today's social-centred environment it is important that both the private and public sectors distinguish these three categories of governmental functions and understand them. In my opinion, governmental activity should be confined mainly to the traditional role of surveillance, protection and regulation. They have a limited but desirable role to play in category two, the transfer of income, but they should avoid like the plague extended participation in the third field of commercial activity such as Petro-Can. In recent years, however, an overwhelming increase of government spending as a proportion of gross national product has been in government current expenditures on goods and services and in transfer payments to persons.
Prior to 1950, government current expenditure for goods and services was relatively static at approximately 10 per cent of our gross national product. By 1973, government current purchases of goods and services had risen to $22.8 billion, or 19.2 per cent of the gross national product- almost twice as much as its share of the gross national product in the year 1950. In 1929, transfer payments to persons represented 1.5 per cent of the gross national product. By 1973, such transfer payments to persons had risen to $11.2 billion, or about 9.5 per cent of the gross national product. The federal government has been the major innovator in this field of income maintenance and stabilization.
Recent growth in federal government operational activities is also reflected in the government's loans to and investments in Crown corporations to which I have referred. These corporations between 1968 and 1974 more than doubled in size. The government has advanced some $16 billion to these corporations, and at the present time
140,000	Canadians are employed by Crown corporations in this nation.
Sharply higher governmental expenditures for goods and services and transfer payments to persons to equalize incomes required government revenues also to jump from 21 per cent of the gross national product in 1938 to 38 per cent in 1973. About 12.5 per cent of this increase-that is, of the 17 per cent-was accounted for by a sharp rise in direct personal taxes including other transfers from persons. I believe that is what we often forget in this House.
The person who is actually paying for the recklessness of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) and his colleagues is the individual taxpayer in Canada. It is not the fat cat, it is not the big something or other that they like to conjure up; it is the average person in this country who will have to pay for the minister's folly. That is why I would like to re-emphasize that if the Liberal members are confident that this will be a worth-while venture, let them each put $1,000 on the line; let them go to the minister and say they will put up $1,000 to invest in his fine idea, namely, Petro-Can. I bet there would not be 5 per cent of them making such an investment.
Direct personal taxes, including other tranfers from persons, now account for about 40 per cent of all revenues raised by governments, compared with 13 per cent in 1938. That is a jump of over 300 per cent in the total revenue

ratio of the federal government from the personal sector alone. These shifts in the source of tax revenue lead to the conclusion that continued increases in government spending for goods and services and the expansion of transfer payments will, in my view, dull the personal initiatives of those Canadians who are required to pay these sharply increased taxes.
In September of 1969, the Economic Council of Canada issued a review which they entitled "Perspective 1975" in which they said at page 26:
Governments will be absorbing or redistributing about 37 per cent of the nation's total income by 1975 compared with 33 per cent in 1967.
Then they added the following:
One of the most important implications of our estimates is that major new government spending programs requiring large additional resources can only be accommodated through large cutbacks in existing programs.
This is an objective that they point out is in itself highly desirable. Then they add that if those alternatives are not chosen, the additional revenue must be raised-
-through tax increases leading to a larger shift of resources than we have indicated from the private-mainly the consumer-sector to the government sector of the economy.
With the government "take" already at 38 per cent of our gross national product two years before 1975, and with taxes at an all-time high, those concerned-namely, the Trudeau government-have obviously taken the third course and opted to increase taxes rather than cut back existing programs or increase efficiency as suggested by the Economic Council of Canada.
In my opinion, the Canadian government has not acted responsibly in the past decade in administering their trust on behalf of the Canadian people under category one, especially with respect to the fiscal and monetary increases of over 20 per cent per year which have been dictated, I suggest, by political expediency rather than sound economic reasoning. As a result, inflation has been three times higher in this country than the Economic Council of Canada predicted it would be as recently as 1969.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) "let it all hang out" a week ago today when he testified before the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates. In answer to the question, "Why have you allowed government spending to grow so quickly?" he said:
In democracies today, there are no such things as economic cycles; there are political cycles, depending on the pressures of public policy and depending on the parliamentary or congressional process at the time. One may tend to see this operating now in the United States where you have a Republican President and a Democratic Congress. Certainly we were under political imperatives-
He was referring to the last parliament.
-where the pressures were stronger in a minority rather than a majority parliament. Those happen to be facts of life.
At that point I interjected, "You wanted to be re-elected", and the minister replied, "Those happen to be facts of life". Unfortunately for the Canadian people, this government put their re-election ahead of handling our economy in a responsible way. If you look at the charts, you can see exactly when this government determined they would call the July 8 election last year. The money increase shows it very clearly. It was going up sharply at over 20 per cent

per year until the spring of last year, and then it plateaud very dramatically to a negative growth which Dr. Ray-nauld, chairman of the Economic Council of Canada, later described as excessively restrictive. In short, they blew up the economy in anticipation of the July 8 election, and then in order to counter the excess that they had deliberately put into the economy they contracted it unduly. That is one of the reasons we have 839,000 people out of work today.
The Minister of Finance apparently does not know now which way to turn to adjust his economic stance. With such an attitude adopted by our Minister of Finance, is it any wonder that we have today's mish-mash of economic inconsistencies, high inflation, high unemployment and current account trade deficits of an admitted $3 billion and, according to the Minister of Finance yesterday, they could be as high as $5 billion?
Let me put it another way. With the Post Office losing over $100 million a year and still not able to deliver the mail on time, with our airports losing still more and never being open for certain, and with our harbours-a subject which will be debated tonight-struck regularly by a public service that was given the right to strike by this government or its predecessor in 1967, is it rational for some, including government members, to suggest that Petro-Can should be incorporated to give the government still more operations to run?
Let there be no mistake; it is no accident that fully planned economies in the world are run by dictators. You cannot create or preserve prosperity in a fully planned economy through a democratic form of government; they do not mix. A marketplace economy which preserves private initiative will produce the greatest wealth for the greatest number of people. A competitive private enterprise system is not only an economically efficient institution but it also safeguards individual liberty.
Let me deal with these two facts separately. First, let us consider the economic efficiency of the private enterprise system. As a business person new to the political arena in Ottawa, I am astounded by the inefficient, disorganized, non-productive government activities I witness every day. Time and again, when one would hope the government would act in a businesslike manner in settling strikes or in extending assistance to commercial concerns one finds they are swayed by political considerations. Government does not have the discipline found in private business. To survive in business you must make a profit or at least break even. Not so in government. In private business a dollar saved is a dollar earned. Unfortunately, in public business a dollar not spent is a dollar lost from next year's estimates. The net effect of this is reflected in the Crown corporation statements to which I have referred: in short, a net worth investment on the part of the federal government of $3.4 billion, in 1972, and a return on that investment of $25 million, which is less than 1 per cent. Given the chance, who among the Liberal backbenchers or cabinet ministers would want to invest in that type of portfolio?
Let me be more specific. An interesting comparison can be drawn between Central Mortgage and Housing Corpo-
Petro-Canada
ration in Canada and the Federal National Mortgage Association in the United States. Both companies were organized for similar functions; both were owned by their respective governments up to 1968. In that year, the Federal National Mortgage Association-known affectionately at Fannie Mae-was turned over, in a unique plan, to the private sector with the United States government retaining a supervisory role. The contrast between the two companies from that date is startling. In 1967, CMHC had assets of $3.6 billion, while Fannie Mae had assets of $5.4 billion. That year, CMHC earned $7.2 million, while Fannie Mae's net income was $15.4 million. By 1973, the assets of CMHC grew to $6.6 billion but its net income went down to $2.9 million. Fannie Mae, on the other hand, by 1973 had $24.3 billion in assets and its net income had risen to $125.7 million, after having contributed $106 million in federal taxes to the United States.


Mr. O'Connell:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, we are hearing some very interesting financial statistics and the hon. member is comparing CMHC with an institution in the United States. Would the hon. member comment on whether in the United States more houses are actually being built for the people than in Canada, in proportion to population? Would he give us those figures? Houses are for people.


An hon. Member:: He can't.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: If the hon. member means, has CMHC been responsible for the building of houses, I refer him to the CMHC annual reports. Each year he will see that the number of CMHC-financed houses, up to the most recent annual report, has been on the decline.


An hon. Member:: What is the answer to the question?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I would be very pleased to answer any questions in the hon. member's time after I have used my allotted time. Let me continue. I want to emphasize this because I know it gripes people who love Crown corporations. I want to emphasize that while they are looking for new empires it is the Canadian taxpayer who is paying the shot, and surely they should not continually come out with a lot of drivel when the fact is that in the figures I have given CMHC grew 83 per cent in assets and its net income fell 248 per cent. The privately-run Fannie Mae organization in the United States grew 450 per cent in assets and its net income jumped 816 per cent. With that startling difference would it not be prudent to at least have the government indicate that we should have an inquiry to look into it?
Why is CMHC earning virtually no money when the Americans, by working out a unique type of deal with the private sector, ended up making over $125 million within a few years of moving into the private sector? These questions have to be answered. I point out to the hon. member that one of the reasons we have such highly-priced houses in this country is the inaction of this federal government, be it through CMHC or directly.


An hon. Member:: Get to the point.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The point is that the government is incorporating another Crown corporation which will incur

March 19, 1975
Petro-Canada
colossal losses and be a drain on the Canadian public purse. If hon. members are impatient for me to get to the point, I only hope they will not be impatient in answering the questions of the people of Canada in ensuing years when they ask why Petro-Canada has been another national disgrace. Partly in answer to these questions, it is interesting to note that the administrative expenses of CMHC of $39.6 million are more than twice as high as those of Fannie Mae, in spite of the fact that CMHC is only a quarter of the size of Fannie Mae. Those administrative expenses include $30.7 million in CMHC salaries in 1973. Those salaries, in the aggregate, have jumped 122 per cent since 1967. The hon. member has the nerve to stand up and ask about the housing industry in Canada, yet CMHC has increased its aggregate salaries by 122 per cent since 1967. I hope some houses are built, in view of that kind of increase.
I am satisfied that the government is not an efficient operator in business, and certainly a business run under the authority of the present Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources will be a colossal fiasco.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Tell us about the Bank of Western Canada. When do the investors get their money back?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: They got their money back much faster, and in its entirety, than the taxpayers of Canada will get theirs out of Petro-Canada. A competitive private enterprise system will out-perform publicly-run institutions, and rather than being a drain on the economy it will contribute substantial tax revenues to it. Let me deal with the second reason I believe a competitive private enterprise system is preferable to government intervention at the operational level. A competitive private enterprise system safeguards individual liberty. Milton Friedman stated in 1962:
The kind of economic organization that provides economic freedom directly, namely, competitive capitalism, also promotes political freedom because it separates economic power from political power and in this way enables the one to offset the other.
Competitive markets, according to Friedman-
-reduce greatly the range of issues that must be decided through political means, and thereby to minimize the extent to which government need participate directly in the game. The characteristic feature of action through political channels is that it tends to require or enforce substantial conformity. The great advantage of the market, on the other hand, is that it permits wide diversity.
Yet this same competitive private enterprise system that extends economic freedom acts also to promote political freedom. For the fundamental threat to freedom is the power to coerce, be it in the hands of a monarch, a dictator, an oligarch, or a momentary majority.
I suggest a momentary majority such as we have under the Trudeau government. Mr. Friedman went on to say:
The preservation of freedom requires the elimination of such concentration of power to the fullest possible extent and the dispersal and distribution of whatever power cannot be eliminated through a system of checks and balances. By removing the organization of economic activity from the central political authority, the market eliminates this source of coercive power. It enables economic strength to be a check to political power rather than a reinforcement.
If governments continue to enter category number three-that is, the operational business field-they will

tend to lower efficiency through the making of political rather than businesslike decisions. As a nation becomes more frustrated with this inefficient approach and resulting strikes, there is a distinct possibility the voters will turn to a strong man be he of the right or the left: He need only promise some type of order and some type of security to win favour.
Let us not forget, when we are considering the extension of the public domain, Mr. Speaker, that history has shown that man treasures order and security even more than he does freedom. That is why I believe we must resist, with all the determination we can muster, the empire-building exploit that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is about to embark upon with Petro-Can. Petro-Can is not going to make the oil industry more competitive. Tommyrot! It is not going to find oil that would not have been found anyway. The fact is, it is going to be a tremendous drain on the taxpayer.


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


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: The hon. member may continue if there is unanimous consent.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No. Let's hear about the bill.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I take it the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources does not want me to continue.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Let's hear what somebody else has to say.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please. The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke).


Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to partake in this debate on Bill C-8 sensing that the minister and his colleagues are getting nervous about its passage. I hope that my colleagues and those who are concerned with the principles expressed in the bill will keep talking so the public may know what the government is proposing to do under the bill and so the defenders of those ideas can have their say. Much has been said by my colleagues-


An hon. Member:: No, not much.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: -concerning the detrimental effects of this legislation on the petroleum industry in Canada. I do not want to repeat those things, but I do want to emphasize that this government creation is no more likely to find oil than the enterprises now searching for it. In fact, it will start off at a disadvantage because it will not have the expertise that is available to the private sector.
My friends in the New Democratic Party cry about oil company profits. Apparently it is easy for them to forget entirely the fate of Canadian investors in the petroleum
March 19, 1975

industry. They also easily forget the size of the government's "take" at the moment from this overworked and overtaxed industry. When the price of Alberta crude oil produced for the Canadian market almost doubled from $3.80 to $6.50, my friends to the left complained about the high price but did not say anything about where that money goes. The oil industry's share dropped from 53 cents to 47 cents per barrel while oil was going up in price. The federal government's share more than quadrupled, and the provincial share-which is tax, no matter how you look at it-nearly tripled to almost $3 a barrel.
I should like to examine the effects of this legislation from a slightly different viewpoint, Mr. Speaker, although I am sure I will come to the same conclusion as my friends in the Conservative Party. I wonder whether a national oil company is necessary for Canada at this time or at any time. Some people may remind us of the crisis of last winter and point out that the government had to buy oil on the international market. Others might say that the shortages were a false alarm, that the industry would have provided our needs and that the government did not need to go into the market itself. Anyway, they might say, the government paid too much for what it purchased in that panic situation.
What would this new national oil company do for us other than provide some executive jobs in still another government bureaucracy? I should like to look for a moment at the stated purposes of the corporation as set out in clause 3 of the bill. I will not read the whole clause, but it reads in part:
-to establish within the energy industries in Canada ... and to engage in exploration for, and the production, distribution, refining and marketing of, fuels.
The extent of the purposes set out in that small clause leaves no room to doubt what the government intends to do to the industry in this country. It sounds as though they will have adequate powers. Clause 6 sets out the details of the powers and duties of the corporation. We see that they are entitled to engage in exploration, research and development, to "import, produce, transport, distribute, refine and market," and to "produce, distribute, transport and market other fuels and energy". I emphasize the word "other", Mr. Speaker. Clause 6(e) empowers it-
-to engage or invest in ventures or enterprises related to the exploration, production, importation, distribution, refining and marketing of fuel, energy and related resources.
From those key words it is apparent that this government would like to give itself power to get involved in the whole fuel industry. I cannot think of a single aspect of the fuel industry that has been left out of the objects, powers and duties as set out in that clause. If there were any question about powers that were missing, they are described in clause 7 which, referring to powers alone, reads:
The corporation may do such things as it deems expedient for or conducive to the furtherance of the objects of the corporation, within and outside Canada, and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, the corporation may-
Then it lists 26 additional powers, which I shall not read. I am thankful that our alphabet only runs to 26 characters, Mr. Speaker, when I think of what they would have done if they had tried to go from beginning to end of some of
Petro-Canada
the longer alphabets in the world. From the wording, which gives the corporation the authority to do all things which are incidental and conducive to the attainment of its objectives and powers, there is little doubt as to what the government has in mind. As the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) said, this will truly be a glorious government conglomerate, but will it pay taxes even if it does put taxpaying enterprisers out of business? I should like to remind hon. members that the enterprise system pays taxes of all sorts, and in huge amounts, to all kinds and levels of government. Some of my friends have overlooked this fact and I like to remind them of these things.
I do not know why we should not doubt Petro-Can's ability to pay taxes. Let us consider the operations of the CNR to which the hon. member for York-Simcoe alluded. According to the annual report for 1973-the 1974 report is not yet available-the CNR, that large, government conglomerate, is involved with 41 separate companies which engage in many different businesses. But does the CNR pay taxes? No, it does not.
Rail transport is important for this country and some contend that private enterprisers might not provide adequate rail service. But what about the Canadian National hotel operation? Canadian National hotels compete with hotels run by private enterprisers which make profits. According to page 11 of the annual report, CN hotel operations had a net income of $4 million. That is only part of the story. If you want the full story you must turn to page 34 of the annual report, where you will find the consolidated income statement for the year ended December 31. The statement shows that after deducting all expenses except one, the CNR had a net income of $48 million.
The last item reveals the full story as it shows the total interest on debt. Any businessman can tell you that interest payments are a substantial factor in any business operation. Unless you consider how much interest you pay, you cannot determine your net income. On page 35 of the annual report, under "Source and application of funds for the year ended December 31," the CNR is forced to admit that it obtained its funds from the government, as the second line in the first item reads, "Government of Canada in respect of deficit for the year." The upshot is that the Canadian National ran a deficit on operations of over $21 million.
We cannot tell how much of this loss is directly attributable to hotels and how much is directly attributable to the railway operation or to the operation of any of the other 39 companies involved with CN. The government makes good these losses by taxing other hotel owners who operate their hotels profitably. This government practice led some thinker of the Pacific Trollers Association to define capital punishment in a new way. He said that capital punishment is when the government taxes you to get capital so that it can go into competition with you, and then taxes the profits on your business in order to pay its losses. What a sad commentary on what is going on!
Let us look at another government fiasco, Connaught Laboratories. Connaught Laboratories was a well respected operation of the University of Toronto. It provided

March 19, 1975
Petro-Canada
high-quality products at reasonable prices. Then along came the CDC and acquired Connaught Laboratories. Since then what has happened to Connaught Laboratories? It has run up huge operating losses and produced products of questionable quality. This may result in damage awards against the company or, shall we say, against the government. We might as well say they will be awarded against the taxpayer, because he will pay in the end.
Let me list some other Crown corporations or some other fiascos which have resulted from the government's entering the sphere of private enterprise. There is the CBC, about which I will not go into detail, and Air Canada. The list is not endless as I understand that only 59 Crown corporations use-I do not say "consume"- some $16 billion of taxpayers' money. I have asked if Petro-Can is necessary. I ask, are many of our Crown corporations necessary? Certainly there are fields in which the government must be involved, but need it be involved in the broadcasting business?
The CBC has run up tremendous losses, as my friend from York-Simcoe suggested. There is no need for the government to be in the broadcasting business and run up these losses, which absorb I don't know how many hundreds of millions of dollars, because private enterprisers would be only too glad to take over the operation of the CBC. Air Canada, as a Crown corporation, may have been needed in the 1930s during the birth of the air travel explosion, but today many airlines are operated by private enterprisers and they do not need government help. Air Canada, as a Crown corporation, does a bad job and ends up by being a burden on the taxpayer instead of contributing to the economy of this country, which is what the airline would do if private enterprise were running it.
Some hon. members may say, "If you let private enterprise run the airline, you will not see proper service in the outlying areas of the country." To answer them I refer to the telephone industry. In my province of British Columbia private enterprise runs the telephone service, and the most remote community in British Columbia is served. The reason is simple: although it costs the telephone company money to service remote communities, it is told that such service is a condition of its licence. If it wants to provide telephone service in Vancouver, it must supply similar telephone service in far-out communities. That simple solution could be applied by the government to other areas.
Private enterprisers expect problems when dealing with the government. The new president of the British Columbia and Yukon Chamber of Commerce summed it up this way, as reported in the Globe and Mail of February 20, 1975:
Dealing with the government has been a real education to some of us. And I think the basic reason is that most of us in mining are technically trained, we have training which deals with facts and logic, and we were going up against a government philosophy.
And you soon find that facts and reason just don't apply against that. They don't make a dent. It took a while for us to appreciate that... But they must leave enough to provide an incentive to the industry and they're not doing that.
Other colleagues have expressed that sentiment. Unless the government provides the free enterprisers of the coun-

try with incentive, our system as we know it in Canada today will not survive.
Government expenses are continually rising, with the help of the 59 Crown corporations I mentioned and with the help of an ever increasing bureaucracy. Is our large bureaucracy really necessary? I think we should compare our situation with that of the state of California. The Governor of the state, on taking office some eight years ago, observed that nothing is more opposed to creativeness than bureaucracy. We should bear that in mind when debating this bill.
I hope hon. members will bear the following facts in mind: California entered 1975 with a constantly decreasing welfare population receiving constantly increasing benefits, with financially and technically sound energy and water supply systems-and we do not even have an energy policy in this country-and with enforced environmental standards that are both lowering air and water pollution and preserving an extraordinary range of recreational opportunities. The state of California has established a superb highway system that has become an orderly segment of an integrated transportation system. I am sorry the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) is not present to hear what can be done. I think the key to the situation in California is this: in 1975 the state employs no more people than it employed eight years ago, even though in eight years state spending has doubled and state services have multiplied. One cannot make similar claims for the operations of this government.
I should like to compare the California situation with a similar sample in my part of the country, the province of British Columbia, where of course we have an NDP government. Out there a nice backbencher by the name of Mr. Nunweiler came from the interior of British Columbia, Prince George, and for some reason or other it was decided that Mr. Nunweiler should be a minister. There was not a portfolio available for him, so he was made a minister without portfolio. That probably satisfied him and also his constituents, so instead of being a lowly backbencher at a mere $24,000 per annum salary, he is now a cabinet minister with a salary of $45,000. Of course, after that he had to have an executive assistant, a full-time secretary and two clerk-stenographers. This amounted to an additional expenditure of $50,000 for his office.


Reginald Cyril Symes: You get that in Tory Ontario.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Then he had to have an office in Prince George-after all, that is his home town-and the office in Prince George had to be staffed as well. So he employs an executive assistant, an economic planning consultant, a social policy co-ordinator, a public liaison officer, a resource planning consultant and an administrative assistant. When you add up all those salaries it comes to another $94,000.
In addition, of course, there are office expenses amounting to $25,000, travelling expenses of $40,000, and office furniture in the amount of $10,000. Then there is the cost of printing and publishing-necessary if anyone is to believe us-and printing and publication costs amount to $25,000, as well as advertising, just in case anybody forgets

who that minister is, costing another $5,000. Then, taking a leaf out of the book of the government in Ottawa, there is a final item-consultant fees and expenses, $50,000 for the year. Mr. Speaker, when you add all that up, instead of having a nice backbencher at a cost of $24,000 we have a minister without portfolio with expenditures totalling $402,000 for the year.
It will be said that all the rules are clearly set out in Bill C-8 and that there is no danger of what I am suggesting taking place. Let us ask ourselves how Ottawa has been doing in this area, then, in its other legislation. Only a few cases involving the 1972 income tax reforms have yet come before the courts of this country, yet judges are already showing their frustration with the sloppy drafting of the legislation. They have been coming down hard on the side of the taxpayers even when this has gone against the apparent intent of the law. I emphasize here the words "apparent intent" because, as will be understood from my remarks, the judges do not even know what parliament intended to do. There was a recent series of cases which the courts feel may be just the start of a flood of litigation. The judges have indicated that the tax rules may be unenforceable if the wording is too vague, complex or obscure to understand. One judge had this to say:
I cannot know for a fact what parliament in its wisdom meant by the inclusion of the word "active"-But I think I can assume that to the legislators it meant something, or the word would not have been inserted.
This judge said later, in giving judgment:
I am also just as certain, if one can be certain of anything about this section ... that it was never intended, in my view, to cover a company such as this.
He ruled in favour of the company and said that his decision was based solely on the way in which the section had been worded. What a testimony from one of the keepers of justice in this country, to make comments of that kind about legislation put forward by the government! I am afraid that with the government's record in connection with this type of legislation, Bill C-8 may turn out to be worse than even we think it might.
I would like to give one more piece of personal experience which tends to show the ineptness of the government when it comes to legislation. Just this month I received in Vancouver, addressed to my business office there, a letter mailed from Montreal on the letterhead of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs addressing me as a professional closely involved with corporation and suggesting that I would be concerned with the Canada Business Corporations Act. The following is a paragraph of that letter, Mr. Speaker:
Consumer and Corporate Affairs is designing a comprehensive seminar on the Canada Business Corporations Act.
They know we will not be able to understand it the way it is written, so they want us to come out and be told how it is going to work. Then they cannot quite decide what they want to do, so the letter goes on:
When do you want it? Where? What would you like to discuss?
Of course, the simple answer which the government to this day seems to ignore constantly is that all we want is to be able to understand the laws. As I said a moment ago, we have absolutely no assurance that Bill C-8 is going to
Petro-Canada
be any better than the laws the government has been passing recently.
When a government department or corporation gets loose, it is time for us to look out. For example, I would like to refer to something being done by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation: it will show how tight their policies are. In 1973, CMHC spent $12,500,000 to acquire an industrial estate known as Granville Island in Vancouver. Then in 1974 it had to spend $1 million on redevelopment, administration and operation of this industrial estate. Now we are getting into the 1975-76 estimates, and they include $7.75 million for this project. This may seem like a worth-while project and I am sure it will bring satisfaction to many Vancouver residents even though it is located under a high bridge and is unseen by all but a few.
I really think it is time, in this day of energy conservation and transportation difficulties, that the idea of relocating all industries which were on this industrial estate to the suburbs should be looked at as well. All the people who live in the centre part of town and who would have liked to work in this estate are now faced with commuting to the suburbs. It certainly seems a bit backward to me. But there is not the slightest intention of providing any housing on Granville Island and there certainly are no mortgages involved. So my question-one which I have asked the minister before now-is: what is Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation doing in this venture? The only explanation I can think of is that the government got caught up with the original falsehood of Granville Island itself, because Granville Island is not even an island.
Mr. Speaker, the former auditor general, Maxwell Henderson, summed it up last week when he said the erosion of parliament's control over government spending continues. In the past ten years, spending has increased fivefold and now the estimates are $28 billion. I have often accused the government of being the chief contributor to inflation in this country. Of course, there is imported inflation, but the present government ignores the total problem or, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) says, they will wrestle it to the ground; and the government hopes for the best.
Finally, last week the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) admitted that cost increases from wage settlements were disturbing and that they could be dangerous to Canada. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that through the examples I have cited the House may realize that the good intention which undoubtedly the minister had when he sponsored Bill C-8 will be no match for the forces which will come into play after it is made law. We would be well advised to reconsider carefully the function of the government in the enterprise system before we get swallowed up in another monstrous, uncontrollable bureaucracy. Just as the sorcerer's apprentice became the slave of the broomsticks because after starting them up with the best of intentions he found he had lost control of the situation, Canada will have lost control of the situation, Mr. Speaker.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, as I make a few comments on this matter I wonder whether it is a coincidence that since 1968 the Liberal government has created twice as many Crown corporations and, if we include the 1975-76 budget, has also dou-

Petro-Canada
bled its spending. I suppose it would be reasonable to think that with this creation of Crown corporations and the government's embarking upon business ventures, there should be an easing of government spending. That is to say, by taking over some of the services Canadians demand which were previously carried on by private enterprise profitably, the government should be able to make a profit which could then be applied to the public purse to defray some of the expenses of government in carrying out these services.
Having been in private business, I always dreamt that some day I would be able to start and run a business where I had no worries about lack of working capital. I dreamt I would be able to walk into a bank and tell them what I wanted to do: I would say to them; "I think this is a great dream; there is no way it can fail". Every businessman starts out in business with this vision. The banker would say to me; "Now, don't worry about it, Frank; you go ahead. There is no bottom to the barrel, so don't worry about your working capital; away you go".
I also dreamt that some day I would run a business where I would not have to go to the bank at all; I would not have to pay any taxes; I would pay no interest on my working capital; I would pay no royalties if things got tough: indeed, I would pay none of the taxes or charges private businessmen have to pay today.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: What a dream!


Frank Oberle: Yes, what a dream! I never realized that I would have to get elected to parliament before I could become a director, so to speak, in one huge corporation that has no problem with finding money, a corporation that dips into a barrel that has no bottom, that does not have to charge itself any taxes. In a pinch, it can write off royalties. What a way to run a business! We all know, Mr. Speaker, that many of the businesses this government runs show no profit even though they pay no interest on their borrowings and pay no royalties. They are bailed out repeatedly every year. All they have to do is to dip into the barrel and take out millions of dollars.
Some of the Crown corporations to which I refer are disgusting and disgraceful. Surely to goodness the government's purpose is to equalize wealth and opportunity in this country. I go further and say that government has the responsibility to provide essential public and social services such as hospitals, schools, law an order. I do not have to tell my colleagues what the original purpose of government was supposed to be, because they all know. But is it the purpose of government to involve itself in transportation, housing, communications-all the many headaches the government has that are also headaches to the taxpayer? The Canadian taxpayer is no longer a taxpayer; he is a shareholder in a huge non-profit corporation.
What is a non-profit corporation, particularly in a country like ours? Any corporation that does not make a profit at the end of the year does not, of course, have any resources or money left to expand. At a time when we realize the necessity for agriculture to increase its productive capacity, and there is a challenge to create secondary industry throughout Canada to protect us against the sell-out of our resources, the government is taking over more and more services and not making a profit. This

means there will be no expansion, because the government has no money left at the end of the year to expand these services.
The bill we are discussing today is proposing to incorporate a company called Petro-Canada. The minister has told us that one of the reasons for Petro-Can is to enable the government to participate in Syncrude. I did not have an opportunity of talking about Syncrude previously, so let me illustrate what I think is happening to the shareholders, the taxpayers, in the Syncrude venture. I will have to take the minister's word for it when he says that the reason the federal government is getting into the Syncrude venture is to assure Canadians a steady supply of petroleum resources. This is all very laudable; but he is going to spend $300 million, first of all. He will have to go into partnership with corporations which have been identified in this House as irresponsible and as rip-off artists. Did the minister have to go into this venture with an investment of $300 million, which put him in a minority position, just to assure security of supply of petroleum resources for Canadians?
The fact is that 40 per cent of our fossil fuels in Canada are not in crude oil or natural gas, but in coal. It is also a fact that the United States has not only recognized the worth of coal but has also recognized it is much cheaper to develop the process of coal gasification and coal liquefaction, and to assure themselves of security of supply in that way, than it is to go into the Syncrude project.
As a practical businessman, I look at Syncrude in this way: it is a great project for the province of Alberta; it has created a lot of activity in the province and I congratulate the Premier of Alberta because he made a smart move, particularly since somebody else pays the bill. We all know the cost of a barrel of oil today, but the cost of a barrel of oil when this project is finally realized will be at least $12. We also know the margins that the OPEC countries enjoy so far as their export price of crude oil is concerned. In my opinion, there is no way that the OPEC countries will diminish their exports of crude oil once Syncrude comes on stream. They will continue to sell it as they always have and in order to do so they will simply lower the price by $3 or $4 a barrel. They could even lower the price by $6 in order to stay in a competitive position with Syncrude. That is one practical point that I want to bring out.
Another point I want to make is this. No one can tell me that people in Montreal and Toronto are voluntarily going to pay an artificially high price just to keep alive a brainwave that the Premier of Alberta might have had regarding investment in Canada. Therefore, all that Syncrude will do for Canada is to assure us of a continued flow of energy supply at a cost that we will not be able to afford, and we will continue to buy oil from Venezuela and the other OPEC countries.
For $300 million we are, as taxpayers, now partners or shareholders in a venture with large oil companies which will, when the facts are all known, pull out of this venture and write off their loses against other income, leaving us with the whole $2 billion project which will really never get off the ground.

In almost everything we do, we follow the United States, but this government is not following the leadership of that country in assuring us of a supply of energy for the future. If it were following that leadership it would embark upon some ambitious and intelligent research into new sources of energy such as hydrogen from seawater or other exotic sources about which we have heard.
I am not bothered so much about the fact that this government intends to embark upon a venture the purpose of which is to establish within the energy industries in Canada a Crown-owned company with authority to explore for hydrocarbon deposits. That does not worry me so much even though there is only one chance in 50, as demonstrated by private industry lately, of success in finding significant deposits of oil and natural gas in the areas that have been explored in the last five years. Can you imagine Canadian taxpayers being asked to take one chance in 50 in a business venture with their money? These are the same taxpayers who provide not 40 per cent, as my colleague said earlier, but closer to 50 per cent of total government revenue. These are the same taxpayers who have a very difficult time to provide the most essential public services and properly nutritious food for their children. These taxpayers are being asked to go into this kind of venture, but that is not what worries me most: what does worry me most is the last line of this paragraph which outlines the purpose of the proposed act as follows:
-to carry out research and development projects in relation to hydrocarbons and other fuels-
I am happy with that because, as I have said, that should take place. But it continues:
-and to engage in exploration for, and the production, distribution, refining and marketing of, fuels.
This is the crux of the matter. As far as energy, petroleum resources, fossil fuels and minerals are concerned, this government has gone all the way. Private enterprise has run its course, because the government can go out, run the corner service station and make the final contract with the customer, if we pass this bill.
In this country we are rushing toward socialism and communism faster than the communist countries are in competing to enter the enterprise and incentive systems. We are heading in a direction that is opposite to the most popular one in the world today. What worries me is that private enterprise is being made to pay taxes to provide various governments in this country with sufficient funds to be transferred to other provinces. These funds are being channelled into businesses which will compete with those which generated the funds in the first place. The transfer payments which are made from the western provinces, Ontario and others are channelled into these giant, nonprofit organizations.
I had an experience the other day in the province of British Columbia which of course has been a socialist province for the last three years. I travel a lot and have to eat in restaurants and I worry a bit about reports I read regarding bad hamburger meat, and so on. As a precaution, I take a little medicine once in a while to offset this. The medicine I like is made by Seagram's. I walked into one of the people's stores in British Columbia, the government liquor store, and asked for a bottle of my favourite brand.
Petro-Canada
The clerk told me I could not have a bottle of that brand because it was hot. I am a little naive about these things, as I suppose all of us are, and I told him there was really nothing wrong with hot whisky as long as you had a twist of lemon and a little water with it. I told him I would buy a bottle anyway, whether it was hot or not. He explained to me that it was not the heat of the whisky that bothered him, but the fact that the people in the distillery were involved in a squabble over the equity of profit transfer in the company. Apparently the employees in the government liquor store had decided to take the side of the distillery employees and they would not sell any more of that distillery's products, so there would be no more profits and all the problems would be solved.
I cannot view this as anything but an intervention by government in a labour dispute. These employees have entered this dispute by deciding that the employees of the distillery were right and that the distillery was not treating its employees properly, and as a result will not sell any more of its products. I can see this happening in other areas where the government is involved in business. It will be much easier for the government to solve some of the labour disputes that may arise in the future. Let us consider how some of these Crown corporations are making out with their labour problems, particularly those corporations we expect to provide essential public services. Let us take the Post Office as an example. We do not have to point out the performance of the Post Office in the last few years or at this particular time.
Let us also consider transportation facilities and the grain handlers on the west coast. The last time we talked about settling a strike on the west coast, the government took sides. Socialist governments in particular always take the side of labour in settling these disputes. At that time the government imposed a settlement on the grain companies on the west coast with which they found it hard to live. It was found that many of the employees who were members of the Public Service Alliance, those at the port of Vancouver but more particularly at the port of Prince Rupert, were getting about 25 per cent less than people working for private companies.
At the time we all warned the minister that unless we found a solution to the problem that was facing government employees on the west coast, the settlement of the strike at that time would only be a partial solution. We were right, and we are experiencing another strike on the west coast. Incidentally, there are six more unions to commence labour negotiations within the next six months to a year. If we achieve a settlement of the strike by the grain handlers and the Public Service Alliance on the west coast, it will again only be a partial settlement. Other disputes will undoubtedly crop up. In Prince Rupert we have grain handlers who are doing the same kind of job that is being done by the people in Vancouver. We have grain inspectors at both ports, all of whom are earning much less than people employed by private enterprise.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please. The Chair is not in a position to recognize the hon. member because he is not rising from his own seat.

March 19, 1975
Petro-Canada


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I will answer the hon. member if he will go to his own seat. I have no hesitation to enter a debate with him. I did not see any members across the aisle indicate a desire to enter the debate. Obviously, they are quite happy with the trend established by this government. This debate will continue for a long time and they will have an opportunity to speak. The after effects of this proposed company will be felt for an even longer time, so now is the time for them to enter the debate.
After I sit down I suppose the Speaker will gladly recognize any gentleman over there who wishes to make his views known. In the meantime, hon. gentlemen over there should listen to what people on this side of the House have to say, because they might learn something. In a few years from now the time will come when this mess will have to be cleaned up. Some day someone will have to face the situation, and I predict it will not be very long from now. Some day someone will have to solve the problem of this large corporation which will be exerting unfair pressure on the economy of our country.
A solution must be found to the problems of industrial and labour unrest in our country. The problems will be so severe in the next years that those fellows over there will have many opportunities to make their views known. The problem, of course, is not one-sided. The large corporations are exerting great pressure on the economy of our country. It is for that reason I believe parliament at the present time would be much better served if the government had brought before us, rather than the Petro-Can legislation, the combines legislation which would give us an opportunity to place some restrictions on the big combines, the large corporations which are exerting great pressure on many individuals and small businesses in our country.
Recently I became aware of one of these situations. An oil company in Canada has established a rental formula for its franchise holders. I suppose it is because of similar action that the government feels compelled to take over the activities of these companies and run them on behalf of the Canadian people. The fact is, of course, that the government's purpose is to take over private enterprise by regulation and to limit the powers that are being exerted by these pressure groups on the people of Canada. Of course, if that should happen and the government stayed out of everything else, the people of Canada would have the opportunity to limit the powers of the government. However, my fear and the fear of most of my colleagues is that by the time the government explores for petroleum resources, distributes petroleum resources and has complete control over all the energy in this country and everything else, the people of Canada will have lost control over the government and an election will be meaningless.
Every day there are indications of graft, price fixing and many kinds of charges. This is a serious situation. It is a direct result of government being involved in business and meddling in private enterprise. If this situation continues, the people of our country will lose control. The people to my left in the New Democratic Party always have been very outspoken about some of these large corporations. It should be interesting to them to know that there are in our party people who have also expressed reservations about
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner).]
some of the freedoms and actions these corporations have enjoyed.
Perhaps I might go back to the case involving the oil company which I mentioned earlier. It brought out a rental formula under which it will be charging rent to the service station operators throughout the country on the basis of 16 per cent of the gross profit. The gross profit is the margin between the cost of the sale and the purchase price of the merchandise. When it comes to the sale of labour, there is a gross margin and the oil company considers all labour at gross margin. I have taken up this matter with the oil company and have said it is no better than the federal government which charges a tax on the royalties they pay to the provinces. This, in fact, is the case because the company is charging its own franchise holders a tax and rent on money they do not even earn because it is paid out to people they hire.
I am attempting to illustrate that it is this government's responsibility to regulate the conduct of large corporations and large and small businesses. If the government did this, it would receive the support of the opposition party when it brings in its combines legislation containing regulatory measures to control the conduct of people who exert undue pressure on Canadians. I refer not only to the large businesses and corporations but also to the unions and other groups within our society.
Surely, however, it is not the role of the government to completely regulate and control private enterprise in these business matters, because governments are not geared to manage businesses. As I look around this House, I see that most of my colleagues are lawyers and some are doctors. I have dealt with professional people in private life, and whenever I have run into a poor businessman he has been a lawyer or a doctor. With all respect to my colleagues, I might say that when I become involved in difficulty in business I might hire a lawyer to bail me out, but I surely would not have him run my business. In fact, I even ask my accountants-who tell me all the mistakes I have made-if they are so smart, why are they not rich?
It is a fact that these people have grown up through the professions, but with all respect to them I say that when elected to parliament, if they would concentrate on the purpose for which government is set up this institution would be a better place. If the government enters business, these professional people do not have a clue. This is well demonstrated if we analyse the financial statements of Air Canada, the CNR, CMHC, the Post Office and the CBC. I could mention 120 more. They do not have a clue, and if it were not for that barrel without a bottom they would all be bankrupt.
As we do away with incentives, with responsible conduct and with the work ethic, as we shy away from the responsibility of balancing books at the end of the month, Canadian taxpayers will suffer. There will be the day when in front of a wicket on which it says "Pay" there will be no line-up, and in front of the wicket on which it says "Hand-outs" there will be a long line-up-except for the fact that the barrel will run dry some day. Signs of the difficulties which this government will be experiencing in carrying out its social contract are already evident

throughout the country in the tightening up of unemployment insurance benefits and the reduction in hand-outs, because as we confiscate and take over private business we will be denying ourselves the benefits of the revenue from the taxes that businesses have traditionally paid.
I am disappointed and concerned about the fact that members of only one party in the House today have expressed their views on some of these matters. The incorporation of Petro-Can is an attack on the foundation of our system. It is a departure from everything on which this country has been built, and it is disappointing to me that so few people have expressed this fact today and shown their concern. What we are doing today will be with us for a long time to come; the effects will be felt for a long time, because once the damage is done it is very hard-in most cases impossible-to undo it.
Petro-Can will not be able to exploit our energy reserves without the help of private enterprise. It will not be able to distribute energy as efficiently as private enterprise, and it will most certainly not be able to market the products as well as private enterprise. Of course, Canadians will suffer because the climate that will be created with the incorporation of this company will motivate private enterprise to look to other areas of the world in which to carry on their activities. The loss will be felt by Canadian taxpayers in particular.


Mr. Ross Milne (Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam
Speaker, I am very pleased to take up the challenge of the previous speaker and to offer a few comments in support of this bill. I feel very strongly about it and I want to start out by saying that I congratulate the minister. This parliament is fortunate to have a minister of his capabilities and courage. This is probably one of the most difficult portfolios because of the changing world scene, and I think it is one that has been handled most capably by the minister for the past two years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Ross Milne: I want to personally endorse the establishment of Petro-Can. The minister knows I support it strongly. Shortly after the Christmas recess I held a number of town hall meetings in my riding and my constituents from Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe told me that the next time I come back to town hall meetings I should bring them the bill that establishes Petro-Can. I am glad to be contributing toward that objective.
Parliament must do everything in its power to make Canada as self-sufficient as possible in both energy and food. I am pleased that we are acting on the Farm Credit Act, on the agricultural stabilization bill and on other farm legislation in the area of food production. This government has a good record in the area of energy, as is evidenced in the establishment of a one-price oil system across Canada, the establishment of the export tax, the re-evaluation of our capability to export gas and oil, the acceleration of natural gas exploration and the way in which the Mackenzie Valley pipeline question is being handled.
Also, I am a very strong supporter of the Syncrude involvement, of Panarctic, and so on, particularly in the area of electrical energy through CANDU technology. But
Petro-Canada
what we really need to do is add substantially to the entire energy picture in Canada at present through the establishment of Petro-Can or a government agency which could enter into a joint venture with industry and involve itself in the technology and the negotiating of energy contracts on behalf of Canadians.
To my knowledge, not many issues have come before parliament which have separated political philosophies as much as most of our energy debates, this one in particular. Members of the official opposition have been almost unanimous in saying that we should leave the energy industry entirely alone, give the companies every tax consideration and everything they ask for, and allow industry to operate virtually free of any guidelines. The NDP have argued the case for the nationalization of much of the industry. I think that the correct position is the one taken by the minister and this party, to issue strong guidelines and policies for the industry for the benefit of all Canadians, to establish a tax structure that is fair to the petroleum industry as well as to other industries that are taxed, and which is also fair to all Canadians and, now, with the help of Petro-Can, to enter into joint ventures with the petroleum industry.
I was interested to hear the speech of the critic of the official opposition. It is an interesting fact that since his speech he has not been in the House to hear the rest of the debate. That shows how interested he really is in this entire matter.


Mr. McKinley:: That is not true.


William Ross Milne: The point of view expressed by him was that there was really no need for government involvement, and that the petroleum industry should be left free to operate in the way it wants; that energy should be left entirely to private enterprise. Surely his party must be aware of the majority of public opinion in this regard. Most people to whom we have talked say they want very close control over the development of our resources in the future and over our petroleum industry.
Back in June of last year I attended a meeting of the Committee for an Independent Canada at which a resolution was passed by a majority vote to nationalize one of the major multinational petroleum companies. This is an organization made up of people from all political parties, people who are really concerned about the future of this country and who feel strongly about it. I would not have supported that resolution, but I consider it to be a strong expression of opinion of a large segment of the Canadian population. I think we can really say that when the best interests of the multinational petroleum companies have coincided with Canada's best interests, they have done a good job. However, when they have not coincided I must ask whether it has been in Canada's best interests.
The basic objective of the whole equation is an adequate, secure supply of reasonably-priced energy for all Canadians. We want to be very careful in evaluating arguments put forth by members on the opposite side who say that private enterprise can do it completely on their own and do it better. I think it would make sense to multinational petroleum companies certainly to go where the best deal is, where they can make the best profit. I ask members of the House whether they really think that

March 19, 1975
Petro-Canada
Canada should be involved in some kind of auction with other countries to see which country can give the best tax structure and the biggest incentives to oil companies, because if we enter into that situation all we will do is ensure artificially high returns to those companies and we will certainly not be acting in the best interests of the people whom we represent.
Also, if we are to accept the arguments put forward by the opposition, it could well be that in moving the Canadian price to the world price we would find that Canadians would be paying a higher price for their own resource than Americans, for the same energy. It would be paradoxical for us, as the exporter of oil to the United States, to be paying more for our domestic oil than would be the case with the people to whom we are exporting it.
The amounts we are talking about are not small, because when we were considering in committee the question of the involvement of the government in Syncrude-I think I am quoting the figures correctly-we were told that the expected world price of oil will probably be about $13.50 per barrel by 1978, around $15 by 1984, and perhaps as high as $30 by the year 2000. Therefore, if we are talking about leaving it entirely to the discretion of the industry and allowing oil to work its way up to the world price, that is the kind of impact there will be on Canadians and on the Canadian industrial base.
I was somewhat amazed by the point of view put forward earlier today by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) when he was making his critique of Crown corporations. If we followed his point of view we would have a wonderful country for those people surrounded by the golden horseshoe, where there is much prosperity. But I ask him, what about equal opportunity for all Canadians; and in expressing that point of view does he really care about those who do not have the opportunities of Canadians who live in areas of prosperity?
Canadians should be very proud of the role Crown corporations have played in the development of this country. The efficiency and profitability of a Crown corporation versus a private concern could be argued, but do not forget that the Crown corporation, essentially, is established in the majority of cases to benefit the whole of Canada and to operate in areas where it is not profitable for private companies to do so, or to do so at a rate which people in those areas can afford. I refer to the excellent job done by the CNR, Air Canada, and other Crown corporations.
If the point of view expressed earlier today had been followed in the past we would not now have the Atomic Energy Commission of Canada. In terms of the entire energy question which we are considering, I think we would have very real concern about the future if it were not for the excellent work of that commission. Outstanding people with leadership qualities have taken a strong stand on the whole question, and today under the commission's licence we have some of the best technology anywhere in the world with regard to energy. I hope this will be the role Petro-Canada will play.
I disagreed strongly with the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) who said the other evening that we
[Mr. Milne. 1
should just re-fund Panarctic and let it fool around in a small area of the far north. The purpose of Petro-Canada is to be a major factor in the petroleum industry within Canada, and in doing so to be staffed with strong leadership people who will work for the benefit of all the people we are trying to help.
I would like to say a word about the position put forward by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) in terms of our involvement in Syncrude. He said the government should have taken over total control of Syncrude and moved quickly to nationalize a large corporation such as Exxon. In reply to that, I think there is only so much money the government has at its disposal and it is a question of where to spend it in order to get the most leverage. If those two projects were undertaken on the basis put forward by the New Democratic Party, then what financial strength would we have in the future to meet the next energy situation which comes along? I think we want to participate one way or another in a large number of projects on a joint venture basis, rather than invest totally in one or two and then be unable to participate in the rest.
As I visualize Petro-Can, I take issue with much of the viewpoint put forward on the opposite side whereby Petro-Can is being painted as an organization which will muscle out the present industry; that it will be the biggest competitor, and so on. Surely the basic role of Petro-Can will be in the area of joint venture, where it is deemed in the public interest that certain developments should take place and at a certain rate. That would be where Petro-Can would be involved, and presumably on most occasions involved on a joint venture basis rather than as a basic competitor of any of the individual companies.
I think there are some pretty strong precedents set by governments not only in this country but other countries-certainly by provincial governments-for government having a strong role in this area. After all, when the United States was experiencing real difficulty under President Roosevelt, the way out of that difficulty was to establish the Tennessee Valley Authority, which I think most members of this House would agree is a very strong economic development tool.
Nearly all the provincial governments, regardless of their political faith, have moved to set up provincial commissions for hydroelectric power. They have done so because they are concerned about equal opportunity for all the people within the province and they are concerned about having power at the lowest possible cost upon which to build an industrial base.
We are talking about the tremendously escalating cost of energy in the future; we are talking about oil which may cost $30 a barrel by the year 2000. Because of this, if ever there was a time for the government to move for protection against that eventuality, to establish a strong Canadian base in the petroleum industry and to have some influence in that area, the time is certainly now.
I would think that one of the very strong points-and hon. members should realize this-for Petro-Can is in terms of holding the licence for technology. Whoever controls technology really controls the game, and if Petro-Can has enough technology under its licence it may very well be possible to join people not even associated with the
March 19, 1975

petroleum industry in some development aspects because Petro-Can can contribute the technology and the other concerns can perhaps contribute the majority of the financing.
I would think that through Petro-Can the government would want to participate where and when necessary, and by having a large amount of technology under its licence it would be possible for Petro-Can to get a great deal of leverage for a small amount of investment. I hope Petro-Can will move very quickly to assemble a group of highly qualified people. We are operating in a very difficult industry, one which requires extremely competent people, and I think it is not easy to have this expertise without being actively involved in the field. By having these people working for Petro-Can the government will have a much tighter grip on the petroleum industry and a better understanding of it.
I hope, also, that Petro-Can, along with the government, will be able to take a very broad look at the entire energy situation. I think one of the major problems here is that projects are going forward when they should, and perhaps there is the problem of too many projects going ahead at the same time. As the hon. member from Fort William has mentioned on a number of occasions, the real necessity if that these projects be staged. I think this would require, under Petro-Can, motivating some and perhaps not participating in others, so that we have a good input in terms of how the projects are coming on stream.
As the hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Maine) said in his speech last night, there is very grave concern about the absence of research under Canadian auspices carried out by the petroleum industry. That should be a major role for Petro-Can. If research is totally foreign-controlled, I do not think we will have the leverage we should.
I want to make a few comments in taking up the challenge of hon. members opposite that government members are not speaking in support of this bill. Of all the bills we will be introducing in the initial part of this thirtieth parliament, Madam Speaker, I think this is one of the most important. I should like to ask hon. members opposite where some of their own members from Ontario and the maritimes stand on this bill. I have not seen many of them stand up and oppose Petro-Can in the way that the official lobbyists from Calgary have been doing. I should like to see members from Ontario and the maritimes stand up and be counted so that their constituents can evaluate how they feel about Petro-Can.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. The hon. member for Frontenac-Lennox and Addington (Mr. Alkenbrack) on a point of order.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend asked if there are any members from Ontario who will stand up against this bill. I am one, and I expect to speak against it and vote against it if I have the opportunity.


Mr. Cullen:: Let's vote.


William Ross Milne: Madam Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that we are prepared to vote on this issue at any
Petro-Canada
point. I conclude by saying that I think Petro-Can is vitally important. I think the relationship that the government will have with the petroleum industry through Petro-Can will be a healthy one and in the best interests of all Canadians.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Madam Speaker, I listened to the hon. member for Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Milne) very closely because I wanted to know why he felt the bill was an important piece of legislation. He talked about the government having control over the oil industry and over energy. Certainly, the government has demonstrated its control over the oil industry and energy without having a national oil company. The hon. member talked about Petro-Can having to put together a team of technological experts who could entice money from the private sector. He said that he hoped Petro-Can would gather such people around it, and gave a long, rambling dissertation but failed to point out any need whatsoever for the bill. That is the only conclusion I can come to after listening to him.
The history of nationalized oil companies is of great interest. The British government established British Petroleum and took 50 per cent ownership to assure an oil supply for its navy. At that time it was not thought there was any oil in Great Britain and they wanted a company of their own to explore in the Middle East and off their shores. Aquatane was formed for similar reasons by the French government, to explore off their shores. Most national oil companies that have had any success have been formed to do the exploration outside the boundaries of their country. This government, however, is setting up a national oil company to do exploration and development with, I suppose, a chain of refineries and selling mechanisms throughout Canada, eventually. I suppose the exploration is to be done mainly within Canada, although that point has not been clarified.
An interesting argument has taken place, regarding oil and energy, in this House and across the country in the last couple of years. Canada has never had a huge amount of proven reserves in relation to total world supply. Many people think that Alberta is rich in oil and that Canada should have enough oil for years and years to come. Without taking the tar sands into consideration, the known reserves of conventional oil in Canada are very small indeed in relation to total world supply and world needs. What enticed international and Canadian companies to explore in Alberta in the last number of years was the stability of this country's government and the manner in which exploration units, Canadian or otherwise, could operate due to the stability of the economic climate. They felt their investment was safer here than in the Middle East, Indonesia, Mexico, South America or some other places where there was greater known potential.
In the last four years, however, the Liberal government has pretty well destroyed that stable economic climate for the oil industry. It is no wonder that we see consternation amongst Canadian and international oil companies and the international finance which has to support these companies in exploration. They are now somewhat reluctant to invest in exploration in Canada. Why, and how, did this come about, and what are our reserves?
A great argument developed in Canada in recent years about Alberta's known reserves and whether they

Petro-Canada
belonged to Canada or to Alberta. In my opinion that question was needless: the reserves belong to Canada. The Fathers of Confederation stated quite clearly that our natural resources can best be looked after by the government closest to the resource. By "looked after" I mean that the government closest to the resource can best gauge the time for development and the quantity to be developed. For the services that the developing government must provide, it could and should be expected to take a royalty.
That was really what the Fathers of Confederation said, and I think it is the way most Canadians feel today. The resources belong to Canada and they are to be developed and managed by the government closest to the resource, whether it be coal in Cape Breton, coal in British Columbia or uranium in Ontario. It is a resource to be developed, the time for its development and the quantity to be developed is to be determined by the government closest to it, and a royalty charge for the facilities necessary for development is to be charged as an expense to the resource development company.
In his budget, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) changed all that and stated that the royalty charged by the province will no longer be allowed as an expense to the resource development company. That destroyed a little bit of the economic climate that used to exist in Canada. Prior to that the OPEC nations, acting as a cartel, forced up the world price of oil. What did the federal government do? It must have known that oil exploration is a costly business, that oil which is easiest to find is found first and that which is harder to develop comes on stream at a later stage of the process. It is logical to assume that oil is still to be found in this country but that its development will be a costly process. Responding to the move of the OPEC nations, the government put a ceiling on oil prices in this country. Prices went from $1.19 per barrel to $4, and then to $6.50. After the next first ministers' meeting which is to be on April 1, oil prices may or may not go up again.
If the minister had the best interests of Canada at heart, he ought to have said that in order to encourage stability in the oil industry Canadian oil sold domestically would sell for less than the international price, but that its price would be the equivalent of 50 per cent, 75 per cent, or what you will, of the international price. At least the oil industry in Canada should have known what to expect. Prices could have adjusted automatically. As it is, Canadian and foreign-owned oil companies are at the mercy of the government. Our vital resources should not be administered in such an erratic manner.
Perhaps the government could afford to pursue its present course if our oil supplies were ample; but they are not ample. We are not possessed of ample crude oil reserves-let me put it that way. We have destroyed the confidence of the industry and harmed our chances for being self-sufficient in oil. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) said, according to an article in the Toronto Star of February 20, that we shall need to spend $100 billion to make Canada self-sufficient in oil by the year 2000. Yet he has done his best to chase exploration money from this country as quickly as possible. I am not talking about multinational oil companies; I am talking about Canadian oil companies which have

taken their money out of this country: they are looking for oil and gas in the United States and in the North Sea.
The actions of the government, particularly of the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, have encouraged Canadian money to leave this country; and one of those ministers had the gall to say that we shall need to spend $100 billion on energy if this country is to be self-sufficient in energy by the year 2000. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources made several mistakes. In April, 1970, he disallowed royalties in connection with exploration north of the sixtieth parallel. All kinds of oil companies which have staked out leases in our northland do not know how much royalty the federal government will want if and when oil for which they are exploring comes on stream. Government policy deliberately forced many companies to abandon exploration holes they had drilled north of the sixtieth parallel. What is the result? By 1977 this country will not produce enough gas to supply Ontario, Montreal and parts of the United States. By 1978 we shall begin cutting down on oil exports as we shall not have enough oil to meet our own requirements. The National Energy Board said that by 1982 we shall become a net importer of oil.
There is no need for Canada to be in this position. The government is responsible. Our largest known reserves of oil are in the tar sands. What did the government and the minister do that was wrong in connection with the tar sands?


Otto Emil Lang: Nothing.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am glad to note someone is listening.


Otto Emil Lang: Glad and surprised.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Let me list four ways in which the government was wrong. First, it said that the price of tar sands oil would be frozen or controlled. You cannot treat tar sands oil in the way you treat conventional oil. It is not the same; it needs costly machinery for extraction and the extraction process is work-intensive. Common sense should tell you that when you embark on a project which will take many man-hours to complete and which requires large quantities of expensive machinery, the end price, given the inflationary conditions of the past two years, will go up. That is exactly what happens. This holds true if you are developing a conventional oil well or tar sands oil. The government decided to freeze the price of conventional oil. That was a political decision. It should have said that tar sands oil will be sold at the world price. It did not say this even though it knew that we were living in inflationary times and that the project would need a great deal of expensive machinery. This omission was its first mistake.
Its second mistake was this: it did not say that the Syncrude ground rules would apply to every company seeking to develop the tar sands. The government had to include the Great Canadian Oil Sands company in the Syncrude-type guidelines; the company was already in operation and the government had no choice. The government made special royalty provisions for Syncrude, provisions which it did not extend to other parties which might seek to develop the tar sands.

The National Energy Board said that a new tar sands project should come on stream every two years. Home Oil, a Canadian oil company a majority shareholder of which is Consumers' Gas of Toronto, asked the government for concessions similar to those given to Syncrude. The government refused but said it would work out a deal with the company. You cannot expect companies to compete with one another but not work under the same ground rules. The government's mistake was in not laying down rules which would apply to every company seeking to develop the tar sands. The same rules should apply to royalties and tax limits. Rules applying in the same way to all the companies would greatly have enhanced the prospects for the future development of the tar sands.
The next mistake which was made in connection with the tar sands project applied particularly to Syncrude. The government should have said, "We shall allow a company which comes in to develop an oil extraction plant in the tar sands to export a percentage of that oil." Why? It was because we needed foreign money for the development of these tar sands in our own interest. The minister might have said to Atlantic Richfield, "For every two barrels you get out of the tar sands you will be able to export one." In those circumstances perhaps Atlantic Richfield might have been able to raise the necessary capital in the United States and elsewhere. Instead, the minister closed off export opportunities.
The Japanese for some time have been interested in the Canadian tar sands but we have effectively discouraged them from coming in and taking part in this venture. The Japanese are dependent on imports to meet all their energy needs; they take about 17 per cent of total OPEC exports so they are obviously very interested in access to a source of energy. The Japanese would gladly invest in the tar sands project provided some formula were reached which warranted the use of their money to benefit Canada and Canadians as well as their own particular interest. The government has only itself to blame when it finds Canada likely to run short of oil in the relatively near future.
One only has to look at any geological study of the region to see where the best potential for future oil discoveries lies. A while ago I mentioned the regulations which were discontinued on April 10 concerning future exploration north of the 60th parallel. Mr. Speaker, that area is very important because it is still solely under the jurisdiction of the federal government. Most geologists agree, on the basis of seismic studies, that the delta area of the Mackenzie River and the Beaufort Sea, where you find the tertiary land formation, are the areas in which most of the possibilities lie. I might point out that something like 70 per cent of the world supply is found in this type of land formation. The Venezuelan oil fields and the recent find in Mexico come to mind in this connection. The only Canadian region in which such a formation occurs is in the Arctic.
The Prudhoe Bay find most likely extends right out into the Beaufort Sea and includes the Mackenzie River delta. Yet we have discouraged exploration there. It is true that some companies are still exploring in the territory, but they are doing so only in order to hold on to their leases.
Petro-Canada
Will Petro-Canada or another government-controlled company be able to do any better than Panarctic which is already operating in the Arctic? That is the question which the hon. member for Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe should really try to answer when he talks to his constituents, the Liberals he meets in the town halls.
As I say, our best potential is in the high Arctic, the delta of the Mackenzie River, and the Beaufort Sea. Panarctic is already up there and it is 45 per cent owned by the government of Canada. This 45 per cent gives the federal government control over the entire operation of Panarctic as well as the power to veto any proposed operation, or any change of the mix of shareholders. Thus, Canada's best potential lies in an area over which the federal government already has control, and in which a government controlled consortium is already operating. I fail to see why another petroleum corporation should be needed in these circumstances.
I do not believe any major oil company has the slightest fear of competing with a government owned oil company. I would certainly regard a private company as being poor operators if they feared competition from a government corporation. It is not fear of competition which arises here; it is fear of an unfair ball game. In the last four years, particularly in the last two years, we have seen continual changes in the regulations governing exploration for oil in Canada.
The government is now attempting to argue that the creation of a public petroleum corporation will instill greater confidence into the oil industry. It will do nothing of the kind. We shall not be able to entice oil companies to resume exploration in Canada on the previous scale, or induce them to increase the pace of exploration if we set up a Canadian exploration company to engage in operations of its own in this field. The atmosphere the government created, an atmosphere of distrust, will further encourage the companies to stay in the North Sea, or the United States, or somewhere else.
I note that the bill makes provision for a capital structure of around $500 million, which is a mere drop in the bucket when measured against the $100 billion the minister said it would cost to ensure that Canada is self-sufficient in energy supplies between now and the year 2,000. Rather than create uncertainty and concentration among the exploration companies we should now be moving to create a better economic climate to encourage exploration in Canada.
We are more knowledgeable than we were at the time the world oil crisis first started and the OPEC nations realized they had a monopoly and could set prices. The experts said that the OPEC nations would lower their price for oil to about half of what the price increased to eventually. The price quickly shot up to $12 or $14 a barrel, but the experts said that by the fall of 1974 the OPEC nations would back off and would sell oil at somewhere in the neighbourhood of $6 a barrel.
The OPEC nations held meeting after meeting, and then told the world that one of their key problems was their desire to protect their endowment over the long run against inflation and currency devaluation. They have

March 19, 1975
Petro-Canada
said that they will hold the present world price of oil if the oil importing nations will give them some assurance that their currencies will not be further devalued. So we must realize that the OPEC nations have no intention of lowering the world price of oil, and we should adjust our economy accordingly.
Is this bill to set up Petro-Canada and to give it authority to enter the hydrocarbons industry really necessary? Under Polysar the petrochemical industry has been expanded, so this bill is not required from that aspect. There is no question that Canada will be in need of money to supply Canadians with their energy requirements. Right now in the Arctic, feasibility and environmental studies are taking place before the Berger commission which is inquiring into the possibility of building a Mackenzie valley gas pipe line. So far as the all Canadian route is concerned, commonly known as the maple leaf route, the Foothills Gas Company estimates the project will cost Canadians $4 billion.


An hon. Member:: Terrible!


An hon. Member:: Shame!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I hear hon. members saying terrible and shame, but I do not think they are taking this debate very seriously. It is their government that has contributed to this increased cost by allowing inflation to run rampant.
Is this the best way of spending $500 million to ensure that Canadians will have ample energy supplies in the years ahead? I do not think it is. I think it will create greater fears in regard to oil exploration. It will cause more private capital to leave Canada and not return, because investors will be afraid of the ground rules the government is laying down.
From time to time we see greater demand for revenues from the oil and gas industry. Off the east coast near Sable Island there is estimated to be about one trillion cubic feet of gas. The oil companies are not interested in extracting this gas because the small quantity, and the oil royalties demanded by the provinces make it uneconomic. Further possibilities of exploration for gas lie in the north off Labrador, and these are very good indeed. But here again the government has been negligent in working out agreements with the province of Newfoundland as to which government has authority off the coast of Labrador.
There is much the government can do to create a better climate for energy exploration, and this would go a long way toward bringing more money back from the private sector to the energy exploration area. This bill will only discourage such capital flow.
It is estimated that in the Mackenzie River delta there are eight to 12 trillion cubic feet of gas reserves at the present time. It is estimated that Panarctic has found about 12 trillion cubic feet of gas in what is commonly called the high Arctic. It is believed that if a gas pipe line could be built down the Mackenzie valley, then further exploration would take place and greater reserves would be revealed. In fact optimistic estimates of the possible reserves in the high Arctic are in the neighbourhood of 150 trillion cubic feet.

With all this gas, Madam Speaker, one wonders whether we will be deficient in the supply of gas by 1977 or 1978. But we have witnessed the short-sighted policies of this government, and this Petro-Can bill is just one more. It may satisfy the political aspirations of some of the minister's backbenchers, but it will not satisfy the need of all Canadians across Canada for sufficient supplies of energy to heat their homes, their factories, and to supply the furnaces in steel and other industries.
It is often said that there is a lot of natural gas in Alberta. We are using our natural gas at the rate of roughly 2.3 trillion cubic feet a year. Alberta has reserves in the neighbourhood of 70 trillion cubic feet, though these have yet to reach the marketable state. Some socialists believe that the known gas reserves in what might be called the Suffield area of southeastern Alberta will bail us out of any short term difficulties in which we find ourselves. There are about three trillion cubic feet of gas reserves in the Suffield area, less than one year's supply. So if anyone thinks that rapid drilling for this gas will immediately alleviate the shortfall that we see ahead of us in 1977 and 1978, they are just kidding themselves and nobody else.
In addition there is in this area what is commonly referred to as the British block. There is an experimental research area there of huge dimensions where, from time to time, the army explodes some dynamite, blows a hole in the ground, and determines how much dynamite is needed to penetrate the earth to a certain distance-it is about that simple. They test-fire a few rockets in that area as well, along with small arms artillery. I point this out because this testing takes place under contract with the British government. There are no publicly known negotiations taking place to end this sort of exploration in that area. You cannot go out and explore for natural gas with that kind of experimental testing of firearms, dynamite, and the like going on. Everyone knows the fire potential of a gas and oil exploration area.
Somewhere down the line we have to make a decision in respect of this $100 billion energy bill and how best it should be met so that we are not left with a deficiency of energy. Part of that money should go toward encouraging further development of our most potential areas such as the Mackenzie River delta and the Beaufort Sea. The fastest and easiest way to encourage more development there is to move forward in an orderly manner with the development of the Mackenzie River delta area.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Madam Speaker, I consider it a privilege to take part in this debate on such an important matter as Bill C-8 dealing with this country's energy economy.
Today's Montreal Gazette carries an article under the heading "As Oil Era Ends-What Lies Ahead?" It refers to the latest report of the Science Council of Canada. I suggest it is a very informative article. The council suggested some time ago that we must re-orient ourselves from a consumer society to a conserver society. The council implies that as we approach the end of the oil era we must put more effort into learning the techniques for using the energy of the sun, the tides, energy from hydro-
March 19, 1975

gen, from waste, and from biological and many other sources. The minister and the government are a bit late with Bill C-8, and they are 20 years too late with PetroCan.
It was very interesting to hear the hon. member for Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Milne) ask a few minutes ago if there were any PC members in the opposition who were against this bill. I am one member who is against this bill because it will not increase our oil supplies one bit. In fact it may hamper discoveries and decrease our supplies and prospects. I am one member from Ontario who believes that, whatever our future, Ontario will be able to obtain its share of Canada's energy supplies, just as will other provinces, regions and territories. I suggest the hon. member for Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe is subverting the energy and economic interests of his riding to the Liberal party.
Several things have occurred recently outside this House that are a source of embarrassment not only to the government but to this whole body. This proposed oil company, Petro-Can, is just another government white elephant. It is another repository for Liberal patronage, defeated Liberal candidates very likely, and could even become-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: I hear hon. members shouting across the way. I guess they cannot stand the truth. This could become the cause and the agent for more Liberal corruption, corruption which is so rampant and embarrassing lately, both here in Ottawa and in some of those provinces governed by Liberal governments.
The purpose of Bill C-8, if passed, is to establish a Crown owned corporation with the authority to engage in all phases of an integrated energy company operating in Canada as well as in foreign countries. The corporation can engage in all normal energy-related company activities in addition to activities which it may deem expedient for, or conducive to, the furtherance of the objects of the corporation.
Although not specifically stated in the proposed bill, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) will run the corporation. The chairman of the board, the president and directors, and replacements as they become necessary, will be appointed by the Governor in Council, and evidently the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Thus it is clear that the minister will run the whole show.
The corporation will receive initial authorized capital totalling $500 million in return for 100 common shares. The initial subscription will come from the consolidated revenue fund administered by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), in other words, right from the pockets of the taxpayers. The shares of the corporation are not transferable, so no one will be allowed to buy any stock in this company. The shares are to be held by the Minister of Finance in trust for the government; thus the government is the sole owner.
As mentioned, the powers of the corporation are extremely wide and provide for a great variety of endeavours not necessarily dealing with hydrocarbons or
Grain Shipments
energy. The corporation may obtain additional money from the Crown, or it can borrow and issue debentures on the open market, guaranteed, or not, by the Crown. For the purpose of the act the corporation will be an agent of the government, and consequently any property acquired by it will be the property of the government. The corporation will be bound by all laws and natural resource conservation regulations of any province in which it operates.
The corporation may purchase the federal government interest in the PanArctic Company, under certain conditions, and all dividends payable will be paid to the Crown. However, there is no mention in the bill that the corporation is to be run as a profitable venture. There are certain provisions in the Canada Corporations Act which this corporation does not need to obey, such as those in respect of selection of directors, bylaws, books of the company, notices, etc. May I call it six o'clock, Madam Speaker.


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Duvernay (Mr. Demers) that the debate be now adjourned.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Does the House
agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock tonight, at which time, I would remind hon. members, the House will proceed to the question of work stoppages affecting grain shipments, pursuant to Standing Order 26.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The President of the Treasury Board.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, as you know tonight we have some problems. We have a debate scheduled in the House and a good hockey game on television. I did not want to disturb anyone's evening, so we settled the strike two minutes ago.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I did not want to make a joke-

Grain Shipments


Gerald William Baldwin: Which one did you settle?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The PSAC strike has been settled. I did not want to say that before or play any games with anybody. This afternoon at two o'clock we were making good progress. I did not say anything because I did not want to disturb the chance of having a settlement. We have signed a contract for 26 months. A joint press conference is being held between the unions and the negotiator for the Treasury Board at the present time. The terms will be announced there. It is for 26 months, and I hope it is a good deal for both parties.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Now I do not know whether we are to have this debate or not.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Sure, we are going to have the debate.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I do not mind, but we could adjourn it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) on a point of order.


John Allen Fraser: Not on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Could I have the attention of the House in order to put the motion? The motion moved pursuant to Standing Order 26 is as follows: Mr. Fraser, seconded by Mr. Stanfield, moves-
That this nouse do now adjourn.
The hon. member for Vancouver South.


John Allen Fraser: Thank you. Mr. Soeaker-


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) rises on a point of order.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, there are two requests I should like to make of you. The first is that you read again the motion of the hon. member to indicate the reason for the motion. I believe it is a matter concerning the strike. Now that the minister has told us the strike has been settled I would suggest his motion is not in order.


Gerald William Baldwin: Nonsense.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is essentially the same as that raised by the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear1


Stanley Howard Knowles: I realize that technically under the terms of Standing Order 26 Your Honour has been quite correct in simply reading the motion, namely, "that this House do now adjourn," but in view of the fact that this is based on a provision of Standing Order 26 I wonder whether it would not be appropriate for you to read the terms of the request made this afternoon so that we will know why we are debating a

motion to adjourn the House. It just could be that the whole matter is now a nullity.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Both hon. members will understand that a decision was made concerning the adjournment of the House tonight for the purpose of discussing a specific matter. Of course I was hoping that the House would express its wish and make a decision concerning whether or not we should pursue this debate.
In any case I think hon. members-and I want to warn hon. members about this-might find it difficult to follow the rule of relevance because the debate is on a specific matter, which is the stoppage of the movement of grain and the operations in the western harbours. If hon. members wish to carry on the debate there is no way I can prevent them doing so. However, I wish they would indicate to me a solution to the present situation.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, there is no question but that the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser), in a very well thought out and well conceived manner, for the benefit of this House and the country brought forward a motion today dealing with a specific issue which still remains a problem in this country. It is because he did so, with the understanding of the Speaker who granted the motion, that we have seen the little tableau played out in front of us where the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) sent out the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) with instructions to reach a settlement. He could have done that weeks ago.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Gerald William Baldwin: I suggest to Your Honour and to this House that the best thing that could happen is that the government should be subjected to the salutary discipline of listening to members of this House make speeches which will draw the problem to the attention of this House and the country. I think it is a great service that the hon. member for Vancouver South has performed for this country.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to say that I think it is unfortunate that the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) suggested that there is only recent concern by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) in connection with this matter. To the contrary, he has been extremely cognizant of the problem.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: He has been extremely conscious of the problem faced in particular by the grain industry, and he has been aware of the pressure. That, of course, always makes negotiations very difficult.
I think that there is a problem in connection with the debate tonight in addition to the problem of relevance and I would like hon. members to reflect upon it. It is the fact that this strike having been settled, there is about to be a vote in connection with another matter that may be said to relate pretty directly to the question, and it might be

unfortunate if the question of ratification and negotiations in the other strike, which has effectively help up grain shipments through that period of time, were in any way influenced or prejudiced by the debate tonight.
Perhaps hon. members might consider the fact that there might be another appropriate occasion to debate at length what was originally going to be before the House. I know the feelings of hon. members opposite on this matter, and I would like to put forward two suggestions in the absence of a chance to discuss the matter among the parties. One is that we might adjourn briefly in order to have such a discussion and then return, and the other alternative is for us to have simply one round of speeches on the subject and then let the matter go. I think either of those suggestions would be in the real interest of making sure that labour matters are settled in the normal fashion without undue interference from here, and I put those two suggestions before hon. members opposite for their due consideration.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I presume the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) spoke on the point of order, although he seemed to be debating the matter. His Honour, Mr. Speaker, made a ruling this afternoon, but hon. members opposite seem to be thrashing around a great deal to avoid a discussion on this matter. May I point out, with all due respect, that the House has taken a position, and despite all the obstruction on the other side this position should be maintained and the debate should proceed.


Mr. Alexander:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak on this facetious point of order that was raised by the other side.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I think that what we are talking about here, Sir, if I have the right motion before me-I am just reading from the particulars that were submitted to your Honour this afternoon-


An hon. Member:: Make the point.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: We listened to you, why don't you listen to us? What is the problem?


An hon. Member:: Say something.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Shut up for a minute and give me a chance.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Give me a chance. I know, Mr. Speaker, that you know your duty and that you will bring to order hon. members who are ranting and raving before another hon. member has even had the opportunity to speak. The motion indicates that because of the present work stoppages-I know what those words mean-which have ended all grain shipments from Canada, this is an important matter requiring urgent consideration. In view of the intent of that motion we can not only consider the present but also look into the future.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Grain Shipments


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I invite the hon. member to come to the point of order that has been raised. The question is whether or not this debate should be pursued, not the substance and the value of the motion that has been put, but its procedural acceptability. So far as the decision of the Chair is concerned, I have based my decision on Standing Order 26(13). I see no way other than the withdrawal of the motion, thus ending the debate, or to conclude the debate.
My interpretation of Standing Order 26(13) is very clear. Perhaps another hon. member can find another solution, but I do not think that there is any other way out of this situation unless it is done by unanimous consent. But there does not seem to be unanimous consent.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I am glad you came to my rescue, Sir, because you took the words right out of my mouth.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: This motion refers to the collection, movement, and loading of grain. You have made your ruling early this afternoon and I respectfully suggest that the ruling should be observed.


Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to comment on the question of relevance. This debate which we have requested is part of the request on the part of the official opposition to get at the facts regarding the continuous stoppages in the movement of grain to markets.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Last week I asked the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) whether he would name a date when the contract of the foremen's union ended, and he said that he did not want to discuss it in view of the discussions which were going on at that time. I maintain that this motion which was accepted today deals with all the work stoppages which have occurred, are occurring, and will occur at the end of this month. The motion therefore is entirely relevant.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member is debating the substance of the motion proposed by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser). A point of order was raised by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) regarding the procedure in this extraordinary situation in which we find ourselves. I would hope hon. members might limit their remarks to this. So far as the rule of relevance is concerned, the Chair will decide in due time. The hon. member must take into account that what we are discussing right now is whether or not this debate should proceed. There has been one point of order raised on top of another point of order, and we should hear those as quickly as possible, following which 1 will call on the hon. member for Vancouver South, unless someone proposes another solution.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, I was the one to raise the point of order in the first place. Now I would like to say to you, Sir, that my point of order contained two questions, one of which you have not answered. I abide by

Grain Shipments
your ruling with regard to Standing Order 26, but you have not answered my other question which concerns the reading to hon. members of the notice of motion before the House, because we do not have copies of it. I am not able to get a copy of it and therefore I would like to know what the motion is. I believe I am entitled to request that it be read.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. To answer the point raised by the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay), the only motion we have before us at this time is the one moved by the hon. member for Vancouver South and seconded by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), "that this House do now adjourn." The substance which was used to obtain the adjournment of the House was the argument put forward by the hon. member for Vancouver South which has defined the subject matter, but the exact motion before the House at this time is the adjournment on that subject matter. With the consent of hon. members, I would agree to read the substance of the argument which was put by the hon. member, and upon which he did obtain the leave of the House and the decision of Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that His Honour, Mr. Speaker, this afternoon granted this debate tonight, and he did so under the provisions of Standing Order 26, having been persuaded by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) that there was a serious and critical situation which required the attention of the House. But I draw the attention of Your Honour to Standing Order 26, paragraph (16) which reads in part as follows:
The right to move the adjournment of the House for the above purposes is subject to the following conditions:
(a) The matter proposed for discussion must relate to a genuine
emergency, calling for immediate and urgent consideration;


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I submit that this afternoon, when Mr. Speaker dealt with this matter, he recognized that there was a genuine emergency calling for immediate and urgent consideration. We are now informed that that emergency, which was the basis of this motion, namely, the strike of certain employees who come under federal government jurisdiction, has been settled.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I submit that it is not to the point for the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton), for example, to say that what is involved is the whole question of strikes which may come at the end of the month. His Honour, Mr. Speaker, would not have allowed this motion this afternoon on the basis of strikes which might take place in the future. It seems to me that if my hon. friends to the right were really smart, they would be stating that their having called for this debate this afternoon was the action which induced the government to settle the strike. They should be happy to let this debate end, and I submit that, if Your Honour allows it to go ahead, in view of the changed conditions there will not only be troubles with relevancy

but we will be debating a nullity. The Public Service Alliance strike has been settled.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: We do not now
have before us what we had this afternoon, a genuine emergency calling for an immediate and urgent consideration.
I will make one other point based on the rules, and it is to the effect that a subject like this can be dealt with only once in a session, and if we have this debate tonight and then, in a few days from now-


Mr.   Homer@: Oh, no, that is wrong.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just a minute. If we have this debate tonight, and in a few days the longshoremen's strike is not settled and my hon. friends try again to move an adjournment to discuss the same situation, the movement of grain on the west coast, they will be stymied by their own action tonight.


Mr. Woolliams:: Where is your farm vote?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, several times this afternoon I have taken, on a personal basis, the liberty of saying to ministers of the Crown, "For heaven's sake, get the strike settled this afternoon; then we will not need the debate".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: They have done it, and on the point of order I submit that the situation tonight is not the same as it was this afternoon, and this debate should not now proceed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The last remarks of the hon. gentleman were more to convince his colleagues than to convince the Chair. I invited hon. members to speak to the point of order on the procedural aspect of this problem, and nothing as yet has helped me to change my decision.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I rise to deal with the explicit point of order raised by Your Honour and other hon. members with regard to the question before us under Standing Order 26. Naturally I am joyful that some partial settlement has been reached, and I am pleased that we on this side of the House precipitated the government's reaching that decision.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr.   Homer@: But there is one particular point I would like to deal with, which was partly acknowledged this afternoon. I am sure Your Honour was in the House on that occasion. I raised the question of the outdated grain handling facilities on the west coast of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!
March 19, 1975


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I hear the cry, Mr. Speaker. Those hon. members were also in the House this afternoon, and they might have heard my remarks. I raised the question with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) about whether the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications could go out and examine those outdated handling facilities on the west coast. At that time Mr. Speaker ruled that that question was relevant to the debate tonight and could be proceeded with tonight, and he disallowed my question this afternoon. The whole purport of His Honour's ruling under Standing Order 26 was to allow us to deal with an aggravation over the failure of the product of the prairies to meet the export demand in the world, and I say to Your Honour, on the very point of order raised, that two important points can be debated tonight which still have to do with this problem: the public service strike, which was a rotating strike-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I think that we have to end this procedural debate and that a decision should be made. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) did raise a point of order with reference to Standing Order 26 (16) (a), which reads as follows:
The matter proposed for discussion must relate to a genuine emergency, calling for immediate and urgent consideration;
I must bring to the attention of the hon. member the fact that this is defined as one of the conditions for obtaining permission to move the adjournment of the House. The House has already taken that step, and Mr. Speaker has made a decision. I invite the hon. member to look-but not to answer the Chair at this time-at paragraph (13) of Standing Order 26, and I invite him to try to find in it a way to stop the debate after it has started.
As far as the Chair is concerned, a debate has been allowed this afternoon by Mr. Speaker under the provisions of Standing Order 26. I do not see how I can prevent the debate except by unanimous consent of the House, or unless I am satisfied that the debate is completed because no hon. member wishes to speak, or unless the hon. member for Vancouver South withdraws his motion. I have not seen any of these three alternatives which could give me the opportunity to adjourn the debate at this time, so I call upon the hon. member for Vancouver South.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise tonight to start this debate. In doing so I want to congratulate the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) for his endeavours in settling the strike.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Allen Fraser: I also want to congratulate the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) for having played such a decisive part in bringing this happy event to fruition this evening. I do not share very much with the hon. member, but I might be forgiven some modesty, in view of the fact that people are lining up to take credit for the settlement, if I could come in somewhere toward the
Grain Shipments
tail end of that line, somewhere behind the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Don't be too modest. You are first.


John Allen Fraser: I think, too, that considerable credit for settling the strike is due to people on both negotiating teams. I am sure all members of the House would join me in congratulating them, for they have striven mightily over the last several weeks.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Allen Fraser: The grain is not yet moving, however.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: And Otto laughs.


Otto Emil Lang: Well, John is so sad.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: He should be.


John Allen Fraser: The situation which is faced in the country is the fact-


Otto Emil Lang: It will be moving tomorrow.


John Allen Fraser: I wonder if the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) would just listen for a moment. I was going to relate to the House some of the events that led up to this evening, and I would hope they concern the Minister of Justice.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Better speak up pretty loudly; he is rather deaf.


John Allen Fraser: On February 26, my colleague the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Stewart) put a question to the Minister of Justice in his capacity as minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. The question, at page 3600
of Hansard, reads:
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice in his capacity as Minister of Justice in his capacity as minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. In view of the fact that there are approximately 14,000 boxcars locked in the prairies because of the current public service strike and, because there are about 28 ships now waiting in Vancouver harbour with escalating demurrage charges being calculated on a daily basis, would the minister indicate to the House whether he has formulated any contingency plan for the movement of this export grain in an effort to ensure that Canada's international reputation as a grain supplier is not subject to further humiliation?
Listen to the comforting answer of the minister:
Mr. Speaker, a number of plans are being looked at, both in connection with the immediate period and also in connection with an attempt to catch up as quickly as possible when conditions return to normal.
It would seem to be appropriate tonight, Mr. Speaker, now that the Minister of Justice is in a more ebullient mood, for him to come before the House and tell us what plans he had in mind on February 26 when there were 28 ships in Vancouver harbour and 14,000 boxcars locked in the prairies. Perhaps the minister can tell us how many ships are in Vancouver harbour now. If he cannot, then there are a number of citizens in the city I come from who could inform him that there are approximately 40 ships
4272

March 19, 1975
Grain Shipments
waiting there. If there were 14,000 boxcars locked in the prairies on February 26, there are certainly more now.
It seems to me it is incumbent upon the government to tell us exactly what is going to be done to get this grain moving and to assure the House that in the future we are not going to have a repetition of the staggering number of days lost by work stoppages that have plagued this particular harbour to date. I should like to bring to the attention of the House a telegram sent to the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) today by the president of the Vancouver Grain Exporters Association, which reads:
Your office is quoted today worldwide for having stated yesterday "public interest has not yet been hurt enough to warrant government intervention". Having at heart the whole Canadian grain trade both east and west from Ottawa, we find such statement, if correctly quoted, bordering aberrance. During the crop year started August 1, 1974, grain exports ex Vancouver have been stopped by strikes during 68 work days out of 165, based on five day week less holidays, or during 41.2 per cent of straight time.
Those are facts, Mr. Speaker, and they have led to a situation where the Minister of Justice in charge of the Wheat Board is going to have to tell the House what the contingency plans are that he talked about on February 26. I want to say to the minister through you, Mr. Speaker, that it is not enough for him to take the view that because we have heard tonight that accord has been reached, problems have ended in Vancouver. The telegram to the Prime Minister from the Vancouver Grain Exporters Association continues:
Your letter of March 4 in answer to ours of February 20 arrived here on March 13.
I am sorry the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) is not in the House tonight so that we might get some answers as to when that particular problem is going to be solved. The telegram continues:
Yours is a standard type answer given over and over as years go by on each strike situation. It sadly proves a lack of leadership between contracts or from strike to strike to avoid such costly occurrences.
It is legitimate to ask tonight whether the government has any contingency plans to move the grain that has piled up, and also whether the government has any idea what it is going to do to break the pattern of strikes that have stopped grain shipments on the west coast. Let us look at the statistics. We have now reached a situation where there are over 40 vessels waiting to load grain; between August 1, 1974, and today approximately 70 shipping days have been lost; Canada is 900,000 tons behind on grain shipments due to China in 1974; China is presently negotiating to buy one million tons of grain from Canada in 1975 and a portion of this is in jeopardy because of Canada's poor delivery service. That jeopardy is not going to be relieved just because, by a lot of hard work on the part of some people, the present PSAC strike seems to have been settled. Our customers are going to look at the record and say-they cannot say anything else, on the basis of experience-that Canada is not a reliable supplier.
The Minister of Justice said an extraordinary thing yesterday. He said in the House that although the Japanese are now buying grain in the United States and Australia because they could not get supplies from Vancouver, United States ports have not been without strikes. Mr. Speaker, I might remind the minister that since 1972 there has not been a strike on the west coast of the United

States that has stopped grain shipments. I think the minister must concede that their record has been considerably better than ours, and at the present time they are entering into negotiations which will last until 1978. In trying to evade the facts, and to some degree, I suggest, his responsibility by saying that other countries have strikes, the minister ought to be careful what country he is talking about. No shipments of grain have been stopped on the west coast of the United States since 1972.
I was talking to a Canadian grain exporter who had arrived back here a day or so ago from Tokyo. He said that he had never experienced a worse attitude among the grain importers, many of whom are threatening not even to bother tendering for new orders. Our record is so appalling that customers have no confidence in our future ability to deliver. It is incumbent on the government to tell the House and country what it intends to do. On March 26 the Minister of Justice told the House of his contingency plans. He said, as recorded at page 3600 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, a number of plans are being looked at-
I suppose one of them will not be needed because of what has happened this evening. I continue quoting:
-both in connection with the immediate period and also in connection with an attempt to catch up as quickly as possible when conditions return to normal.
The minister should tell the House the extent of those plans and of what they consist. The House should not assume that because difficulties between the PSAC and Treasury Board have been partially resolved there are not serious problems at the port of Vancouver. The world's largest grain carrier is tied up waiting for a shipment of grain for Bangladesh. I assume all members know how badly that grain is needed in Bangladesh. That ship can carry 30,000 tons but only 10,000 tons have been loaded. The remainder of the cargo is tied up in boxcars and elevators. The ship has been docked for months. I was glad to hear that finally something is to be done. A Vancouver churchman said to me, "In the name of Christian decency, let us do something to get this ship loaded and on its way."
Members representing western constituencies say day after day that there are serious difficulties on the west coast and on the prairies and that our reputation in the world of commerce is suffering. Therefore, we have not been overstating the case. If any members doubt my word, let them telephone Vancouver and talk to people who have watched the harbour filling with ships and have been laid off because of this strike. The government should also tell us what it is doing with regard to its so-called consensus. What will it do in future? What is it doing in its search for consensus across this land?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I hear members opposite making noises.


Walter David Baker: Do they think that lack of government policy has nothing to do with strikes?
March 19, 1975


John Allen Fraser: I see the Minister of Justice is talking to some hon. members opposite. I do not know if he is trying to enlighten them or persuading them to make more noise. It is high time the government told this House about the consensus we hear so much about, as these strikes are taking place because of lack of consensus. Rising inflation rates have made increasing numbers of people at the lower end of the wage scale frightened, desperate and militant. They are prepared to strike because, basically they feel their security is threatened. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) have talked about consensus, but nowhere has the government indicated in which direction it wants to go and what its objectives are. So long as the government talks but does nothing to encourage restraint, consensus will not be achieved. I am afraid the Minister of Justice will need to talk about something else.
Basically, the government has asked the working people of this country to stick their necks out and, because inflation is rampant, to give up some of their bargaining power. But the government has abdicated its responsibilities. By not laying down adequate policies, the government has eroded confidence in the country. The Minister of Labour has talked about establishing a Canada labour council. I understand that the cabinet has discussed this proposal, but the government has not said what it will do about it. Surely this House is entitled to know the steps being taken to form the proposed Canada labour council. We ought to know who will be represented on it and what the objectives of the council are to be.
In summary let me say this. The government for weeks has refused to face its responsibilities and to consider that basically what we are dealing with affects the national interest. The government has not responded to the emergency. I remind hon. members that since 1972 the government has intervened four times in grain disputes and ordered, through legislative measures, grain shipments to be resumed. On August 31, 1972, the then minister of labour said, as recorded at page 3901 of Hansard for that date:
-there are occasions when parliament must deal with situations, when the full resort to economic warfare by strike or lockout so impairs the ability of others to carry on their activities that it can be said to be against the national interest for the work stoppage to continue. Parliament in this case was recalled as a last resort when it was evident that the ports on the west coast would not resume operations for some weeks if normal collective bargaining procedures were allowed to take their course.
He went on to say, as recorded at page 3902:
By far and away the hardest hit at this time is the grain economy on its external markets. This important sector of the economy is presently in the greatest jeopardy should the ports remain closed. British Columbia, too, has an export-oriented economy-
If it was in the national interest in 1972, just before the election, to pass special legislation for keeping the grain moving, why has it not been in the national interest in the last several weeks to take action which will keep grain moving? I ask all hon. members present, many of whom were also in the House in August, 1973, to remember the arguments put forward by the present Minister of Labour. He said at that time that conditions in the country were affecting the national interest and that we had to pass legislation. In 1974, during the election campaign, relevant sections of the Canada Labour Code had to be invoked to
Grain Shipments
make sure that the grain handlers did not go on strike. That action was in the national interest. In October, 1974, parliament legislated the grain handlers back to work. It was said that that action was in the national interest as we could not afford to see grain movement stopped. In the present instance the government has for weeks refused to act even though the scales, to use the Prime Minister's phrase, had definitely tilted against the national interest. Apparently government supporters, including the Minister of Justice, suffered a lapse of memory.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his allotted time has expired.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that the strike which prompted this debate having been settled there is no real purpose in sitting here any longer tonight.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Orlikow: That being the case I have no intention of speaking at any length. We in this party are, of course, happy the strike has been settled. However, I do not agree a great deal of credit is deserved by the minister or the government. The strike need not have taken place. It would not have taken place if the minister and the government had been as generous to those who have been on strike for the last couple of weeks as they had been to senior government employees over the past couple of years. I shall not illustrate this contention in detail now, but we shall find occasions to demonstrate clearly the vast difference between the attitude of the government toward senior public servants and its attitude toward tens of thousands of employees in the public service who are still working for very moderate wages. However, this is not the time to do so. The strike has been settled.
We are living in difficult times. We can be certain there will be other strikes in both the public and private sectors in the next few months. This does not surprise me. We have lived through three or four years of a booming economy during which time, encouraged by the government, corporations in Canada have made increasingly large profits. They never had it so good. This being the case it is not surprising that working people, in the light of those exorbitant profits and in the light of sharp increases in the cost of living, should demand their share of increased prosperity. The government asked for this kind of situation and now we have to live with it.
I know there will be opportunities in the coming weeks to discuss what lies ahead for the country, to consider the parlous state of labour-management relations, and we in this party intend to make proposals for what the government should do, and to point out what the government has failed to do to minimize differences and avoid possible strikes and work stoppages.
We hope the government has learned some lessons from the situation we have met tonight to consider and which it helped to create. We hope that in future it will move more expeditiously, more flexibly, and with greater humanity than I believe it showed in this dispute, so that we shall
28996 - 65(4

Grain Shipments
not have to deal in the next few weeks or months with another situation similar to that which we have been facing for some weeks now.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, since a settlement has been reached on the strike which motivated an urgent and special debate, according to the provisions of Standing Order 26, I say our debate has come too late.
As it frequently happens with this political system, owing to our cumbersome democratic paraphernalia, debates take place in the House after the blows have been dealt.
Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to see that Progressive Conservative members want to proceed with the debate on a problem which has already been settled. That may be a way for them to avoid tackling current issues which are still wanting a solution, especially agricultural problems in eastern Canada, which they do not understand. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, the problem we are considering has been settled. Our debate deals with the problem of feed grain supplies, the problem of the grain handlers strike which jeopardized agriculture in eastern Canada, since the supplies of Quebec were in danger of being cut off. In most cases, there were only 5 to 10 days' supplies left in several cooperative mills.
Mr. Speaker, I think we should take this opportunity tonight to convince our Progressive Conservative friends not to waste the time of the House, and to concentrate just as many efforts on the study of Quebec's dairy policy with which our producers are faced for instance, and to try just as hard to solve agricultural problems of western Canada, so that farmers not only get adequate supplies of feed grains, but also do not feel cheated by a national agricultural policy which all too often favoured western Canada and rarely eastern Canada.
Mr. Speaker, agriculture in Canada may be the most politicized subject in our country, whereas it should be the least so since it is just a matter of feeding thee people of Canada.
We could talk about exports.
It is strange not to hear anything in the House about the imports which flood our market and compete with our producers. Not one Progressive Conservative has talked about it! When we hear the requests of producers about the price per hundredweight of industrial milk, we hear promises on every side. The Liberals and Progressive Conservatives evade the issue and blame each other. They suggest holding emergency debates after the problems have been solved, maybe to save face, but all this harms the farm producer.
As the spokesmen for eastern Canada, we are happy that this labour conflict has been solved in conditions acceptable to both parties, the government and the handlers. We regret the fact that our collective bargaining system is so outmoded and old-fashioned that it is associated with politicians which play at farming policies instead of solving problems. Mr. Speaker, we deplore the fact that this conflict lasted so long to end in a solution that everyone
[Mr. Orlikow.l
could have accepted from the outset. This has harmed certain people. I for one have received several letters and telegrams from my riding asking to ensure the feed grain supply of farmers. We had to wait. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) did not want to compromise himself in this matter while others played at party politics. What is most ridiculous in this matter is that we have a debate tonight when everything has been solved.
I would not want to take more of your time on this matter, but I would like to say in conclusion that the price of milk, which is an essential and basic food, has increased six times in 14 months. Who pays for these increases? The consumer. The price of feed grain will also go up, it is official, as will the cost of production inputs. Who pays for this? It is still the consumer; and yet, producers in eastern Canada do not make enough for a decent living on the farm.
Mr. Speaker, I hope some day producers will find out who in the House is playing politics and who is really on their side. When Canadian farmers do find out, they will help us abolish this system where political parties are passing the buck. They will realize that if there were more members in the House like, say, the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert), and fewer Progressive Conservative members who enjoy playing politics, the solutions to these problems would be found very quickly.
By way of a conclusion, I hope the House will be mature enough to put an end to this debate. Here is a line which I am throwing Progressive Conservative Party members before they drown: Help us turn this debate in favour of eastern farming. At least we will have helped agriculture tonight in a positive fashion, and done the utmost to defend farmers from eastern Canada, something which would certainly be new for members of the Progressive Conservative Party!


Jack Burnett Murta: Madam Speaker, I should like to say a few words in this debate tonight. It is indeed gratifying to all members of the House to learn the strike has been settled this afternoon, but it should be made abundantly clear that the motion that the opposition moved today was probably the log that broke the logjam as far as the strike was concerned, and forced the government to take action. So while we are debating some aspects of the grain situation it must be pointed out that in this respect the debate has been very successful, especially for the people involved in western Canada.
I should like to say a few words about the effect such a strike as this has had, and will have on farmers and on the agricultural industry in general in Canada, but first let me say that strikes of this kind of duration that have taken place, and possibly will be taking place in the future, are utter madness. The people of this country in all walks of life are becoming increasingly frustrated and dissatisfied at government inaction and at the over-all malaise that is apparent, which creates the atmosphere we have had in the past month so far as grain handling is concerned.
With regard to the effects the strike has had on the grain industry, on farmers and on the port of Vancouver, at the present time we are paying demurrage on 33 grain ships in the port. Six more grain vessels are due this week.
March 19, 1975

I understand that we will not know until the end of this week whether the longshoremen have ratified their agreement and returned to work. Some six or seven ships have left Vancouver because they could not get grain and were not prepared to wait around for a lengthy period of time.
The total amount of demurrage charges that the Canadian Wheat Board will have to pay, and consequently the farmers will have to pay, has been put at upwards of $4,000 per hour over the past number of weeks, that these grain vessels have been waiting in Vancouver harbour. This is money that will come directly out of the pockets of the farmers.
At the present time in western Canada roughly 22,000 boxcars are idle, which means approximately 50 million bushels of western grain are sitting completely tied up on the tracks. I contend that our transportation systems will be utter chaos until well on into the summer. Grain will be hauled in a criss-cross manner over the prairies, which means a great deal of inefficiency. For example, Alberta grain will have to be allocated to Thunder Bay so as to keep the stocks at Thunder Bay in proper position. Over the past three or four weeks almost all available rolling stock for grain has been filled to capacity, and one can well imagine the kind of chaos in which our whole grain transportation system will be.
According to figures provided by a very reliable source we have lost two months' movement of grain, or 50 million bushels. The minister responsible for the Wheat Board said that this grain has not really been lost, but if one talks to people in the grain trade, in effect this 50 million bushels has been lost. Grain sales are not being made at the present time, and none are being made into the future. Any sale that will be made will have to be deferred well into the next crop year.
This shows the magnitude of the problem we are discussing. Grain buyers are turning to the United States, Australia and Europe for supplies, and since the reputation of the port of Vancouver has been jeopardized I predict this kind of situation will continue. Canada's reputation as a reliable grain supplier has never been lower than at the present time, and this goes well back to the period when we were just starting to move grain in any kind of volume. Numerous contracts over the past three or four years have been switched from Canada to the United States, one being a contract for wheat with The Philippines, and another with Africa. The sad part is that both these contracts were with first time customers of Canada. One can imagine the problem we will have in regaining the confidence of these two customers specifically, and certainly there will be other cases. One of our major losses will be sales to Japan. Japan buys grain on a weekly tender basis. It has not been able to secure supplies from Canada, so consequently it will be buying from other countries.
Our farmers will be faced with these tremendous demurrage charges that have to be paid. Last year it was said we paid $17 million, and I predict that this will be about half the demurrage charges that we will be paying this coming year, taking into consideration all of the labour problems that we will be facing. Aside from that, in the past months we have seen world grain prices drop significantly. Farmers in western Canada who want to
Grain Shipments
deliver grain have been completely isolated from the markets, and they have not been able to deliver it.
Another matter of great concern, certainly to the Canadian Wheat Board and other exporters, is the fact that there was a lot of grain for movement in what is considered the high price range, $5 per bushel. This grain has not been moved, and there is a chance that some of these contracts will have to be renegotiated. One of the reasons this debate is continuing tonight can be found in the fact that Canada has the second worst reputation in labour problems of any country in the world, right next to Italy. That is why we on this side of the House felt very strongly that the government had to act by settling the strike or bringing in emergency legislation.
Perhaps these areas that service such commodities as grain and others, which affect not only regional economies but the economy of Canada as a whole, should be considered with the idea of designating them as essential services. We must certainly come to realize that some of these services are essential, and situations such as the one we have seen take place on the west coast cannot be allowed to continue.
Up until the time the motion was moved today the government had done absolutely nothing. Yesterday the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said that this really was not of national importance. Let me say, in conclusion, that while in some respects it is gratifying to know that a part of the strike is over, and I remind hon. members that we are not sure that the longshoremen will go back, it is incumbent on members from those parts of the country that are affected to point out the disastrous situation which occurs when we experience prolonged strikes. It will be very interesting tonight to hear an NDP member from the prairies speak on this motion in favour of the farmers, while at the same time agreeing that grain must be moved in this country.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I am happy to participate in the debate tonight. I was willing to have it adjourned, but I felt sorry for the opposition as they would then have nothing to talk about. On reflection I thought it might be a good thing to have the debate because I felt that perhaps the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) was making the speech of his career in launching his campaign for leadership.


An hon. Member:: Where is he?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I rise on a question of privilege, Madam Speaker. It appears to me that the minister is imputing motives to the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) which are certainly not true. I want to say on behalf of my colleague that he is a man of great sincerity and is very concerned-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: So concerned he has gone home.

Grain Shipments


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: It was a result of that hon. member's sincerity and his concern that a motion was moved this afternoon and allowed by the Chair. We all have a great deal of respect for the minister, but I find that his remarks were ill-chosen.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. The hon. member realizes, I am sure, that this is a point of debate.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: With all due respect, Madam Speaker, I was speaking on a question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I was attempting to tell the minister, through you, that he has never been more wrong in his life in questioning the sincerity of the hon. member on this side who moved the motion this afternoon with all sincerity. I suspect that as a result of that motion there was some influence brought to bear on the settlement that has been reached tonight.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I am sorry if my hon. friend is annoyed because I have a great deal of consideration for the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser), and probably it is because he is one of the best on that side.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: That hon. member knows that if I had the opportunity I would seriously consider voting for him, because he could serve the interests of my party very well. I did not want to be impolite, and I thought when we were having a special debate like this we should bring a bit of life into our speeches.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: This is a serious matter.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I wanted to hear whether the hon. member had any very serious suggestions to make as to how we should settle these problems. It is very easy to say that we are the government and we should settle these strikes, but I am still waiting to hear any member on the other side tell me, or the House, that we should deprive these workers of the right to strike. I am not willing to do that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Parliament gave them that right, and I believe in collective bargaining. What has happened in respect of this strike is another example of the fact that if you are patient enough you can resolve problems. In addition to that, even if I had settled that strike last week, or at the beginning of this week, it would have done absolutely nothing to change the situation in respect of wheat movement out of the port of Vancouver, because the longshoremen were on strike and I have no responsibility for them.

In any event, the pressure was not yet that great. Had I waited for the pressure I might have waited until next week. There would certainly be more pressure next week if the longshoremen were no longer on strike. If they do not approve today of the settlement reached-


An hon. Member:: They don't know that.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: They don't know that and they don't want to know, Joe, and you know that well. I could have waited until next week and there would have been more pressure. I believe collective bargaining can work. Of course the union did not get all it wanted.


An hon. Member:: And who pays for it?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: It is because the people of Canada have to pay that I am not willing to give away the store.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: This settlement is a reasonable settlement between reasonable people. I think the union eventually recognized that it would have been very easy for us to have settled that strike. The federal government pays only 14 per cent of its total budget on salaries. So even if I exceed my budget by 10 per cent, this would create a burden of only 1.4 per cent of the federal budget. That would be easy for me. I think this easy way out would have created a precedent that would have forced everyone else to have the same thing. I said that the federal government must be a good employer, but we cannot be the pace-setter. We want to give our employees good rates of pay at levels comparable to the private sector. It is funny to see the opposition get up tonight and say, "Ha, ha; we have put the pressure on the government".


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Right.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: At eight o'clock when I announced the
settlement, they had long faces.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I was sorry to pull the rug from under their feet like that, because I am too much of a gentleman to handle people in that way. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) earlier tonight said that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) at two o'clock said to me, "We are in trouble; settle it". At the time when I sat with the Prime Minister I informed him that I had made the offer this morning and was waiting for the answer. I knew at 2.30 or a quarter to three that we had a settlement. However, as you know, the union has to talk to its members, and so on, and I could not reveal what was going on because that would be a situation which might destroy the agreement. That is the reason I was not keen to have a debate tonight. It could also have an effect on the voting of the longshoremen in British Columbia; I do not know. I hope not.
I think the timing of this motion was rather bad. The opposition complains that we are not settling, and then they complain because we have settled. I wonder what

troubles we would have had if the Canadian people had not seen the light on July 8. I should like the hon. member to give us some suggestions. A committee is meeting on this subject: I refer to the joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons in respect of the Finkelman report. That is the place to make suggestions concerning what we should do.
It is very easy to have simplistic answers. One simplistic answer would be to take away the right to strike. 1 think that since 1967 we have had settlements in more than 96 per cent of the cases in the public service, without strikes.
I think this record is better than anywhere else. Of course, there are some problems and some aspects might be readjusted. I am not comfortable with the situation where we have one strike, for instance, in respect of the weighmen and samplers in Vancouver who can close the port. I am not easy with a situation where a week or two weeks later we could have a strike by the inspectors. I think the committee studying the Finkelman report could look at the situation to see if there might be another way to negotiate.


Mr. Benjamin:: We told you that two years ago.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: These things should be said before the committee. We must work to find a more reasonable way, because I understand it is a difficult situation for everyone. But it does not mean that because we have to make some readjustments we should take away altogether the right to strike.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Of course, as the Prime Minister said, we will not hesitate when national interests are endangered: we would not hesitate, in that event, to bring in a bill. However, this would be an act of last resort. We should not use it every week, because that would make no sense. If you do not want to give the right to strike, say so and we will vote on it. I am not content that we should withdraw the right to strike, but if the public service abuses it some day, then we will have to consider what to do; however, my judgment at the moment is that this is not the time.
I believe collective bargaining is working well. We have made some concessions. I know the unions wanted much more, but in this period we must show leadership. This is a settlement of 29 V* per cent for 26 months. It is about 1 per cent more than was recommended by the conciliation report, over a period of two years; but it is nothing to get excited about. I believe it is a good settlement. I hope the country will realize that sometimes it is necessary that we suffer from a little strike.


An hon. Member:: Little?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I say it was a little strike because there were 19,000 people involved in it, respecting whom there were negotiations, and yesterday there were only 700 people involved.


An hon. Member:: How much money for the producer?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The producer will not lose very much.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Grain Shipments


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The producer will not lose very much because-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Wait a minute. I am no expert; I do not know.
Some hon. ^embers: Oh, oh!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: They have not lost their wheat. Perhaps the price will be better next summer and they will be grateful; I do not know. I just say that they are like anybody else. If you do not want a strike, stand up and vote against the right to strike. What I cannot understand is that the opposition members vote for the right to strike, and when we have a strike they say there should be no more strikes. I say hon. members opposite should make up their minds. I have to work within the law that was passed in 1967 by parliament.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Madam Speaker, I wonder whether the minister would accept a question.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Yes.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I should like to ask the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) whether or not he agrees there is room for action on the part of the government when the national interest is affected? Would he agree that if we have a situation with a union which adversely affects our trade, then government action is called for?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I am glad the hon. member asked that question, because I said there is one point at which we must intervene. That point has not yet arrived. If we had settled the PSAC strike last week, because we were involved at the port of Vancouver in another strike, the movement of grain might have been prevented in any event.
I think there is a point where we must intervene, but it is a question of judgment. We were preoccupied with the movement of grain. It was not advisable for the government to say at any point that it intended to intervene, whether it had been tomorrow or another day, because in a situation like that the union would sit back and say, "Let the government force us". It is not advisable to show your hand in advance because the union would tend to sit back and not bargain. That could have happened tomorrow or on Friday, I do not know and I will not tell you, but it seems to be that it is not advisable to show your cards because the unions would tend to sit back and not sign an agreement. The hon. member for Hamilton West knows very well that if you show your cards to the union, they will not want to settle and they will be in a position to say that they were forced back to work.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I disagree.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I am listening and waiting for the opposition to tell us if they have a better way of settling strikes. I want to repeat that this is another example which shows

March 19, 1975
Grain Shipments
that collective bargaining is working. I admit that it took four weeks to settle the strike, and that is much too long. I can say that the offer made today was not much more than the offer made almost five weeks ago. But I stood firm.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I stood firm because it was in the national interest to do so. I could have easily agreed to their demands the first day and given them everything they wanted, but that would not have served the national interest well. I said during the strike to the people who were striking illegally that we would prosecute them. We would not have done so because we liked to but because it is the only way to act. I hope that people will understand now that we accept the right to strike by those who have the right to strike, but we do not accept the right of people to walk off their jobs illegally.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: They say this is well understood. I think we have to go through that exercise to prove to the country that collective bargaining is still working. Of course I am sorry for the employees concerned who were out of work for four weeks and a few days, because many of them will perhaps take many months if not many years to recover from that, but that was their own choice and it is part of the gamble they took. If they had won the first day, they would have been very happy. Certainly I was not happy about a strike that lasted almost five weeks, nor were they happy, but eventually we found common ground which was acceptable to both parties.
I challenge the hon. member once more because we do not want to lose the whole evening. I was disappointed at the fact that the hon. member for Vancouver South did not come up with any precise suggestion. All he said was that the government should have acted. That is easy.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: You are the ones to act.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The hon. member did not say that we should withdraw the right to strike. It is the other hon. member who said so. I wish the party opposite had one policy. We in this party have one policy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I agree with the hon. member for Vancouver South and that is why I was trying to help him in a possible endeavour on his part. However, it is sad but there is no opposition. We want to know where they stand on those issues. They say they are for the right to strike, but not when grain is involved. Other hon. members of the opposition say they are for the right to strike, but not when lumber is involved, and still other hon. members are for the right to strike but not when cattle is involved. It is always like that. The government cannot operate that way. People either have the right to strike or not.
I do think, Madam Speaker, that each one of us should be happy that the strike is over. I hope that we will not have too many strikes in the future.


John Allen Fraser: Will the minister accept a question?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Yes, I will.


John Allen Fraser: Before I ask the minister a question I want to say that in the event that hon. members did not realize it, or were not listening when I first rose to speak, let me remind them that I congratulated the minister for having worked very hard.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Allen Fraser: I am sure the minister did not really mean in any vindictive way the remarks he apparently made about me when I was out of the chamber for a moment. I can assure the minister that I realize the remarks were made in jest.


An hon. Member:: What is the question?


John Allen Fraser: It is coming. The question that is facing this House, and that was facing the House over the last few
weeks-


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Say something.


John Allen Fraser: -was when does the right to strike, which is a right under our legislation, have to give way to the greater right of the national interest? I want to read to the minister the following statement made by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) on August 30, 1973:
Mr. Speaker, as members of this House, I am sure, are well aware-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Allen Fraser: Just a minute, Madam Speaker. This is the point that the minister has to determine.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Some hon. Members:: Question!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. The hon. member wanted to put a question to the minister. Perhaps he could do so now.


John Allen Fraser: Yes, Madam Speaker.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: You blew it again.


John Allen Fraser: The minister went on to say:
-the bill which is now before them concerns the government's legislative proposals respecting the resumption of rail services. The reasons for these proposals are, I believe, equally well known. The suspension of railway operations and subsidiary services which began regionally on July 26 and nationally on August 23-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Allen Fraser: The minister has asked for a question and I am sure he wants to hear it.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


John Allen Fraser: The minister went on to say:
-has resulted in widespread economic loss to the extent that the welfare of the nation has become imperilled. As the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has indicated, it is essential to the interests of the people of Canada and the welfare of our nation that railway operations be resumed immediately.


Some hon. Members:: Order!
March 19, 1975


John Allen Fraser: I have not come to my question yet, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Perhaps the hon. member could make it very brief because the time allotted to the minister has almost expired.


John Allen Fraser: My question is simply this. If it was against the national interest at that time to let the strike continue, why was it not against the national interest this time when we have had all these work stoppages and no grain has been moving on the west coast for 70 days? Can the minister, who is asking for some help and guidance, give us that magic answer?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I think that the answer is very simple. Today, yesterday and the day before I knew that a settlement was near and that it was not advisable to make any moves in parliament. I was advising my colleagues in the cabinet, and I know that at one point perhaps the government would have come to the decision to move. It is purely a question of judgment, and we felt that we had not reached that time yet.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: We have been proven right because eventually we achieved a settlement. I am sure that the hon. member for Vancouver South, as well as other hon. members, are happy that we have reached that settlement as a result of negotiations rather than by way of legislation. That proves that the unions can be responsible. There are too many people who think that unions are irresponsible, but you have to look at the context. There are some people who want to catch up with others, and there are some emotional debates sometimes that need to be settled. So all these factors must be analysed. We are human beings. We can make that judgment, but it appears that we have shown the right judgment in this case.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Madam Speaker, I hear hon. members opposite shouting "leader". Everyone on this side of the House seems to be a leader. We're all leaders.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I listened very carefully to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) without heckling him. I hope that tonight the House will give me just a few minutes attention.
First of all, at the outset I would say that everyone on this side of the House is certainly very happy that the strike is over; indeed, everyone on all sides is happv. Nothing gives me greater pleasure than to know that the President of the Treasury Board took a part in the settlement of that strike. He is one man on the other side of the House for whom I have much respect, but I think at this time it is incumbent upon me to reply to some of the things he said before I make a few remarks in reference to what I think has happened during this strike, and other strikes, as far as the grain producers are concerned.
Grain Shipments
The President of the Treasury Board says that he feels sorry for the opposition. I do not feel sorry for the opposition. I do not feel sorry for the government. I feel sorry for the starving people in the world, when we in western Canada are the breadbasket of the world capable of producing much grain for those starving people. Those are the people I feel sorry for.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: We have been waiting months for a ship to be loaded for Bangladesh. There has been one strike after another, and while these people lean farther to the left, I see politics in the eyes of many.


An hon. Member:: You are looking in a mirror.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: If I did look in a mirror I would see a better face than the hon. member would if he did.
I know that my hon. friends opposite say that through the President of the Treasury Board they have one policy. Their policy is to howl and shout during a debate. That is all they know, and I do not intend to engage myself in an argument. They are a flock of geese all sitting together.
The President of the Treasury Board said that we must be patient. I think I am a patient man. I think parliament is fairly patient, but we have in western Canada a $2 billion industry, one of the greatest industries in Canada, grain production, and I am confident that if an interruption of that kind took place in eastern Canada, in the province of Quebec or Ontario, where the government gets its votes, something would have been done about it. But the patience we must have is the patience to wait until the government does something for the west.
When we talk about a $2 billion industry, I say to those who holler and shout that they should read the financial reports of the banks. In a $2 billion industry every dollar in trade is worth $4 in the gross national product, and the gross national product determines whether we will have 4 per cent, 6 per cent or 7 per cent unemployment. Not only are the farmers of this nation concerned but the workers are also concerned, and that is why we are concerned, and why the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) moved his motion today, and I am very thankful that he did. If there was any help thereby given to the President of the Treasury Board to end this deadlock which has paralysed the industry in western Canada, then I am very happy, but I want to put a few facts before these howling wolves opposite.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The public interest of Canada is paramount to any other interest. Surely the international public interest of the world is paramount to any other interest. We have a $2 billion industry on the prairies. We have the ability, because we are the breadbasket of the world, to feed the starving people of the world, and yet the government sat paralysed, doing nothing, while people were hungry not only in other parts of the world but also right here in Canada.
I want to discuss something which to me is quite a joke. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) went to Europe ostensibly to try to build up some trade with the European
4280

Grain Shipments
Common Market bloc. While he was away trying to promote a little trade, what was happening to the greatest industry of Canada, the grain industry? Ships were tied up in the harbour in Vancouver. I made it my business today-and I do not rise in this House unless I have facts-to call Vancouver, and as of March 18-


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I wonder if my hon. friend opposite could just contain himself for a moment. On March 18, 1975, there were 33 ships tied up in Vancouver. My hon. friends opposite say that that is nothing, but it has cost the western farmer $17 million, and I would suggest that when the bill gets to the Wheat Board-incidentally I should be interested in the comments of the minister responsible for the Wheat Board for whom I also have some respect the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang)-it will be closer to $30 million. That money is not paid, the President of the Treasury Board says, by the people of Canada. That money is gouged from the farmers of western Canada, the producers.
I feel that there was some liaison with the Prime Minister's group so that he was away while all this was happening, and he did not have to answer questions.
We have a lot of patience, and we waited while western Canada was gouged for at least $17 million, and it may eventually be closer to $40 million. While that happened, we lost the market in Japan. I believe that the minister will confirm that last year Japan took about 20 per cent of our wheat exports. Japan has now gone elsewhere because the credibility of Canada was gone.


Mr. Flynn:: Where did they go?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: They could not rely on us to make the deliveries. It is not only this strike, it is strike after strike. The government says that this has to be done and that has to be done, but while that is going on we are losing our markets abroad. I might point out to my hon. friends opposite that the farmers of western Canada, as the Minister of Justice knows, are faced with great costs. For a large wheat farm a combine costs $35,000.


Mr. Young:: It costs the same in the east.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Other machines for seeding are comparably priced. Costs are going up every day. Those machines are not bought in western Canada. They are bought in Ontario, and when they are bought in Ontario that provides the standard of living and the jobs for people working in the steel factories of Hamilton and machine factories throughout Ontario. That provides labour with a tremendous standard of living, and provides Canada with the kind of gross national product which built this nation. I recall one of the slogans: they said, "The country is strong". Thank God it is strong, Madam Speaker. It could not withstand such a government if it were not strong. Maybe my friends will be a little kinder to me because I want-


An hon. Member:: You know what the people of Canada said on July 8.

Mt. Woolliams: -to speak for a few moments about the efforts of the New Democratic Party. We have here a number of members of the New Democratic Party which was formerly the CCF Party and were founded on an agrarian movement. I remember when it began: the Regina Manifesto did not originate in Regina but in the Palliser Hotel in Calgary. I have yet to hear a member of the New Democratic Party, when wheat producers are suffering in western Canada, stand in his place and complain about the deliveries of grain around the world because they are so obsessed with the idea that they must always help the labour movement.
Members from Saskatchewan should look at that province, under Premier Blakeney, where most of the constituencies are rural. They should look, too, at Manitoba, under Premier Schreyer, where many of the constituencies are rural. They should perhaps study what those two premiers are doing to keep the support of the western farmer. They should be honest enough to say to western farmers, "I have never supported your interests at any time when there has been a strike". Those are the facts and they should be put on the record, but they are always swept under the table when the NDP ask questions in the House about strikes. They are convicted by their silence. When there is a strike at Vancouver harbour, NDP members are always silent: they are silent because they are scared.
Wherever we see a monopoly in business, in a co-op, in the labour movement, it is bad for the national interest. The indictment against this government is that they let the national interest suffer for their own political advantage.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is what they have done. I always thought that when a government got a majority it could rise above politics, at least for the first few years in office, and measure up to the national interest. But the Liberal Party has always played politics on every issue.


An hon. Member:: They have given us a majority since confederation.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: My friend worries about a majority. I say to him I would rather stand on this side of the House and speak tonight for my principles than sit where he is without them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The first thing any government in Canada has to do is measure up to the national interest. That should always be put first. Whether you have to compromise with labour, management or business, the national interest comes first, and above all come the starving people of the world to whom we have an obligation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I want to hear what the New Democratic Party has to say about the starving people of the world. They have supported everything that has gone on in Vancouver, basically for political purposes. I want to hear

what they say when they get up and plead and cry with big tears. I think they are playing the same game as my friends opposite. Only a short while ago they were together in the same bedroom: the divorce is only temporary until the next election.


Otto Emil Lang: Madam Speaker, I should like to make a brief intervention in this debate to comment on a few of the matters that have been raised. I listened with interest to the previous speaker and his suggestion that we were serving a particular political interest in dealing with the labour situation before us, settlement of the dispute and return to work. He did not make clear the particular interest he thought we were serving, but it should have been plain to him that we are serving the system of settlement of disputes and the collective bargaining process as it exists in this country.
I want to assure you, Madam Speaker, that this government was completely aware of the consequences and significance of the work stoppage. After the presentation of the problem as viewed from the position of prairie persons interested in grain there could have been no doubt on the part of the government about the seriousness of the matter in terms of the delay and the problems associated with it. This leads to the question of how this matter ended as it did and why the government took the position it did.
I should like to refer to the statement of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) that we were involved in two strikes here rather than one, and they were overlaid one on top of the other. I should point out that during the course of negotiations in the longshoreman's strike there seemed to be a significant chance of settlement by bargaining, and even when the strike took place it looked as though settlement might be achieved at an early date through mediation. This turned out to be the case, through the skilful mediation of Mr. Kelly, Assistant Deputy Minister of Labour: a settlement was reached and will likely be ratified within the next couple of days.
The other strike that overlaid the situation and closed the whole of the port on the west coast, not just in regard to grain, meant that there was another situation in existence while the strike in the public service was continuing. It was a complicated question then as to how quickly we should intervene in a situation where the longshoremen and the management had attained a significant degree of understanding about the problem of work stoppage and particularly about the problem of grain.
As we started this debate tonight I mentioned the ratification of the settlement by the longshoremen. I hope it will be ratified and I have some confidence that it may be, because in other situations they have shown concern and understanding about the problems that the stoppage of grain inflicts upon this major industry in our country. That consciousness of the problems caused by strikes by those involved in them is an important development and growth that we need in this country. I do not think it is particularly helpful, instead of directing attention to the problems that strikes produce for society, for interested third persons to indulge in rhetoric about the need for settling strikes or the need for doing something else in the situation. That is evading the fundamental issue that exists in the labour field itself and the question of how to solve disputes.
Grain Shipments
An hon. member tonight said that strikes are madness. I have said that strikes, in their effect on innocent third parties, are barbaric. Sometimes their effects on innocent third persons are drastic. But I have also said that we should consider the history of the strike and why working men have so readily used it. They have resorted to the strike weapon when there is not some other fair way to resolve a dispute.
Many of this country have said that an alternative to the strike should be found, that some form of arbitration, some form of decision, should take the place of the strike. I believe that the steps toward resolving this problem will only be taken through discussion, education and understanding; they will not be taken through legislation or dictation. Above all, the solution will not be found if we adopt what some so readily talk about. When some talk about compulsory arbitration they really mean that they want a solution for low wages rather than fair wages. Far too often that is the solution some people want. I will have no part of any solution to take the place of a strike that is not fair, because I know that working men originally went on strike in protest against conditions which were unfair. The strike weapon was the weapon they chose, illegal though it was, in their search for fair dealing. We should bear these considerations in mind in any search for solutions.
In no jurisdiction of this country has the solution to this problem been found easy or simple. Given our present system of labour-management relations, there is not any province in this country which has not experienced difficulty in resolving labour disputes, in bringing about solutions. Men charged with the responsibility of government in this country earnestly try to find solutions to labour problems. On the other hand the opposition says, "Let us march in and settle a strike right away." It says that simply because it need not put forward alternative solutions, because it need not suggest how we will bring about, step by step, conditions which will lead to the labour peace, which is so essential to this country.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: What has the government done?


Otto Emil Lang: Let me say to the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin), in case he thinks I have let him off too lightly, that he may have fun trying to explain the position of the provincial government of Saskatchewan, which has made statements the effect of which has been to arouse the opinion of the agricultural community against strikers. That government's attitude may almost be termed as anti-labour; I hope it is not. I think I can say to that government and to leaders of farm opinion in Saskatchewan that they should seriously consider the kinds of discussions which are needed if the difficulties of working men are to be resolved.
Of course the Premier of Saskatchewan did not waste much time before acting. The NDP in Saskatchewan tried to sound, in Saskatchewan, as if this government were at fault for not stepping in early and ending the strike. NDP members in the House have the attention of the entire country, and they adopt a different stance. That is one of the problems with that party.
28996-66%

March 19, 1975
Grain Shipments
Let me refer to the bright side. If the strike is now ended and the longshoremen's agreement ratified, there is the possibility that we will catch up in short order. This will involve the co-operation of many people. There will be extra shifts worked, fast unloading, and fast rail movement. All this has been discussed and is being organized. At present 20,000 grain cars are loaded with grain and it should be possible for us to catch up with our backlog in short order.


An hon. Member:: We shall not need more ships.


Otto Emil Lang: Some hon. members opposite are cynical. I do not think they ought to be, because in so doing they are suggesting that this country is not a dependable supplier. Actually our record over the years has been extremely good. It is our competitors who like to put forward the contrary view. That does not mean we are over our difficulties in this area. I ask hon. members opposite if they are responsible to speak about alternatives to the kind of collective bargaining process we have in this country, or alternatives to the legitimate strike weapon. Neither the Conservative government of Ontario nor any other Conservative jurisdiction in this country has found an easy and facile solution to the problem. That is a fact. I ask leadership candidates opposite, or those who like to make late night speeches, to make suggestions in this area instead of sounding a note of alarm.
I found it amazing to note one or two of them taking the credit for the settlement of the dispute, although some were fair enough to give credit to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) who so richly deserves credit for the long hours he has spent working on this matter. Too often, when discussions are going on, the government has to remain silent and not interfere with negotiations, while the opposition comes forward with its interventions, talk and irrelevancies. That is behind us.
When the President of the Treasury Board rose to announce the settlement of the strike, I noticed the looks of sadness which came over the faces of some opposition members who were disappointed at the strike settlement for some short-sighted tactical reason. We must give credit to the President of the Treasury Board, and we must embark on discussions which will lead to positive suggestions on how to resolve difficult labour-management relations. We must bring about a legitimate form of settlement, one that does not impose poor conditions and low wages on the working men of this country.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, thank goodness we have the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser).


Some hon. Members:: Where is he?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: He had the interests of the Canadian people sincerely at heart when moving his motion.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Is this a nomination speech?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Someone suggested that the hon. member's motion is one of the most pertinent so far to be placed before Mr. Speaker.

I listened to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board suggest that he and the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) had settled this matter. I suggest he and the President of the Treasury Board were less than honest. They said that my party presents no alternatives. Let me remind this House that we have suggested the establishment of a public interest disputes commission. I don't mind the government playing games; but let it be more honest.


An hon. Member:: Why didn't the minister mention the proposed commission?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: He didn't mention it because he knew I was going to.
The President of the Treasury Board said this was just a little strike. He said that it had gone on for four weeks, which was much too long. That is precisely our point. It was not a little strike, and it went on too long. That is why the hon. member for Vancouver South presented his motion earlier today. On the other hand, when we had that argument about the point of order the President of Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) said it would not be right to speak because we might prejudice negotiations. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang), said the same thing. And who was the first to get up to speak? It was the President of the Treasury Board, followed later by the Minister of Justice. Did you ever hear such hypocrisy?


Otto Emil Lang: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will check the record he will find that I suggested that in view of one particular strike situation it would be better to have no words exchanged. What I really did was appeal to the good sense of hon. members opposite and, of course, that appeal was misdirected.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Before I was so rudely interrupted I was about to say that one of the prime functions of an opposition is to make the government behave. If possible, it should put forward constructive criticism as well. We are doing this, and we are doing it in the public interest. I am not standing here as any leadership contender, either.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I am standing here on behalf of the Canadian people who want leadership in times of industrial disruption. I recall my seatmate indicating he was concerned about the paramountcy of the public interest. Certainly we have appreciation for the collective bargaining process and the time-honoured right to strike and lock-out. But there must come a time when the public's interest is overriding and when the necessary steps to preserve it must be taken. That is why hon. members are sitting over there temporarily; it is to give leadership in that regard.
In the past several months Canada has been the victim of a succession of strikes affecting the movement of grain. This is what disturbs us. This is what, I am sure, disturbs members on the other side of the House. They know that as a result of these strikes Canada's international reputation is being ruined. They know Canada has suffered economically. Need I remind them again of the 222 grain
March 19, 1975

inspectors? We hope the longshoremen will settle. Apparently the grain weighers and the samplers have settled.
What will be the consequences of these stoppages? Well, between 30 and 40 vessels are waiting in Vancouver. Some 90 shipping days have been lost. Canada is now 900,000 tons behind in grain deliveries to China from both coasts. China is now negotiating to buy one million tons of grain for 1975, and the delays I have mentioned have jeopardized this. Japan is replacing March, April and some May grain shipments by negotiating purchases from the United States and Australia. There are 22,000 boxcars sitting out on the prairies. Yet the minister says this is a little strike. This shows a callous disregard for the welfare of the Canadian people as well as for our international obligations.
What about demurrage? Members opposite play this down. The word simply means fees paid to ship owners to compensate for delays. These fees are paid ultimately by the farmers; the figure has already reached some $17 million and, as has been stated by my hon. friend from Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), it could yet reach between $35 million and $40 million. Let me give you the facts, Mr. Speaker. We deal in facts on this side; we don't deal with hanky panky.
In 1971-72 demurrage fees amounted to $1,871,000. For 1972-73, the figure was $2,397,636. In 1973-74 it was $17 million. Yet the President of the Treasury Board has the gall to talk about a little strike. The effect of this strike has been damaging to the Canadian economy. Future grain markets have been jeopardized. It is time we began to take notice of where we are going. We have heard all about the collective bargaining process. We have heard all about voluntary arbitration and compulsory arbitration. All I know is that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) had better get going with his consultative process between labour, management and governments in an effort to come up with a solution.


Mr. Caccia:: What is your solution?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I hear an interruption by the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia). I should not have mentioned his constituency; I do not want to give him any credit. The member for Davenport was not in the House at the time or he would know I have already put forward our solution. You people never want to listen.
I stated at that time that what we need are long-term solutions to bring some stability and order to the collection, loading and movement of grain in this country. I also said there was a need to recognize the great concern of labour and management regarding increased productivity, greater efficiency and communications, all of which are related to the great grain industry.
We have a commission now, the Bayda commission, looking into these matters.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: They would not know who you were talking about.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: They do not know too much about it at all. They defrauded the Canadian people by promising
Grain Shipments
them $3 billion, and that is why they are sitting over on that side now. I just hope Mr. Justice Bayda can find some solutions to make the industry viable once again.
I also hope those of us who have the opportunity of sitting on the special joint Senate and House of Commons committee to consider the Finkelman report will be able to lend their expertise and wisdom, so that between Bayda and Finkelman we can produce some solutions to the impasse we have now reached in the collective bargaining process.
I make no bones about it; it seems to me that the party most concerned about strikes is the party which does not sit at the bargaining table. I refer to the vast majority of the Canadian people who do not belong to any big union. Something like 65 per cent of the people do not belong to a union. This is why we on this side are concerned.
I hear the hon. doctor opposite grunt, but what does he know about it? All he knows about is medicine, but he is such a nice fellow I will leave him alone.
When the government misbehaves it is up to the opposition to make it behave. This is why the hon. member for Vancouver South moved his motion today. He put the preamble showing the urgency of the matter and then moved that the House adjourn, and I am pleased to have had an opportunity to become involved in what is a very significant debate.

Mbs. Iona Campagnolo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) for his good work. He has proven himself.

Also he has been burned, he has been tied to the stake, he has been hanged in, all in effigy, and he has been carried around in a coffin. We have seen the hon. President of the Treasury Board suffer almost every indignity it is possible to suffer, but not once has he lost his respect for labour, which is more than I can say for some members opposite.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mrs. Campagnolo:: I feel there are many in this chamber who heartily wish there were some magic new solution, innovative and exciting, a magic, unique means by which the grievances of labour could be agreeably determined, and by which also the demands of management might be met. There are new mediation-arbitration techniques being pioneered in North America, but they are all in elementary stages of development at this time. Today in Canada at least we on this side of the House are prepared to give collective bargaining our support. The rights of labour in this country have been too painfully gained to be given away or overthrown without the very deepest of consideration by the elected officials of the government and all thoughtful Canadians.
The motion of the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) is a motion of desperation. We all recognize the cause to which he has given voice. The mighty port of

March 19, 1975
Grain Shipments
Vancouver is the heart of our province, and I agree it is ailing. But what should be a lifeline-


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Where is your soul?


Iona Campagnolo: My soul is intact. Is yours? This lifeline of much needed grain to foreign ports has been halted. But the heart is not the only organ in the healthy body of this country. Let me tell hon. members about some other ports they have probably never heard of, in their lives. Have they ever heard of Port Alberni, Nanaimo, Powell River, Comox, Kitimat, Steward, Squamish, Masset, Burnaby, Queen Charlotte City and many more? Have they ever heard of Prince Rupert? If they were to take the time to talk to the longshoremen at those ports they would discover that while the major votes on acceptance or rejection of what we all hope is a settlement offer continue toward ratification at the end of this week, they have jumped the gun again. Even Prince Rupert will finally get the chance to vote this Saturday. We are not too unhappy about that; we are used to being left out. We are the last port to receive shipments of grain, even when Vancouver is plugged with waiting ships and facing daily mounting demurrage charges. It is still a rare ship that travels north to a harbour that is the world's third largest.


An hon. Member:: Speak up, we cannot hear you.


Iona Campagnolo: I have lost my voice today, but I have been waiting to say this for so long that I intend to say it, whether you can hear me or not. Prince Rupert has been a port for 65 years, but became a national harbour in reality only on March 1 of this year, when the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Basford) jumped into an earth mover and turned the first sod on federal general cargo facilities in that port. It will not be too long before vessels finally learn that Prince Rupert is 500 miles closer to the Orient than Vancouver. This constitutes a saving to shipping of one day's sailing.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, the north has grain to ship. But this country is not only grain, and I hope the members from the prairies in this chamber can hear me. Grain is not the only commodity we can talk about in this country. We have large resources of pulp and wood products, aluminium and copper concentrates, molybdenum, silver, jade, halibut and herring, fertilizer, and even the occasional manufactured goods manage to get shipped from our port. No, Mr. Speaker, Canada is not just grain, and neither is the west coast of B.C. Always, as in the motion before us tonight, it is grain of which the members of the House speak.
Through arbitration and mediation, through hard bargaining by labour and management as well as the government, we find at last an agreement. What do the people of B.C. say-the miners, fishermen, loggers and mill workers? They say, "What about us? What about our products? Don't we count just as much as the grain farmers? Isn't our contribution to the economy of this country just as important as theirs?"
The man who loads the primary products at northern British Columbia ports is just as much valued. He has to suffer a differential in his living that is practically

unknown to those who live below the 53rd parallel in this country. He suffers a differential in amenities that other Canadians take for granted. His wage negotiations do not reflect the north-south division of this nation's wealth. His children have less access to education, they have fewer dentists, fewer doctors, fewer teachers and fewer professional people of all types.
The holidaying southern Canadian takes off from his home and goes 100 miles, gets in an airplane and flies away. We have to drive a thousand miles at times to get an airplane, which costs a good deal more as the distance is a good deal greater. Do you see compensation in their wage settlements for that? I suggest that you do not.
You often see southern dominated unions putting men on a northern differential or on a regional wage, but you find that often the special allowances are cancelled as a result of agreements by the unions as well as by management. Apparently these few northerners do not matter.
It is the same way when grain vessels are delayed by the process of negotiation. We then hear that all the products I have mentioned really do not matter. All the talk is then about grain. The suggestion is that we should settle the grain movement and everything will be all right. I admit that grain is very important to this country and this country would be nowhere without it, but I ask you to consider and remember that grain is not synonymous with Canada, just as Vancouver and the west coast are not synonymous with Canada.
The utilization of northern ports so much closer to Asian markets must be considered for all or a major part of new storage and handling facilities.


An hon. Member:: You are losing your voice.


Iona Campagnolo: I don't care if I never speak here again, so just listen. Our preoccupation with grain must be transferred to equal concern for the people, east, west, north and south.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Iona Campagnolo: Are you talking to yourself or to me? This preoccupation with grain must be transferred to equal concern for people throughout the country. For the benefit of the workers and management we would like a better way to settle labour problems, but it is not just labour that must be held responsible. Has it ever occurred to any of my Conservative friends that once in a while the fault might be on the management side?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Iona Campagnolo: We all know what would have happened if, God forbid, you were on this side. We know what would have been done to labour if the Conservatives had been in government. We know about self-interest and grain interest, and that is important, but it is not pre-eminent. Until we can devise a better way let us give this good news tonight a little endorsement. The system is imperfect, but it still works, and the right to strike is still a right in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
March 19, 1975


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I only wish there were more participants from the Liberal side like the hon. member who has just resumed her seat. Her speech will read well to the prairie farmers who have become angered and aggravated by the inactivity of the government. I think that when they read her speech, with a sprinkling of the others that have been made tonight, they will realize that members of parliament have a tough job here as Conservatives, particularly those from the prairies, when we have this type of attitude to buck.
The hon. lady spoke as though grain were the only thing we were concerned about. That is not the only thing we are concerned about, but it so happens that on this particular occasion there was a public service strike of blue collar workers. This was a rotating strike, but for some reason or other the only segment that did not rotate was the grain handlers' segment. It is significant for members of the opposition to point that fact out to the hon. lady and other Liberals who were not aware of the fact that the only segment that did not rotate was the grain handlers.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang), the minister in charge of the Wheat Board, tried to parley this thing into a great conflict. He tried to make the House think there were actually two strikes in Canada at this time, and that there had been two strikes all along. The grain weighers and samplers have been effectively on strike since February 7, whereas the longshoremen have only been on strike for the past week or so.
The Minister of Justice spoke about what one must consider as the national interest, and he suggested that solutions must be fair. He said that above all Canada must remain a dependable supplier. I would ask the hon. minister to take into consideration what is in the national interest. Back on August 31, 1972, the government brought in Bill C-231 in recognition of the fact that the national interest was being endangered by the longshoremen on the west coast who should be put back to work. That bill dealt with that strike. The then Minister of Labour, now the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. O'Connell), had this to say when introducing that bill:
But there are occasions when parliament must deal with situations, when the full resort to economic warfare by strike or lockout so impairs the ability of others to carry on their activities that it can be said to be against the national interest-
The Liberals do recognize that, at times when economic warfare carried on by strike does impair the ability of others to carry out their activities, this affects national interest. That was on August 31, 1972, and is history. We have to determine now what is in the national interest.
We are concerned when Canada imports far more than it exports. We realize that our exports play an important part in allowing Canada to meet its balance of payments in order that we can continue to enjoy our standard of living. In a recent document by the Bank of Canada, namely, its annual report for 1974, we find this statement: A good deal will depend on what happens abroad, for Canada cannot be expected to regain its economic health and vigour without an upturn in economic activity in the United States and in other important markets for Canadian exports.
The entire report, particularly the first 10 pages, suggests that Canada's exports are of vital importance to our wellbeing. The striking grain weighers number 40 people.
Grain Shipments
We had to bring about a settlement that is fair to them and in the national interest. Those 40 people have tied up the grain movement for better than four weeks. We have to weigh the rights of those 40 people against the harm they have done to the total economy.
There is an interesting point which has not been referred to tonight, and I should like the hon. member for Skeena (Mrs. Campagnolo) to listen and learn a little bit about grain. When grain is sold on long-term contracts it is priced at the time of delivery. We have been experiencing a falling market, and grain prices have dropped $1.50 since January 1. Some members of this House, even on the government side, have suggested that we have lost 50 million bushels in sales. We have lost well over $50 million on the sales we should have been making. Those 40 people tied up the movement of grain and cost the prairie farmers well over $200 million when you total up the loss of sales, the demurrage charges and the depreciating price of grain.
It is interesting to note the following which appeared in the Globe and Mail of February 25, 1975:
Canada has the grain, said Mr. Lang. The question is: 'How easily can we get the farmers to deliver it'?
The whole article encourages farmers to deliver grain. Then we have these headlines which appeared in the
Financial Post for March 15:
Strikes force Wheat Board to Discourage Grain Planting.
I am reading merely the headline. Certainly some people thought the national interest was affected. What made them think that? How did they reach that conclusion? In the 33 weeks since the current crop year began, for 11 weeks grain shipments have been held up. There have been only two occasions since August of 1973 when there has not been a tie-up of ships at the Vancouver port. No one can suggest that that is a smooth handling system when one realizes there have been only two occasions when ships have not been tied up, and when there has not been a backlog at the port of Vancouver.
Mr. Harrold, chairman of the Wheat Board Advisory Committee and President of the Alberta Wheat Pool, said that the board may be forced to limit future sales through west coast ports to 20 million bushels a month or less. The average movement in the past few years has been 30 million bushels a month. Mr. Turner, the president of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, says that prairie grain movement is the worst in the past four years. One of the largest grain handling agencies on the prairies says that the grain movement is the worst it has been in the past four years.
Surely it should be apparent to almost everybody that it is in the national interest for us in this House of Commons to urge some kind of action on the part of the government, not only in settling the strike which apparently has been settled but, if necessary, not to hesitate for another four weeks to settle the strike which may or may not be voted on tomorrow. One could go on and on in this regard. We note from the Globe and Mail of March 18 that 82 vessels must wait a minimum of three more days because of the strike at Vancouver. Certainly that is the largest armada that has been gathered in any port since World War II.

March 19, 1975
Grain Shipments
Admittedly only 40 of those vessels may be engaged in carrying wheat or grain because the other 42 may be involved in carrying containers, lumber, and some of the other things mentioned by the hon. member for Skeena. Surely this must constitute some need for government action. One of the largest ships has been there for over a month waiting for grain to be loaded. This is grain destined for Bangladesh which is badly in need of food. In fact thousands of people are starving in that country. Surely it is in the national interest for the opposition to be concerned about this matter.
I notice the members of the other opposition parties have been pretty silent. There are no members of the New Democratic Party in the House. We are working overtime and perhaps they are not getting paid for overtime. Most of the time they profess to be the great saviours for the starving people throughout the world. Were they concerned about that vessel being held up? Apparently they were not. Not one of them has spoken in this debate tonight. They have all gone home. Is this an indication of how much interest they have in the welfare of the farmers or the plight of the starving people throughout the world? It is only a quarter to eleven. Quite often we work this late. I am shocked that they would leave so early and take no part in this debate. They are not concerned about the national interest. They are not concerned about the starving people of Bangladesh or the tie-up on the west coast. They are only interested in their political well-being, which has been severely shocked.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please. Is the hon. member rising on a question of privilege?


Mr. Lachance:: Mr. Speaker, we are not of those who asked that this debate be held. To my mind, the ministers and the government assumed their responsibilities by settling the two-week old strike. I therefore fail to understand the hon. member when he says there is no minister in the House this evening-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please. The hon. member knows this is not a question of privilege. He is entering a debate.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I did not mention that cabinet ministers have left, but it appears to me that the hon. member has a very thin skin and a very weak stomach, and he is feeling very put out because the cabinet ministers have left the House and he has to make an apology for them. I will forgive him for making the apology because I suppose I would feel as bad as he does if I were on that side of the House. Speaking of the negligence of members of the cabinet, there is no truer friend of the farmer than the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). Here is what he had to say in Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan is a long way from Ottawa and that is the reason he must speak strongly to the farmers. I have before me an article which states:
In Saskatchewan this week an angry grain farmer warned Agriculture Minister Eugene Whelan that farmers will have to take action into their own hands if the government does not end the strike by federal blue-collar workers that has halted the shipment of grain (as well as mail and airline service) across the country.

'If you can't do it we will just have to take the grain from the elevators to the ships ourselves'" he said.
This is the Minister of Agriculture. He is great, even in Saskatchewan, but he is hardly visible here tonight.


An hon. Member:: He had two standing ovations.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I see the little boy of the minister in charge of the Wheat Board speaking up from the back benches. We know him on this side of the House as the mini minister. Here is another headline which appeared in the Financial Post of March 15, 1975. It states:
West Coast Ports Again Hit by Prevailing Labour Gales.
This affects all ports and all shipments of all goods all down the line. Here is another headline:
Strikes Force Wheat Board to Discourage Grain Planting.
Again we find another:
Strike Effects Go Very Deep.
This article states:
While this is madness in a world beset by energy shortages and hunger, such strikes are exceedingly dangerous for Canadians. The closing of the ports for the fifth time in 10 years is very effectively scuppering Canada's reputation as a reliable supplier-
Then there is reference to page 12 where there is a lengthy argument on the subject. Certainly one could quote articles day in and day out on this subject. Now I should like to quote from the Free Press Weekly for March 15, 1975. It states:
Forrest Hetland, commissioner with the Canadian Grain Commission, may have best expressed sentiments throughout the grains industry when he said, "I am the most depressed person in all Canada today".
"Canada's reputation has gone down, down, down ... it's the worst it's ever been since I've been here.
It's a God-awful situation".
I believe he was appointed six years ago. That is what a commissioner appointed by the minister said. He must have thought there was a national issue here. He must have thought the country was affected by it because he spoke out loud and clear, even though he was a civil servant handling and grading grain for the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) who is in charge of the Wheat Board. I do not know what kind of justice the minister hands out and to whom he deals it out, but it was certainly not justice to the prairie farmers on this occasion.
The article then reads:
Canadian Wheat Board offices were deluged with messages from countries that could no longer accept apologies from the central marketing agency-
The Canadian Wheat Board is the central marketing agency for farmers' grain and they have become a very respected agency throughout the world. But this is what they said on March 5, and I am reading from the March 15
issue of the Free Press Weekly:
-grain orders and incoming ships were diverted from the paralysed port of Vancouver-
I cannot imagine why the hon. member for Skeena (Mrs. Campagnolo) has not expressed concern. I know she is a member representing the northern part of British Columbia, but surely the antagonism between the north
March 19, 1975

and the south of British Columbia is not so great that she cannot share part of the responsibility and concern for the southern part of that province. The Wheat Board said, further:
-Japanese shipping firms attempted to pull their ships out of Vancouver but were blocked by picket lines, and spokesmen for large, international trading houses in New York called Canada's performance "just unbelievable".
I think, also, there are many prairie farmers who believe that this government's performance is just unbelievable. I am very pleased that we on this side of the House initiated this debate, and because of that we can take some credit for spurring on a settlement of a strike which has lasted five full weeks. The minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board asked what alternatives the opposition has. It seems to me that the Liberal bank of ideas has run dry. It is they who are in power; they are supposed to have all the facts. My friend here says they had lots of promises in July. Yes, they seemed to have; but we on this side of the House realize that those promises were hollow.
They even had a transportation policy. The minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board was going to do away with the Crowsnest pass rates, but now the government realizes that with an election coming up in Saskatchewan it should not try to eliminate them. So the minister shelved this proposal and told the Saskatchewan people that the Crowsnest pass rates are here to stay for all of 1975. This is the great reassurance which they give in the hope they will win another election.
The minister asks, what are the alternatives? I have already said that many people, many marketing agencies and government officials in charge of handling Canadian grain believe that the national interest has been, and is being, affected by the inactivity of this government. A settlement must be fair. In this case, 40 employees tied up the whole western economy for five weeks. This is hardly fair. The government should have acted long before it did. It is hardly fair that there can be a rotating strike of airport workers, a rotating strike of snow removal crews, but not a rotating strike of grain weighers. They wanted to affect the largest possible segment of the economy because they wanted action from somebody. They had to wait a long time to get action from this government.
I believe that an alternative would be to establish a labour settlement commission which would attempt to settle a strike prior to the expiry of a contract. We do not have to wait until everyone is on strike before we realize that somebody will be out of work if we do not get them back to work. Surely we are educated enough to be able to communicate with one another prior to the expiry date of a contract. The labour settlement commission could bring in a report and the matter could be settled in time. Parliament would know whether that settlement was satisfactory and whether there would be a legal or an illegal strike.


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


Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I suppose it is usual or traditional in certain circumstances to begin one's remarks with a reference to being pleased to take part in a debate, or words of that kind. In fact, I have
Grain Shipments
used those expressions myself on occasion. But I am not pleased at having to take part in this discussion this evening, and I doubt if many hon. members can really say they are pleased to be here discussing this particular subject. This is not because the subject is unimportant-it is vitally important-and it is not because we are unhappy with the settlement that, fortunately, was reached earlier today, because we are delighted with the success of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) in that respect, but we are not happy with the procedure this evening because, once again, we find ourselves dangerously close to a situation where parliament might be called upon to legislate the conclusion of an industrial dispute. That would be a most unhappy turn of events which I do not think any member of this House would welcome.
We have heard tonight, from other hon. members, some of the kinds of damage which these disputes involving the Public Service Alliance of Canada, the Treasury Board and the longshoremen on the west coast have caused- damage such as demurrage charges which farmers will have to bear, damage such as lost opportunities to make sales during the time of the shut-down, damage possibly to our reputation as a reliable grain supplier, the congestion which is now in our system and which may take some time to unclog, deferred contracts and the problem of a large carry-over at the end of the year. Those are real problems which are particularly acute for the western grain producers who, I am happy to say, are represented in great numbers in the constituency of Assiniboia which I have the honour to represent in this House.
Let me tell the House of a statement which was prepared this afternoon by the board of directors of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool. The preamble to that statement is most important because it expresses the attitude of concern in western Canada. The board of directors said:
Provincewide anger and frustration over strikes in Canada are growing in intensity as farmers see clearly the devastating effects labour disputes have on our whole economy. We have been holding numerous public meetings throughout the province and these have been attended by thousands of farmers and numerous non-farmers as well. At every single meeting deep concern has been expressed about Canada's labour situation particularly with the disputes that have virtually stopped the flow of grain out of the country. Lost sales means lost revenue to farmers and other sectors of the economy.
That is a portion of what the board of directors had to say this afternoon in reference to the particular problem which was, fortunately, settled earlier today. It is an important expression of opinion because in this country we have a tremendous problem. I hazard to suggest that the matter of labour-management negotiations and industrial dispute settlements is probably the biggest challenge facing all levels of government federal, provincial and municipal as well as the private sector for at least the next year and a half. We are not happy that this challenge is again before the nation and this parliament. We are fortunate to have tonight a final settlement of the Public Service Alliance dispute, and hopefully within 48 hours we will have a final settlement with the longshoremen.
I want to devote a few minutes to the topic I spoke about some time ago in this House and which I know caught the attention of the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) who initiated the discussion this

March 19, 1975
Grain Shipments
evening. I refer to a remark I made during my first speech in this House. That was last October, on the occasion when the House of Commons was considering the grain handlers' dispute in Vancouver. At that time I said, and I will repeat it tonight, that there must be a better answer and let us work to find that better way. The crucial issue is just that: what is the better way; what is the alternative?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: What is the better way?


Ralph Goodale: I welcome the interjection by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn) on that point. We are all striving to achieve a better way. We hear few real answers from hon. members opposite other than sloganeering and critical harangues. Others could be more helpful in putting forward positive ideas. That is what the efforts now under way to reach a reasonable, national consensus on this issue are all about. That is what the Finkleman report is all about. That is what the Bayda commission in Vancouver is all about, and that is what the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool was all about this afternoon when its board of directors made the statement I read earlier. I would like to read the concluding sentence from that statement:
-we would welcome the calling of a general conference of government, labour and industry representatives to determine the means to improve the collective bargaining process in Canada.
I would like to associate myself with the sentiments expressed earlier this evening by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) when he called for the quest for an alternate system of dispute settlement which would not simply outlaw the right to strike by making it illegal or simply removing it. That is a rather simple solution which just will not work. Rather, we must develop what he referred to as a credible and effective mechanism which will render the strike weapon unnecessary. Simply rendering strikes illegal will not solve the problem; we must go to the root and render them unnecessary.
I would like to offer a specific proposal which I hope will commend itself to members of this House and to the government. I ask that we immediately seek out all parties which have any effect on or association with the grain handling industry-because it is a sensitive and very important industry-and seek from them a specific and concrete agreement and undertaking. Perhaps we can propose to the industry that grain handling be a special case or a test case. I think the expression of opinion this afternoon from the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool might be an indication that the parties in the grain industry would be willing to go along with such a suggestion. In a concentrated effort we could, with good will on both sides, without sloganeering, politicking or haranguing, experiment with alternate forms of dispute settlement over a specific period of time.
We would have a genuine national experiment with other ways of dispute settlement so that we would not be confronted with work stoppages. We would achieve agreement on that matter at the outset and then work with alternate methods. We could offer our farmers and customers greater assurance that "the grain will in fact go through." Our experience with grain could lead the way to a new regime. This experiment could point the way to a new establishment which would be a credible and realistic
alternative in which both sides to a dispute could have confidence, in which the public could have confidence and in which we could all place our faith and trust so that damaging work stoppages in the future would be seen to
be unnecessary.
As I say, and as other hon. members on this side of the House have said this evening-I hope the sentiment is general, and I suspect that it is despite some of the superficial comments to the contrary-it is not good enough to write some fancy slogan or punitive law on the wall and say, "Thou shalt not strike," because strikes will occur and they will be that much more difficult to deal with because they will be illegal strikes. We have to find the consensus, the basic foundation of opinion so we can find a way to make strikes, not necessarily illegal but very definitely unnecessary in this country so that work stoppages which damage so many other innocent people will be unnecessary.
I hope this suggestion will commend itself to hon. members of this House and I hope we can make use of the very sensitive and important grain industry as a place to start that great experiment.


Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale), I am not pleased to take part in this debate, but I do appreciate the opportunity of representing the many farmers and grain producers in my constituency on such a serious matter. I was a little bit disturbed when the House met this evening to hear an hon. member opposite rise and try to prevent us from having this debate. Referring to this debate, I read Standing Order 26(16)(a) which provides:
The matter proposed for discussion must relate to a genuine emergency, calling for immediate and urgent consideration-
Certainly there is indication that the strike has been settled and that the grain will perhaps start moving, but there are many other problems in the immediate future which will create a delay in the movement of grain. I was very disappointed to see the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) stand up and try to prevent us from proceeding with this debate. It is also disappointing to see that there is only one member of the New Democratic Party in the House tonight, and that there is present no cabinet minister.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It's an even fight; don't worry about it.


Douglas Charles Neil: I have been here since 1972. The government is supposed to have the answers to all these problems, but every time it is backed into a corner it asks what the opposition would do.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You haven't told us yet.


Douglas Charles Neil: The government has its mandate from the people. It made its representations to the people. It has done none of the things it said it would do. It continues to tell the opposition that it does not know what to do, and asks what we would do. If the government does not have the guts or the intelligence to make a decision, certainly it is time it resigned.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

March 19, 1975


Douglas Charles Neil: I am pleased, however, to see that two of the Liberal representatives from the province of Saskatchewan are interested enough in this debate and in the handling of grain to be in attendance tonight. This tie-up of grain is of great concern to all farmers in the west and to all businessmen. Indeed, it is an important matter as far as the whole economy of our country is concerned. I recall coming back last fall after the election and participating in the debate on Bill C-12 which legislated the grain handlers back to work. I re-read the speech which I gave at that time-


An hon. Member:: I bet you enjoyed it.


Douglas Charles Neil: I did enjoy it, but I felt sad. I found in the speech at page 218 of Hansard a quotation from the Globe and Mail Report on Business for Friday, October 4, 1974. This is what it said:
Japan has been forced to buy spot cargoes of wheat at a premium from the United States because of the six-week old grain handlers' strike in Vancouver, according to the Canadian Wheat Board.
The board said yesterday that the amounts of wheat Japan was forced to buy amounted to hundreds of thousands of tons.
The grain handlers' strike would have caused even more damage to Canada's reputation as a reliable exporter but for the fact there is so little available grain in the world that importers have had to stick with this country.
If the Board were concerned about Canada's reputation as a grain exporter in October, 1974, what is its feeling today? Agriculture is one of Canada's most important industries. It is the lifeblood of every community in the prairie provinces, and it has a great effect on the balance of payments. There is a spinoff to every other industry in Canada, machinery manufacturing in the east, automobile manufacturing, truck manufacturing and many other things. It is an industry that is persistently plagued with strikes.
Since the beginning of the crop year, August 1, 1974, the port of Vancouver has been shut down 35 per cent of the time. We have defaulted on contracts and have been called upon to pay penalties to the importing countries. The amount of these penalties are not known and the producer may never know them.
On Tuesday, March 11, I put the following question to the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board which appears at page 3976 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. On March 3 I asked the minister whether delays in moving grain on the west coast had resulted in Canada being called upon to pay sums of money under the penalty clauses in contracts entered into for the sale of grain, and the minister said he would look into the matter on an up to date basis. Is he now in a position to give an up to date answer?
The minister replied:
Mr. Speaker, needless to say, there are many contracts and the details are rather voluminous. The matter is also a very complex legal one. Perhaps it might be amenable to a discussion between the hon. member and myself, which I am prepared to have at this time.
I had a discussion with the minister two days later and he said that there were problems; that we had been called upon to pay penalties to some of the importing countries under our contract. He said it was a rather ticklish matter and a complex situation. He said that if he were to tell me
Grain Shipments
and the House the amount of these penalties it would prejudice our position as a grain exporter. I appreciate that fact, Mr. Speaker, and I would not want to see our position prejudiced. But at some point, Mr. Speaker, the grain producer in Canada is entitled to know what this tie-up of grain by the strike has cost him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Charles Neil: We are entitled to know what the Canadian Wheat Board will be called upon to pay in penalties under contracts and demurrage. I am sure the figure will be staggering.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Forty million dollars.


Douglas Charles Neil: At least $40 million. And what about lost sales? I am sure we will never know the extent of our lost sales in the last few months. I know the Americans are picking up sales as a result of our default. The report of the National Association of Wheat Growers dated March 7, 1975, in Washington has this to say:
Canadian grain movement has been completely halted by grain handler strikes at government elevators and a walk-out by west coast longshoremen. Canada is already way behind in meeting scheduled export shipments, and the continuing labour disputes have caused a back up of 20,000 loaded grain cars at west coast ports and idled over 30 vessels at Vancouver, B.C.
Shifts to U.S. wheat will be one significant result of the Canadian difficulties, and western wheat associates announced this week that Japan will purchase an additional six million bushels of U.S. wheat for shipment during March-April because of the tie-up.
There is another aspect of the tie-up, Mr. Speaker. There are indications that certain importing countries will be calling upon us to deliver grain through eastern Canadian ports. A recent newspaper report indicates that the most recent contract that China has with Canada calls for 40 per cent of that contract to be delivered through eastern Canadian ports. I tried to find out from the minister if other countries were requiring similar delivery arrangements, and I put the following question to him yesterday as recorded at page 4200 of Hansard:
Apart from the decision of the government of China to insist on deliveries of 40 per cent of its recent contract through the eastern ports, have other customers recently required that a portion of their grain shipments be sent through the eastern ports?
The minister answered:
The story about China having required delivery of 40 per cent of its supplies through eastern ports was inaccurate.
The minister did not answer my question, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the figure of 40 per cent is not accurate, but what is the figure? What other countries are calling upon Canada to deliver grain through ports other than the port of Vancouver? The producer is entitled to know this.
I was interested in a report which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen on February 26, 1975, headlined "The port of Vancouver will die ..The article quotes Mr. Fred Spoke, manager of the port of Vancouver, as saying:
The port of Vancouver, biggest grain outlet in the world has "a grave obligation to a needy and hungry world ... it should be allowed to live up to its stature."
He went on to say:
Buyers are getting very apprehensive... and it's about time the public raised its voice. It's a horrendous situation, incredible. The

Grain Shipments
United Kingdom used to be considered the worst country for labour relations-now we've apparently stolen the crown from them.
Then he said:
We have very, very good facilities to export commodities, the presence of the Amoco is proof of that, but we have never been able to live up to our capacity because of circumstances beyond our control.
The article contains another interesting statement made by Mr. Stanley Reid, president of the central division of the Canadian International Freight Forwarders Association, who said:
The port of Vancouver, I don't think there's any doubt, will die.
What happens if the port of Vancouver dies? What will it mean to grain producers? Mr. Speaker, it will mean higher transportation costs on the export of grain to the Pacific rim countries. It will mean lower prices and smaller incomes for producers. It will mean that our deliveries of export grain are limited to the period during which the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence waterway system is open, and during the time the Churchill system is open.
The producers of grain are in a strange situation. They are paid the initial price and then wait a year for the final payment. The producer has no control over what the final payment will be. He does not control the movement of grain, its export price, or the handling and export costs. Those are factors beyond his control.
Strikes take place with great frequency in the grain handling business, but the producer cannot do anything about them. He takes no part in collective bargaining, yet pays the increased costs when collective bargaining has been finalized. He pays the cost of penalties resulting from breach of contract, and pays costs of demurrage. He is simply a pawn.
As I said, agriculture is the most important industry in Canada. If we are to have a viable industry and viable economy, it must remain one of the leading industries in Canada. Before entering the House this evening I read again the speeches of the minister in charge of the Wheat Board and of the Minister of Labour, made in October last year when this House settled the grain handlers' strike. I found it interesting to note that the ministers in both those speeches simply recited the history of the strike, and not once did they mention that the strike was being settled because it was in the national interest. According to all indications, the settlement was politically expedient. The government had decided that the time had come to settle the strike, and it settled it on grounds of political expediency.
To me the national interest is all-important. While I believe in the inalienable right of workers to strike-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You want to take it away.


Douglas Charles Neil: -I think the public interest is more important than the right to strike. We cannot let strikes upset our economy and create chaos.
Apparently the west coast strike has been settled, but I anticipate further problems in the immediate future. Certainly in this enlightened day and age we should resolve our labour disputes without resorting to strikes. We must

invite the government, industry and labour to co-operate and arrive at a solution.
Ours is a great country. Canada is one of the finest countries in the world. Wa must solve the problem of strikes and labour unrest; otherwise we will destroy our country.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, having listened carefully to members on the government side and members of the official opposition, I could not help sympathizing with them. When they find the economic system they believe in and support collapsing around their ears, they immediately seek scapegoats.
If you are a Liberal or Conservative member from an urban centre, you blame those darned farmers; if you are a Liberal or Conservative member from the prairies, you blame those darned labourers. You know, this reminds me of the days of the kings, the dukes, the lords and the czars. Their motto was, divide and rule. If you keep different groups fighting each other you will rule them, you can win elections, or win enough seats to form the official opposition or be the government. You can speak out of both sides of your mouth, or speak with forked tongues. Such people speak with hot mouths but cold hearts. They have been doing this since 1867.
I admire the hon. member for Skeena (Mrs. Campag-nolo) for saying what she said. I sympathize with her. The ailment with her voice, although I did not tell her, is an ailment common to people in our occupation. It is known as preacher's throat. The only known cure is keeping your mouth shut-but she and I have failed in this. If the hon. member for Skeena would address the remarks she made tonight, which I thought were excellent, to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board and to the leader of the Liberal party in Saskatchewan, I should be most grateful, as would be all the farmers and workers in Saskatchewan. If she would do that she would do a great service for industrial peace in western Canada, if nowhere else.
Members on the government side, members of the opposition, of my party and of the Creditiste party should look at what our society has done for decades, that is, at how we treat people with high incomes as opposed to how we treat people with low incomes. I ask the hon. member for Skeena, the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale), and the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Mcl-saac) to consider why employees of the government of Canada, that is, of the people of Canada, who earn low incomes are acting as they are. Let them consider what causes strikes.
Who are the people who go on strike. Well, they are ordinary people. They have wives, children and mortgages up to their eyebrows. They see that the government allows deputy ministers, assistant deputy ministers and executive assistants, whose Ph.D. thesis was on the sex life of the date Palm, salary increases ranging from $6,000 to $10,000 a year. These were granted without bargaining. A union was not involved. Actually I don't know if the people concerned even asked for as much as they got. But the Treasury Board, the hon. member for Skeena, the hon. member for Assiniboia and the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley acquiesced in those increases. Those people were given increases equivalent to what some of
March 19, 1975

the people on strike in Canada earn in a whole year. If hon. members opposite wonder why government employees disobey the law, let them bear in mind the hypocrisy of the government which says that if your income is high, your salary shall be increased by $8,000 or $10,000 a year, and you will be paid even more for overtime. Executive assistants are to be paid money on top of their increases for overtime.
On the other hand the man who cleans the airport runway, or samples grain or weighs grain, is to get an increase that does not even allow him to catch up with the increased cost of living brought about by inflation. People like that are the first victims of this so-called free enterprise society you all advocate, and you wonder why they will not stand for it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I remind the hon. member that many socialist countries do not allow strikes.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I now want to speak about what people do for their livelihood, whether they be farmers or labourers. I should like to encourage members to my right and across the way not to make speeches which continue the divide and rule principle which has been followed for so long by the old line parties.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You never do that in the NDP, of course.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It has not done very much to meet the situation which has existed for many years. I would remind the House that there are many members of the work force who are the sons and daughters of farmers. Farmers are fair people. They are not angry at workers. They are angry at a system which forces them into positions such as they have taken in recent weeks.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I always thought farmers were in favour of free enterprise.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The hon. member for Assiniboia, and the minister in charge of the Wheat Board want to know what we propose. The hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) is partly right when he says the official opposition need not propose anything because, after all, they have not been called upon to govern. That is a Conservative problem. I suspect it is difficult for them to find any proposals to make. May I suggest three or four things which, by the way, do not originate with me; they have been proposed by members of my party since the thirties.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The old Fabian philosophy.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: To be specific, if you want genuine collective bargaining-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Wipe out free enterprise.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I know this is a bit like curling behind the glass because the dispute which encouraged this debate has now been settled, but for a future occasion the government might keep in mind that when the parties are bargaining and reach an impasse, it might be as well to exercise leadership and call for voluntary binding arbitra-
Grain Shipments
tion. This might have worked during the past week. For the future, in the case of the public service, of people who work in ports such as Vancouver, and who share a common interest, the government might suggest that the unions concerned should get together to see there was the same expiry date on contracts. This could avoid the problem of possible strikes every three weeks because a different union is involved.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Do you think they would agree to that?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Might I remind the House that this kind of leadership came first from the trade union movement. The longshoremen wanted this years ago but the government and employers did not move on it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The trade unions made that suggestion years ago, but it has never been taken up by the employers or by the government.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Or by the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Well, if you can continue to divide the population you can rule them. You can say one thing in Ontario to working people if you are a member of the Conservative party, and something else to farmers.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You mean the NDP.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I have made no bones as to how I feel on this issue. The farmers of Regina-Lake Centre know how I stand.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You mean, how you sided.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: They disagree with me at times but I think at least they have some respect for my position. They know where I stand. But when a Conservative goes into Regina-Lake Centre he talks about the terrible union fellows; when the same Conservative hits Hamilton he tells the workers how farmers get dry benefits and wet benefits at their expense. Even the newspapers do that sort of thing in their editorials.


Stan Darling: Oh, come off it, Les.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: This is what they call political morality.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: This debate provides an opportunity for all of us to examine better and different ways of resolving these disputes, something we have all been worrying about.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You are in favour of strikes.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I have suggested one way. There is another idea I should like to put forward. We are not out of the woods yet. There are the grain weighers and samplers in Thunder Bay. They happen to be included in the general trades group of the Public Service Alliance. I think they should be classified under the Canadian Grains Commission.
If the grain weighers and samplers have fallen behind the longshoremen and the grain handlers the government could give leadership to include those groups in discus-

March 19, 1975
Grain Shipments
sions so that they could go to the government or the employers with a joint proposal. After all, these workers share a common interest. When a number of workers are doing substantially the same job and one group gets more than another, a problem is bound to arise, and this is an area where constructive proposals could be made by the people who sit on the Treasury Board.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What would you propose?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I am not particularly interested in what the hon. member for Calgary North wants to know about how I think or feel. I cannot care less about what he thinks or knows about what I feel, because I part company with him irrevocably about his 1890 attitudes and concepts. This is an opportunity, even if we go on until breakfast time, to come up with ideas and proposals which will substantially reduce the cost of strikes.
May I return to the point I made earlier and quote a world-famous historical figure.


An hon. Member:: Is it Karl Marx?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: In our thoughts about workers, employers, and fair pay for fair work, he was the gentleman who in 1853 said that labour is prior and superior to capital, and that without labour capital cannot function.


An hon. Member:: Was that Abe Lincoln?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That is what he said the second time he ran for the Senate. I urge my hon. friend behind the curtain to read about Abraham Lincoln, who said that without labour capital cannot function.
If those of my hon. friends in this House really believe in the free enterprise system and want to make it function, they had better listen to someone like Abraham Lincoln. He was 100 years ahead of some of the members who sit in this House. Every time I listen to some of my friends in the Conservative and Liberal parties I feel they are trying to prove Karl Marx was right when he said capitalism will destroy itself. For 100 years in Canada both the Liberal and Conservative parties have been trying to prove that he was right. They still seem to think that the owners and proprietors of capital have the final and only say about how people shall earn their living. They do not even want to prevent a totalitarian system. Some of the remarks that I heard this evening could be attributed to Mussolini in the 1920's.
I know that some of my friends in the Conservative and Liberal parties in the House are as good or better democrats than I am, but let them be careful and think about what they say. Do not pay lip service to collective bargaining and the right to strike. Do not play upon the fears, worries and hardships of the farmers at the expense of the workers. This does not do any favour to any decent, civilized society.
Whether any of us win or lose elections is not the point. What counts is the contribution we make here to resolving our problems. At the rate we are going the difficulties we have had over the past few months are going to get worse, 
but we have an opportunity tonight and over the next two or three weeks to take some action.
The government does not need to ask the members of the opposition what ideas they have because we have given them to the government lots of times. I am not saying we are 100 per cent right, no one is 100 per cent right-or wrong for that matter. I remind the hon. member for Skeena that she should get in touch with the leader of the Liberal party of Saskatchewan and get him to keep his big mouth shut in order to make a good contribution to the settlement of industrial strife in this country. That would be very helpful. You cannot have Liberals in Saskatchewan saying one thing and Liberals in Ottawa saying something else.


Iona Campagnolo: The Liberals in British Columbia are doing all right.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, in view of the late hour and so as not to give too heavy a load to the employees of the House of Commons, I shall cut short the comments that I had intended to make during this debate.
However, I am convinced that the chair acted wisely this afternoon in allowing tonight's debate. First of all, this gave us the opportunity to witness an excellent procedural debate which was, in my opinion, most interesting, and which can inspire us in the future in a similar situation.
Despite the announcement that the conflict is settled, the chair allowed this debate to be held. This is evidence of the great freedom which exists in this institution. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) is not in his seat, and I understand him, and still congratulate him for having settled the conflict. I hope that the settlement will not be temporary but lasting. I give him the credit he deserves because when the minister is not successful, he is charged with not having done his job. As he has been successful today, I believe that we should tell him to use the same formula to settle the other conflicts which exist in our country and greatly perturb our economy.
The official opposition, on the other hand, congratulates itself for having forced the government to act more quickly. I am convinced that the opposition is right because the role of members of Parliament is to be interested in all the problems and the whole administration of our country. In our institution, some members sit on the government side and others on the opposition side. I believe that every member, on whatever side he sits, if he does his job and is really interested in the affairs of his country, greatly helps the government administer the affairs of Canada.
I have always believed and I am ever more convinced, Mr. Speaker, that inflation is at the root of many ills in Canada, that it gives rise to work stoppages because the workers do not have a sufficient income to meet their commitments. So they ask for higher wages because prices have risen, and because prices have risen the workers again ask for better wages because the cost of living has gone up. I do not believe that this is a solution. If it were,
March 19, 1975

we would have solved our problems long ago. But one senses that the situation is worsening day by day. If one compares the figures provided by Statistics Canada on gross national product for the year 1974, in constant dollars, that represents $139 billion today, but in comparison with 1961 it is only $69 billion. That is a typical example of what inflation can do. That information comes from Statistics Canada.
Getting back directly to the motion, if the copy I have in my hand is correct, it reads: "The present work stoppages which have ended all grain shipments from Canada affecting grain deliveries to all foreign countries, creating increasing unemployment." I am convinced that is also true because all work stoppages check economic activity in several sectors. Industries feel the effects, layoffs increase, and automatically the whole economy of our country is affected. It goes on: "The loss of orders of grain and the grave potential for the loss of foreign grain customers generally."
I listened carefully earlier to the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) who spoke strongly about the merits of western grain producers and their problems. I congratulate him on that, and I agree with what he said. I too admit that western grain producers contribute for a large part to the gross national product of this country, the increase in the standard of living of Canadians, and also to helping those countries which lack food and whose populations are starving. Thanks to our very productive soil and western grain producers Canada can afford to help developing countries so they can survive and continue to develop. In Canada, there is another area known as the east. Parliament must deal with the problems of western Canada; it has the duty to do so, but it must also be concerned about those of eastern Canada. In the east, there is now a conflict that affects the movement of feed grains towards the east, and which is of great concern to the producers of that area. I brought this situation to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) yesterday. I have received many telegrams. Here is one, among others:
Feed grain situation precarious-Limited quantities in Quebec elevators-Certain shortage within ten days unless blue-collar strike settled-Request immediate settlement.
In other words, those producers are asking their member of parliament to point out the problems to this House. That is what I am doing and I hope the ministers will take this situation into account. I therefore urge the President of the Treasury Board to use the same recipe that solved the conflict in Vancouver, that Canada's eastern producers not suffer too much from the conflict.
If grains are not brought in sufficient quantities to the elevators of eastern Canada, people will fight to get grain at any price; production costs are going to increase, which may easily drive pork producers out of business, resulting in the same kind of bankruptcies as last year or two years ago.
Madam Speaker, if I insisted on informing the House and the government of the-kind of situation which prevails in eastern Canada, it is because it is directly related to what happens now in western Canada. And if a settle-
Grain Shipments
ment was reached, I think the same efforts should be made to find a solution to the work stoppage which paralyzes grain movements before it is too late. I heard moments ago members saying with reason that problems are left to aggravate, thus making it difficult to solve them. I am perfectly aware that governing no longer is a sinecure today. It is not easy either, with the current spirit among people, with all those invitations, on the right and on the left, to demonstrate, sometimes with reason, but sometimes also unreasonably. People seem to be willing to demonstrate for demonstrating is sake, therefore upsetting managers and leading them really sometimes to wonder whether people are acting seriously or not. That is why it has become increasingly difficult to manage. Therefore, the government and Parliament must be much more careful than ever. They must always be on the look out for possible conflicts to try and locate them right from the beginning in order to bring in solutions before the situation gets worse. I think that is the way Canadians immag-ine the Canadian Parliament, trying to find means of avoiding the worst and solving problems which they could not avoid. I think this is the working pattern we should consider in Parliament, whatever party we belong to. Moments ago I heard the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) wondering about the silence of members who sit in this part of the House, Social Credit members. I shall tell him this: We cannot all talk together, we have to wait until we get the floor. He can be sure that we from eastern Canada are deeply concerned by all the problems occurring in the west, because we are interdependent in Parliament. We have the same responsibilities toward the people of the west as those in the east. Such is my position, this is how I have always seen things and I will continue to see them. I want mutual respect to exist both east and west.
Owing to the serious conditions and the meetings which eastern members have held in recent days with milk producers, we note that they seem dissatisfied and justly so, because production costs are increasing. They feel compelled to ask again the government to adjust the price of manufacturing milk at the level of production costs.
In my opinion, to avoid another problem, we shall have to take necessary measures to meet their demands. I am not one of those who are scared by threats and I have never been taken in by them. But it did not take me long at those meetings to realize that producers have serious problems they are unable to solve. They need the help of the government and they need it badly to know the contents of the new government policy which will take effect next April 1.
Having analysed with them the production costs, I think their demands of $11.60 per hundred weight are totally justified. At the same time, I should like to make a very practical proposal to the government, so as not to overburden consumers, low income families and workers who in most cases already have too much to pay.
There was once in Canada a policy of butter subsidy. I had that experience and benefited from it like other people my age. Well, if this policy was good then, I wonder why it should not be good now. Yet, such formulas must be used, so that some part of the population is not penalized at the expense of another. Producers and consumers will have to learn to live together and stop fighting and

March 19, 1975
Grain Shipments
accusing each other. They will have to get to understand one another better. Parliament will also have to assume its responsibilities and discover what is going on among the middlemen, in the big outfits, those we do not know but who are quite active, so as to find out how they can manage to fleece both the consumers and producers at the same time. Such is the function of government. I already talked about this and I say it again tonight: so long as we will not have the courage to go and see what is going on in that segment of our economy, we shall see problems getting worse, dissatisfied consumers, ill-paid producers, and a government embarrassed and uncertain about the course to take.
In my opinion, the government would be well advised to create a commission to examine what is going on in that sanctuary. Its members would not be appointed on a political basis, but would be qualified, honest, persons who would be able to go to the heart of problems and to report to the government. Members should then have enough courage to pass legislation to implement the reports produced.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mclsaac).


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, may I rise on a point of order.


@Acting Speaker: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre on a point of order.


An hon. Member:: You are the only one in your party who could rise on a point of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, I offer this with all the kindness I have in my heart. Would there be general agreement from here on that the speeches might be limited to 15 minutes?


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: There does not seem to be agreement. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport.


Mr. Cliff Mclsaac (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I shall try to comply with the wishes of my hon. friend. I was particularly interested, as I always am in a debate of this kind, in the remarks of the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin). He spoke of the very lofty ideals he and all of us should have in a debate of this kind. I found his remarks a little interesting compared to the practices of the members of the New Democratic Party, both here and elsewhere. He was rather critical of both the official opposition and the government, and made charges that perhaps they have tried to divide the farmer and the labourer in the past. He made no mention of the fact that particularly in Saskatchewan they have attempted for many years to divide the east from the west, and to bring about any other divisiveness they could put their hands on. It was interesting to hear the hon. member skate around the facts and try

to cover all the ground without really offending either side.
The hon. member did make one point when he said something to the effect that there is nothing new in the situation in which we find ourselves today. In that regard he is correct except that surely we, as parliamentarians and the people in this country, should have been able to learn something from the experiences of the various stoppages we have had to put up with through the years. I was very happy to hear of the settlement announced by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) tonight. Apparently the strike has been settled.


An hon. Member:: What about the next one?


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: The hon. member raises a very good point. The fact that we are here tonight debating a work stoppage in respect of the grain handling industry is not new. I believe there have been four or five such cases over the past few years. The hon. member who moved the motion said that there had been four cases in the past two or three years in which the Parliament of Canada had to intervene. There certainly have been four or five more occasions on which the Parliament of Canada might have intervened.


An hon. Member:: Or should have intervened.


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: Yes, or should have. I should like to congratulate the President of the Treasury Board for the work he has done in bringing about this settlement. Collective bargaining is always a difficult process. Despite the fact that we have been involved in this for many years there is still much we have to learn about it. Collective bargaining is doubly difficult when the Government of Canada is the employer, particularly at a time when there is inflation in this country. Inflation certainly adds to the problems of both the workers and the employers, whether the employers be the government or other agencies.
As I have said, the President of the Treasury Board has obtained a settlement under the free collective bargaining process. I suppose the result of that process in this particular dispute might indicate to many people, both inside and outside this House, that the collective bargaining process is really working well. I say that would be an erroneous conclusion to draw in so far as at least these industrial disputes relate to the grain industry in this country. The collective bargaining process certainly has not served the Canadian grain industry well during the past few years.
There are about 160,000 to 170,000 farmers in western Canada, and many other people who are affected by the kind of disruption we have seen over the past six or eight months in the grain industry. These people have every respect for the right of the workers and employees to strike against their employers. They also appreciate the problems of the working man, whether he is working in the grain industry weighing grain in Vancouver or is loading boxcars on the prairies or anywhere else.
However, the question which must be asked sometime by the grain producer particularly, and by other Canadians whether or not they are directly involved in the production of grain, is when does the right of the worker come before the right of the producer to produce his product, put it on the market, obtain markets, and be
March 19, 1975

assured of future markets for his product? The farmer has a dozen and one things to contend with from the time he plants his crop until he gets it to market and receives a payment the amount of which he does not know. When does the right of the prairie farmer transcend the right in this case of 20 to 40 weighmen who have the right to strike? The farmer does not question this right.
I think this is one classic example, if we need any more, of the fact that we must immediately explore some better ways and means of resolving these disputes and differences before they reach the strike stage. The strike weapon where it directly involves only the employer and employee is very legitimate, and I certainly will defend that. Who knows, as someone said earlier, when we may have to be back here again in a week or two to deal with a similar situation in one of the many other possible disputes that could occur in the grain industry? I think we need to examine, explore and study very seriously some alternative methods to resolve these disputes before they get to the strike stage. Perhaps some special voluntary arbitration procedures could be implemented on a trial basis, as an example to try to see if we might be able to show the way in other industrial disputes.
Last weekend, at the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities Convention, western farmers attending the meeting said to me that they are prepared to support a national policy on energy where the taxpayers of Saskatchewan and Alberta, as the oil producing provinces, are receiving less than they would be if they were getting world prices for their resources. They are saying today that surely the rest of Canada should show them some consideration in trying to find a better solution to the disputes that have been so disruptive to the grain industry.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: What about the pipes going on strike, Cliff?


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: I wish to conclude my remarks by reiterating my hope that next time we debate a similar issue-and I hope it does not happen soon-we will give more serious consideration to definite alternatives to the kind of situation that has kept us here until after twelve o'clock.
I might say, in answer to one point that was raised earlier in the debate as to what will happen from now on when the men return to work, that a contingency plan has been worked out by the Department of Transport in conjunction with the Canadian Wheat Board, the CNR, the CPR and the grains group to try to move grain as rapidly as possible.
I think the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board mentioned that the Vancouver elevator operators will be asked to work extra shifts. The railroads are committed to supply cars as quickly as the elevators can unload the grain, and the railroads have committed over
3,000	cars per week.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: What is the incentive?


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: The incentive is that everybody associated with the grain industry is anxious to catch up, to get those
Grain Shipments
ships loaded and to get the grain out. I think that is true whether they are grain handlers, grain weighers, railroaders or anybody else along the line. I think that we will see the co-operation that is required to bring about the maximum effort in that regard to catch up and to minimize the damage that has been done in the grain industry, which has actually paid most of the price for the disruption.


Mr. Cecil Smith (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, the port of Churchill provides Manitoba with the unique distinction among the prairie provinces-


Walter David Baker: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. I do not want to interrupt my colleague but 1 want the record to show that at this moment there are only three Liberal members in the House listening to this very important debate.


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: I rise on the same point of order. I would like to point out who the four Liberal members are. The fact is that there were considerably more Liberals in the House when this debate opened than there were members of the official opposition.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. This is not a point of order but a point for debate.


Cecil Morris Smith: Madam Speaker, I will start from the beginning again after that slight interruption. I would like to say that the port of Churchill provides Manitoba with a unique distinction among the prairie provinces because of its access to the sea. The port has a fine harbour protected from the open sea. There are 3,065 feet of wharf with five deep sea berths and one coastal berth. The deep sea berths and turning basin at present are a maximum of 30 feet deep, that is at low tide, with tides running 11 to 15 feet. The major product moved out of the port of Churchill to date has been grain.
Western grain has been shipped from the port of Churchill since 1931, but the full capacity of that port has never really been tested. Since 1931, which is 44 years, the port of Churchill has never been affected by a strike. I think that that is something of a milestone, for a port to operate for 44 years without a strike that would affect the handling of grain.
Although in areas adjacent to the port there are no farm producers, the farmers from Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta certainly benefit from the port because it provides ready access to European markets. At present the port of Churchill has the facilities to handle some 5 million bushels of grain in storage. The actual potential for shipping out of Churchill is in the neighbourhood of 40 million bushels per shipping season. The shipping season in Churchill at present runs from about July 20 to October
20.	We are concerned about getting grain out to the markets of the world, and it certainly seems that when we have such a port as Churchill which is only open for a limited time of the year, that is three months, we should be using this port to its full potential.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Cecil Morris Smith: At the end of the shipping season last year the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) stated that another record year has been set for grain

March 19, 1975
Grain Shipments
shipments through the port of Churchill. The grain shipped from Churchill last year amounted to 22,737,422 bushels. That amount was shipped out of a port that has the potential to ship 40 million bushels. The facilities are there to ship that much grain. However, when I talk to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board and make a few suggestions as to how to bring the shipments up to 40 million bushels, I get the answer that all these things have been tried. I would like to suggest some very positive moves which could make this port a very important grain handling facility as well as a facility for other commodities produced by International Nickel Company, Sherritt Gordon, and so on, because grain shipments are not the only commodity to be considered with respect to the port of Churchill.
One thing that would improve shipments out of Churchill and bring it up to the 40 million bushels it is capable of handling is to co-ordinate the shipments out with the deliveries of grain arriving in Churchill. This means that as the trains arrive in Churchill, instead of having to offload this grain, put it in storage and then load it on to ships, it could be loaded directly on to the ships because the grain is not cleaned in Churchill; it is cleaned in Saskatoon before it is shipped north.
Churchill has a very short shipping season of three months and there have been as many as ten days during the shipping season without a ship in sight: then it is the problem of the Wheat Board, and there will be as many as eight or ten ships sitting in the harbour waiting to be loaded and the facilities can only handle three of the large ocean-going ships at one time. Under the present system, delivery of grain is taken from July 20 to October 20. I suggested that when the Wheat Board negotiates a contract with another country, this period should be shortened, and that if we sell five million bushels of grain to a country the date of delivery should be shortened to possibly July 20 to August 20. This would facilitate getting the ships into the harbour at the same time as the train arrivals.
In order to move 40 million bushels of grain to this very important port in Manitoba, we have to consider transportation. Only a portion of the railway system which runs from The Pas up to Thompson has been upgraded. At the present time, much of that railway is in a state of poor repair. This is causing many train wrecks, which costs the shipping industry a great many dollars. It cannot get the grain delivered to Churchill with only one railway running to that port. I would like to see at least a passing track installed between Gillam and Churchill. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) has said $20 million will be spent on the upgrading of the rail system to ensure that grain will be delivered. I just hate to think of a strike taking place at the port of Churchill.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It isn't open long enough to have a strike.


Cecil Morris Smith: If the hon. member knew where it was, he could speak about it; but he doesn't even know where it is. If a strike took place at the port of Churchill when ships were in the port, they could not move to

another port and pick up another load. These ships would have to go back through the Hudson Bay and try to find somewhere else to load. I hate to think of the problem we would face in trying to encourage shipping companies to come to Churchill when in fact it was not known whether they could load. I propose that the storage facilities at Churchill be increased to meet the capacity of that port, which is 40 million bushels. This amount of grain should be stored at Churchill at all times. Then when we sold wheat to a country we could enter into a contract with a shipping company because we would know there were 40 million bushels stored there. It is a known fact that the storage facilities at Churchill are ideal because of the climatic conditions; there are no heat or humidity problems. Therefore, I propose that the capacity of the terminal be increased.
We read in the estimates for this year, and in the estimates of last year, that $12.5 million will be spent in Churchill over the next four years. That amount will cover nothing more than maintenance. This government is not interested in developing the port of Churchill.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Neither was the previous Conservative government.


Cecil Morris Smith: If the government was interested in developing the port of Churchill, it would be taking a much more positive approach to putting in facilities which would handle grain and other commodities to be shipped from the port.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, I have heard my hon. colleague speak for many hours in the past about his interest in the port of Churchill. As I listen to this debate tonight, I look across the aisle at the vacant seats-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. The hon. member knows that this is not a valid point of order.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, I have listened to the hon. member for Churchill. He has referred several times to the government, the cabinet and the treasury benches-and at this moment, for the last half-hour there has not been a member present there, including my hon. friend opposite who has just taken his seat.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. If the hon. member wishes to speak after the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Smith), the Chair will recognize him then.


Cecil Morris Smith: Another thing which really concerns me about the port of Churchill, because of the short season, is that the season could be extended by at least another month if there were proper insurance coverage. Lloyd's of London will not extend insurance coverage after October 20. I believe that if the government were really interested in extending the shipping season in Churchill, it would provide some insurance coverage for the month following October 20 because this past year ships could still have left the port on November 9. With an extension of the ships that come into the port we could be looking at even more than 40 million bushels, but if we even met that target it would be a milestone in grain shipments out of the port of Churchill.

When I speak of the transportation and rail system, I refer to the rail system down in the Interlake part of the Churchill constituency. In an average year, the lines in the Arborg and Hodgson area carry somewhere in the area of five million bushels of grain. The Riverton and Gypsum-ville lines are protected from abandonment until the year 2000. The Arborg and Hodgson lines, however, are only protected until 1976, at which time the situation will be evaluated. This situation should be looked at closely because farmers in the area have no idea how they are going to get their grain to market after 1976 if the line is abandoned.
Some very active people at the port of Churchill and in the province of Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan, in 1973 formed the Port Churchill Development Board to stimulate and develop two-way trade to the port. Their objective is to reduce the port's dependence on grain. We cannot seem to get the government to understand, although we have been trying for 30 years, that in Churchill we have a seaport in the middle of Canada that has not been utilized to its full capacity. The Port Churchill Development Board has the objective of encouraging the growth of other exports thus making this a viable inland seaport that should be used to its fullest capacity.
Let us keep the record clean and keep strikes out, Mr. Speaker. A record of 44 strikes a year is going to be hard to beat for any seaport.


Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Madam Speaker, I would like to contribute very briefly but sincerely to this debate to move some suggestions in order that the government finally take the necessary measures to avoid such conflicts.
Madam Speaker, the government has finally recognized the importance, not to say the emergency, of an intervention on that problem of prime importance for all Canadians. But once again, it reveals its total incapacity to apply the necessary measures.
We all know, Madam Speaker, that such a conflict causes considerable losses in the Canadian economy. I do not think it is useful to enumerate them all, since as the debate goes on, I realize that several members have discussed them. In the interest of all Canadians and for the welfare of Canada, the operations that have just started again, are certainly likely to remedy many shortcomings. Surely no member here this evening questions the fact that the strike of the blue collars has given rise to various troubles in the community. At this very moment, it is not difficult to realize that the conflict has had disastrous results. Who will again pay for the damages? The Canadian people.
I do not intend, Madam Speaker, to blame the poor workers involved in this conflict. On the contrary, we only have to blame our present economic system. The workers are at its mercy and are once again the victims to the same extent as raw milk producers in eastern Canada. Like the member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert), I want to be the spokesman of those producers facing production problems. I ask all eastern and western members to support the
Grain Shipments
demands of those producers which seem to me quite justified under the circumstances.
Madam Speaker, it is not difficult to be convinced. I therefore urge all the members to consider honestly what is going on in our country. We will see strikes multiply at a frightening rate which, in the end, is not likely to alleviate dissension, strife and the causes of the inflation that is rampant across the country.
Madam Speaker, I think seriously that the government must take a stand to stop any dispute. They must also take valid means to avoid similar situations.
Furthermore, I agree that this is an extremely difficult problem and that it would be all the easier to accuse the government. But this will certainly not solve the problem because we have been the victims of an outdated system for many years.
The government must solve not only current strifes, but also put forward legislation to prevent similar occurrences. I will keep saying this.
We are moving in a vicious circle, where inflation forces workers to demand higher wages. If they don't get them, what do they do? Their only way out is to go on strike. We have a good example in current and menacing strikes.
I firmly believe the time has come for the government to take their responsibilities and endorse Social Credit policies. We are convinced that our solutions will promote closer cooperation between money capital and labour capital. It is truly important that we put a stop to the battles that have been going on between these two kinds of capital for a number of years. We feel they are getting more numerous and more serious all the time.
Before I conclude, I would offer this government two suggestions. The first one should foster better employer-employee relations. It is simply a policy or system under which workers would share in profits. This would ensure worker participation in Canadian business development. Surely, this solution will force its way through if we are to make full use of all our resources.
The second solution is the guaranteed income policy formulated by our party. This would be a tremendous step in the settlement of the problems we now face, because it would give workers higher income, without any cost push effect on prices.
I believe the time has come for the present government to listen to our party's suggestions and theories.


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Madam Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) for presenting his motion. The Canadian people are behind him on this issue. I find it strange that the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) is not present this evening. He is always asking the opposition for advice, and when we want to give it to him he has gone home to bed.


An hon. Member:: That's where you should be.


A. Daniel McKenzie: The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) suggested that members of the

Grain Shipments
Conservative party speak with forked tongues and hot mouths. I assure him that we do not speak with forked tongues and hot mouths. The Conservative party is made up of farmers, small businessmen, railroad workers and people from all walks of life. I am a telephone man who belonged to unions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


A. Daniel McKenzie: My roommate was a railway worker who is concerned about unions. As I said, the Conservative party is concerned about people in all walks of life; it is not concerned about one special group only.
The record of the government following the July 8 election has been dismal. Clearly it has created a serious mess in west coast grain handling and there is every indication that the mess will remain, even though one strike was settled today. In 1973, when parliament was recalled to deal with the rail strike, I said that that dispute represented only the tip of the iceberg. The Perry report again confirmed that both present inflation and uncertainty about future inflation contributed to the breakdown in contract negotiations. The Trudeau government, which still lacks an effective policy to deal with inflation, has now fouled up prospects of a negotiated settlement on the west coast. Canadians who placed their trust in a majority Trudeau government are finding that trust betrayed in short order.
Strangely, neither the President of the Treasury Board nor the minister responsible for the Wheat Board talked about the reason for labour unrest in this country. The reason is double-digit inflation. They made it abundantly clear that they intend to do nothing to tackle the problem. So far they have done nothing. I ought to correct that; they have done a couple of things, one of them being the appointment of Beryl Plumptre to head a board which duplicates the work of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. That department, with a budget of $48 million and staff of 2,400 people, should be doing her job. A couple of weeks ago the board looked at inflation, but it did it by staying in $300-a-day hotel rooms, eating lobster and steak, and talking with businessmen. If that is how it is delving into inflation, it will not wash. The Canadian people will not accept it.
According to a recent Gallup poll, almost three times as many people say their opinion of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has gone down as say it has gone up in the past three months. Thirty-six per cent say their opinion has gone down, but only 13 per cent say it has gone up. That shows why we were right in demanding this debate. If any Liberals doubt my word, let them come to my office and I will show them the kind of mail we are bombarded with from members of the public who are fed up with this government.
Mr. Carl Beigie, executive director of the C.D. Howe Research Institute in Montreal, says the federal government has been too concerned with short-term stop-gap policies and has placed too much emphasis on convincing the public that Canada is uniquely placed to survive the current economic crisis with relatively little pain. This government reminds me of Johnston and Johnston, and we all know who they were-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. I remind the hon. member that the purpose of this debate is the discussion of a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the present work stoppages which have ended all grain shipments from Canada affecting grain deliveries to all foreign countries.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Madam Speaker, as I was saying, the source of our troubles is double-digit inflation. Until we solve that problem, strikes will continue. Mr. William A. Dimma, Dean of York University's Faculty of Administrative Studies, said, as reported in the Montreal Gazette of February 17, 1975:
The damage done by severe inflation and the expectation that it will continue is evident.
If it is prolonged, and especially if the wrong or no prescriptions are applied, it harms almost everyone.
The sort of labour unrest evident since September 30, when parliament convened, will continue until the government resolves the problem of double-digit inflation. We are not interested in the government's excuses. It always blames somebody else. As Mr. Dimma says, we shall see an increased frequency and severity of strikes and lock-outs. There will be an enormous weakening of capital markets. He explained the reasons for Canada's problems. Canada, in the eyes of the world, is like the horse's end-I will not use the appropriate word, but hon. members know what I mean.
Over a quarter of our exports move through the port of Vancouver, yet exports are curtailed because of strikes. In the first 33 weeks of the current crop year, grain shipping was shut down for 11 weeks. There have been only two occasions since August, 1973, when vessels have not been waiting to load at Vancouver. Those two occasions amounted to only 18 working days. As of March 10, 30 vessels had been waiting and 15,000 boxcars have been bunched up in the west, trying to get into the port. As of March 18, 33 vessels were waiting.
Even though a strike has been settled today, it will take weeks to clear the pile-up of boxcars on the prairies. Bangladesh has suffered and Japan cancelled an order. Buyers will not look to this country for more orders, because we are always on strike. Strikes affect every farmer in the west, and cost us millions of dollars.
Mr. G. L. Harrold, Chairman of the Wheat Board Advisory Committee and President of the Alberta Wheat Pool, says the Board may be forced to limit future sales through West Coast ports to 20 million bushels a month or less. The average movement in the past three years has been 30 million bushels a month. We have given a lot of business to Seattle since these strikes began. We have revitalized United States ports which have been dead for years. San Francisco is now very active in handling grain because we are always on strike. Although the western farmer is suffering, and although the Canadian economy is suffering because of the strikes, the Prime Minister on March 18 said he did not see the possibility of parliament being called upon to end the strikes as there was no urgency involved.


Ralph Goodale: That is not true. That is not what he said.
March 19, 1975


A. Daniel McKenzie: The news headlines describing what is going on make a laughing stock out of us. I will read one or two: "West Coast Ports Hit Again", "Strike Effects Go Very Deep", "West Ports Hit By Prevailing Labour Gales". Here is another: "Strikes Force Wheat Board to Discourage Grain Planting".


Ralph Goodale: That is untrue. The Board never said that.


A. Daniel McKenzie: All right. I suggest you challenge the Wheat Board then.


Ralph Goodale: I checked today. What you have just said is untrue.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Well then you should bring in a correction.


Mr. Towers:: How much wheat have you raised?


A. Daniel McKenzie: I will read the statement. The Financial Post reported on March 15 that the Canadian Wheat Board told farmers to ignore former promises that the Board can sell everything they plant in the current crop year. If that statement is incorrect, the government should put out a statement in correction of it.
We are always being told by members on the government side that the opposition has nothing concrete to offer. I should like to read the suggestions we put forward during the last election.
For several years Canadians, we said, have watched with growing concern and disappointment the emergence of four areas of colossal policy failure by the government with respect to the world of work. These failures have caused much unnecessary personal anxiety for thousands of working men and women, have generated widespread frustration and anger, and have stirred considerable social unrest. That is the understatement of the century.
Perhaps the most glaring failure has been the failure to provide adequate job opportunities for those who want and need employment. The inability of the economy to absorb as active members of the labour force the large numbers of young people graduating from our high schools, universities and technical schools is one example. Another is the inability of ordinary Canadians in most parts of the country to get jobs when they want them.
One glaring example of policy failure by the government relates to somewhat questionable approaches to collective bargaining nurtured over the last several years. The strike and lock-out remain by and large legitimate and necessary tools for the effective functioning of the collective bargaining process and for meaningful labour management relations, but there are numerous cases where both parties, as well as the public in general, have been the losers.
I do not have the time to cover all of these areas but I will outline the major ones. We would see that the rights of members of unions to receive audited financial statements are guaranteed by law. We would review the law relating to the abuse of positions of trust with a view to reinforcing the safeguards. The Progressive Conservative Party feels it is desirable, wherever possible, to promote more unity, co-operation and commonality of interest between labour and management. We advocate efforts to
Grain Shipments
promote the diffusion of ownership among workers and salaried employees of Canadian companies. We do not believe in confrontation. We believe in constant consultation and this is what has been lacking.
The Progressive Conservative Party would consult with labour and management organizations to formulate a comprehensive strategy toward this end. Such strategy might include responsible tax incentives for profit-sharing schemes, worker participation in plant management, and employee stock ownership financing which would help spread ownership among most or all of the employees.
Also, the Conservative Party favours more regular review of federal labour legislation relating to minimum wages and hours of work. The object must be to ensure that these are at all times sufficiently in the interest of the working man or woman. A Progressive Conservative government would also establish an independent national human rights commission. The function of this commission would be to deal with the whole range of individual rights in every field under the jurisdiction of the federal government, including the federal public service. Also, we must consider safeguarding the public interest. Experience in recent years has shown that there are certain key industries and certain aspects of particular services where the use of a strike or lock-out has made the public a pawn in labour-management differences. This is what concerns the Canadian public.
Being critical of the Liberal government is the easiest thing, I find, since I came down here. I hope tonight I have shown that it is equally possible to put forward constructive suggestions, because the government has proved itself to be bankrupt of ideas. It does not know what to do and it is asking us to come forward with suggestions. I have offered a few and I hope they will be heeded.


Ralph Goodale: On a point of order, the hon. member made extensive reference to a newspaper report which allegedly said the Wheat Board had suggested that as a result of this dispute production was to be discouraged. If the hon. member would check the source, he would find-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: That is not a point of order. It is a point of debate.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, first I want to congratulate my colleague the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser), for introducing this very important matter. The parameters of the problem to which we are addressing ourselves tonight were set forth in terms of the number of ships that were waiting to load grain, the number of shipping days that were lost, the back shipments that are overdue, as well as in terms of our credibility with our customers. These countries have purchased one million tons of grain, and they will think twice about further purchases of grain from this country.
I do not think there is really any doubt in the mind of any member of the House that what we are dealing with is truly in the national interest, not only in relation to grain but in terms of the continued operation and good faith of
March 19, 1975

Grain Shipments
one of the most important commodity operations in this country and the world.
I think two of the strongest speeches made tonight about the failures of the government were made by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale) and the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Mclsaac). Let me just repeat what the hon. member for Assiniboia said. He said that he thought there ought to be a national conference or gathering to bring together the people concerned in all aspects of the grain trade.
I think we can expand that far beyond the grain trade in terms of labour relations. We can expand it into other areas of commerce and industry that are important to this country, and upon which we depend. I congratulate him for saying that, because the government that he supports, which has been in office since 1963, and which goes to the opposition for alternatives without producing any itself, has had the opportunity to take the kind of action he suggests, but not once has it done so.
The hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley also made a fine speech. He recognized the difficulty his own party has placed him in so far as his constituents and his province are concerned. In his eloquent way he made the same condemnation of lack of action by the government since it came to office in 1963.
In addition to speaking in the House of Commons for the record, I should also like these two members to go to caucus next Wednesday and speak to their colleagues in exactly the same terms. The hon. member for Skeena (Mrs. Campagnolo), I thought, made a very forceful speech, and perhaps put the situation best of all in terms of breadth when she talked about other industries. I should like her to go to the Liberal caucus next week and make the same speech. I should like her to make the absent members from the treasury benches tonight, and the 100 odd absent members of the government, listen to her. I assume that if they do not come to the House for important debates they must at least attend caucus, so I think those speeches should be made there as well.
I listened very carefully to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) and the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) who spoke tonight, and waited for some of the alternatives which they have asked of the opposition. But why do they not produce alternatives during the course of the debate? The people of Canada gave this government a mandate on July 8. I do not begrudge it the mandate, though I wish it were otherwise. But they did not give the government a mandate to ask the opposition what to do about the problems of this country; the people of Canada were looking to the government to lead and to offer alternatives; they looked to the government to heal the wounds, to give leadership and to inspire Canadians.
Unfortunately the government has a majority but is in relative shambles. If there is one place where we are going to witness lack of leadership in Canada in 1975 and 1976, it is in the very vexing field of employer-employee relations.
I do not want to speak about the general labour market, but I do want to say something about the public service of this country. I respect the right to strike, though I hope it will always be used in a responsible way. But I also think we should look to the national interest from time to time and, as the President of the Treasury Board said, there is a

time for judgment. He said that in his opinion the time for judgment with respect to the grain trade had not come.
I say to him that he was wrong, that he exercised that judgment improperly. That is not to say that the issue is not important. The farmers and the people who depend on the grain trade decided a long time ago that the matter was in the national interest.
The minister asked for alternatives, and I should like to tell him about what I would like to see in regard to public service bargaining. I should like to see a widening of bargaining rights in this country, of the fields in which public servants can bargain, and of the matters about which they can bargain. It is important to establish, or perhaps re-establish, good faith in the public service between employers and employees. That was the purpose of the Finkelman report, but I do not think that is in existence. If the government members of that commission were to move in that direction, then I think we would be opening the door to the beginning of industrial peace and trust in this country.
The second thing we ought to do is re-establish the pay research bureau. It was a very good thing and it could take an independent look at pay structures and the whole matter of comparability. All the evidence placed before that bureau ought to be laid on the table so that all parties, including the public, could see what the case is. This is not the case now. If anything came out of the Finkelman report, it is the fact that this has not been done but ought to be done.
I think we have to take a hard look at the whole concept of industrial democracy in the private sector so that trust can be built up and perhaps transcend itself-if that is the correct phrase-into the public sector. We ought to strive for that in the committee. Government members, particularly, ought not to limit the debate, limit the thrust of that committee or dampen down the areas we can discuss but should, rather, widen them so we can build into the public service side the real, consultative procedures which are not now there. The rudiments are there, but in terms of good, sound consultative procedures they are not there.
We ought to explore the whole question of a public interest disputes commission. Part of the problem in respect of labour relations in Canada, in the public or private sector, is that there is no machinery anywhere to examine a contract while it is in force or to deal with problems that arise from time to time while a contract is running and isolate the problems before the contract expires. In this way negotiation would be limited and the beds sores that come during a period of conflict would be eliminated. We need that kind of consultative procedure in this country. We also need bargaining procedures in both the public and private sectors. We need bargaining procedures that are swift and responsive so the frustrations that come in the course of time do not build up and attitudes do not harden. The minister asked for some suggestions, and those are a few I offer in the short time I have to deal with this matter.
I am a little concerned about what the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) has said. I thought one aspect of his speech set a very high tone in respect of what we look for
March 19, 1975

in this country, but I thought another part of his speech was the most cynical thing I have heard since coming to this House in 1972. He said that opposition members in this House, and I presume he meant a number of them, had sad faces because this distressing dispute was over.
An. hon. Member: That's right.


Walter David Baker: I think that is
dreadful.


An hon. Member:: It is true; look around you.


Walter David Baker: I think it is a shameful statement coming from a minister of the Crown whose government is charged with the basic responsibility for bringing some form of industrial peace to this country.
The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie) said that we could set up all the machinery we wanted, have all the good faith we could get and build everything into the system that man could devise, but unless we are prepared in this country to tackle the problem that is causing some of our difficulties, namely, the fear in organized labour, public servants and people on fixed incomes that their incomes will just not keep up with the cost of living, there will never be any real industrial peace in this country.
Members of the government wanted an alternative, something different. They should look inward and ask themselves whether in this year, 1975, they are really tackling the problem of inflation which is eating the heart out of our economy and causing distress to many groups, setting one group of Canadians against another in a "dog eat dog" attitude. That is the problem we have to fight in this country: That is the problem the people of Canada charge this government to solve.
I will not have a sad face if this government solves the problem. I would be a very happy Canadian and a very happy member of parliament to serve in the opposition or otherwise if we had a government that produced a solution to this problem instead of vagueness, consensus and ministers running off in all directions. The Canadian people and this opposition ask more of this government. We charge the government with the responsibility of delivering solutions to our problems. So far, this government has failed to do that-and that is at the heart of our problem. I hope the members of the Liberal Party who have sat through this debate will take that message to their caucus.


An hon. Member:: We don't need your advice.


Walter David Baker: Please do not come to this House again asking the opposition what it would do. The Canadian people are asking this government what it will do. That is the question in the minds of members on all sides of the House. That is the question being asked by the men and women of this country-the homemakers, the people who are beginning employment, the people who want to own homes and the people who want industrial peace. That is the challenge to this government, and I will support-as will my party-any reasonable effort by this government to meet that challenge. Thus far, the government has not shown that it is equal to the job.
Grain Shipments


Mr. MacFarlane:: I should just like to bring to the attention of the House that under our rules not more than one matter can be discussed under the same motion, and I think there is a definite objective on the part of hon. members opposite to broaden this debate.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, one of the most perplexing things to try to figure out in this House is how to understand a Liberal government. Their members get up in the House and suggest that members of the opposition complain but never come up with any suggestions. Just now, when the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) made a number of suggestions, hon. members said they were not interested in hearing them-and I think that describes the attitude of hon. members opposite tonight.
At this hour, 20 minutes after one o'clock in the morning, I think it is interesting to point out that the Liberals said this issue is not in the national interest. I think if we are to be positive and constructive in respect of the government we have to concede that it believes it is not in the national interest. It would seem that the government does believes this because the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) never once showed up for this debate. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) came for his speech and then left. The minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Lang) did not remain here except for a few minutes. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) was never here once.
Tonight I will document some information to show that this is a very important issue in terms of the national interest. Throughout the debates in recent days we have heard that collective bargaining is a right. I will not deny that is so. However, we also must bear in mind that this society has no such a thing as rights in isolation. A right is a concept that is co-related and interwoven with responsibility.
When we look at the broad spectrum of our society we note that many aspects to which we claim rights also have clearly defined responsibilities. First, if we have the right to drive a car we have the responsibility to be licensed and the responsibility to drive on the correct side of the road. We have the right to breathe air; but have the responsibility not to pollute it. But let us look at what the Liberals have been telling us. They speak about the right to strike regardless of whether or not any responsibility is being shown. Let me give an example. In answer to a question by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta) the Prime Minister replied in part:
The answer really lies at which point the public interest becomes overwhelming and should overwhelm the basic democratic right to strike which has been given by parliament to the workers of this nation.
Then on March 18, as recorded at page 4195 of Hansard, in answer to a question by the hon. member for Vancouver South, the President of the Treasury Board replied in part as follows:

March 19, 1975
Grain Shipments
Mr. Speaker, I said previously and I will repeat that those employees have the right to strike, and we respect that right to strike. The House has not indicated to me that we should withdraw the right to strike.
There is no mention of a parallel set of responsibilities. Then at page 4199 of Hansard for March 18, in reply to a question of mine, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) said:
This is a dispute situation. In a dispute situation such as this, we could not get into the question of assessing liability on innocent third parties. That is an inevitable result when you have the right to strike.
One would gather from the Minister of Labour that damage irrespective of amount is simply a part of labour-management negotiations. When the leader of this party asked the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Sharp) a question on March 7, 1975, as recorded at page 3879 of Hansard, he replied:
It is the law of this country that people do have the right to strike.
As a thesis to my case I wish to point out that there are no rights in this country without parallel sets of responsibilities. We might refer to the Canadian Bill of Rights which lays down the basic rights for people. It talks about rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of the press. We know in fact that none of those rights exist without responsibilities. In the second paragraph of the Canadian Bill of Rights we find this:
Affirming also that men and institutions remain free only when freedom is founded upon respect for moral and spiritual values and the rule of law;
When we take a look at the question of spiritual and moral laws I challenge this government, when the largest ship ever to go to the port of Vancouver is stranded at that port waiting to take grain destined for Bangladesh, to show where its sense of moral and spiritual law is.
I challenge members of the government to come forward and say what their mores are when they say this is not in the national interest. They take this position despite the fact that 12,000 people a day are dying of starvation or malnutrition. One must ask vhere is the moral obligation of this government when only 40 people can hold up the grain industry. Yet they have the audacity to talk about the rights of labour and management. Have we once heard these members opposite talk about the result in respect of third parties? Who is looking after the farmers who, in every instance, end up paying at least part of the shot and who, by their very nature, are prevented from being able to strike in order to retain some of the benefits for themselves?
This evening we heard a speech by the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. All I could conclude when the minister finished his speech was that I had never witnessed a greater example of an abortion created on the western farmers than by the Minister of Justice. The President of the Treasury Board referred to this debate tonight as a little strike. I dare him to go to the constituencies of western Canada and refer to this as a little strike.
I think the Liberal Party could be well known as an animal called the cheeta in respect of the western farm people because members of that party have shown their callousness in respect of this issue where it concerns the people who are in need of the production we can produce. I should like to document how serious the situation has

been to the prairie farmer and how insensitive the present government has been. While I hear echoes from the other side I shall document how serious this is.
The government has cheated the farmer for the last couple of years in relation to the port of Vancouver. Let us deal first from the start of the crop year commencing with the week of July 28 to August 3, 1974. At that time we had the west coast grain handlers' strike which started on May 19, 1974. Let us go to the second week, the week of August 4 to August 10. The west coast grain handlers' strike continued and the Great Lakes lake operators strike started on August 8, 1974. In that same week there was a CNR derailment and the Albreda sub-line was closed on August 6.
Let us go to the week of August 11 to August 17. The west coast grain handlers' strike is on. The Great Lake operators strike continues, and there is another train derailment of the CNR at mile 25.1 at the Yale substation.
Let us move on to the fourth week of the crop year from August 18 to 24. The labour strike of the west coast grain handlers is continuing under work to rule. The Great Lake operators strike continues, and there is a derailment of trains on the CPR at mile 13.4, Mountain substation. The main line was closed on August 18. Let us move on to the fifth week of the crop year. The west coast grain handlers strike is still in effect. The Great Lake operators strike continues, and there are two more derailments, one on the CNR and one on the CPR.
Let us now consider the sixth week from September 1 to
7.	Here again we have the west coast grain handlers strike, the Great Lake operators strike, and another derailment of CPR on mile 38.3 at Mountain substation on September 1, 1974. Let us go on to the seventh week of the crop year from September 8 to 14. We have the west coast grain handlers strike continuing, the Great Lakes operators strike continuing, and three train derailments, the CNR derailment at mile 120.5 at the Ashcroft substation, the CNR derailment at mile 64.6 at the Fraser substation, and the CNR derailment at mile 64.6 at the Fraser substation at Prince Rupert.
Now let us review the eighth week of the crop year from September 15 to 21. The west coast grain handlers strike continues, the Great Lakes operators strike continues. That takes us to the ninth week of the crop year from September 22 to 28 when the west coast grain handlers strike continues, and the Great Lakes operators strike continues. Let us move on to the tenth week from September 29 to October 5 when the west coast handlers strike continues, the Great Lakes operators strike continues and there are two derailments, the CNR derailment at mile 38.4 at the Skeena substation at Prince Rupert and the CPR derailment at mile 104.3 at Mountain substation.
In the eleventh week of the crop year the west coast grain handlers strike ended on October 10, 1974. Then we move on to the twelfth and thirteenth weeks and, whoopee poo, there are two whole weeks in which all the unions are working and, miraculously, not a single derailment takes place.
But lest the Grits become too happy, let us move on to the fourteenth week, from October 27 to November 2,

when the west coast grain inspectors did not report to work, at Thunder Bay the government inspectors did not report to work either, and there was a derailment of the CNR at mile 81.1 at the Albreda substation. In the fifteenth week all unions were working.
In the sixteenth week again all unions were working and, lest the Grits become too happy let us remind them that a derailment of the CPR took place in that week. However, that is the end of the joy, and certainly the Liberals deserve no credit for it because on the seventeenth week from November 17 to 23 the west coast, Thunder Bay and government grain inspectors strike is in effect. Also, the British Columbia railroad shop craft strike is on, there is a CPR derailment at mile 68.9 at the Windermere substation, a CPR derailment at mile 105.6 at the Cascade substation, and a CPR derailment at the Rossland substation which was closed on November 25.
Let us move on to the eighteenth week of the crop year from November 24 to 30. The west coast and Thunder Bay government grain inspectors strike is on. The west coast and interior government grain inspectors returned to work at 12 noon on December 5, 1974, and the Thunder Bay government inspectors returned to work on December 5, 1974. We now have tremendous joy so far as the Liberals are concerned, despite the fact that they had nothing to do with it. There were three weeks in which all unions were working.
This is a terrible history of strikes and derailments all of which effect the farmer. Then, on the twenty-fourth week from January 5 to 11, the British Columbia railroad shop craft returned to work, but there is a derailment of the CPR at Revelstoke, B.C. We find that when we consider the thirty-six weeks, including the present week, that in almost none of that time was there any smooth delivery of grain in this country.
It is about time that we laid the record straight and began to understand what farming is. Farming is not a life style, it is not a way of life. Farming is the production of food, the ms>st essential of industries, the most essential of all businesses. Yet, despite the fact that food is required to maintain life, the government has not done anything constructive to encourage the shipping of grain to market at a time when, if we could hypothetically distribute food around the world, we would not have enough protein to go around. The situation is extremely critical, and it is high time that we put all our efforts into attempting to get grain to market faster.
We heard the hon. member for Skeena (Mrs. Campag-nolo) say tonight that farmers are not the only Canadians, and she challenged the prairie farmers' representatives here in parliament not to make such an issue about farm people. I also concede that farmers are not the only people, but I darn well claim that they are people and their rights are at least equal to those of other people. When we take a look at what has been happening in the grain movement, starting in May of last year, we find that in total there have only been eleven weeks of free movement of grain in this country. I say that there is not another industry in Canada which could operate year after year under the insensitive kind of policies which the government sets with regard to the agricultural industry.
Grain Shipments
It is important to set the record straight. The strikes that were taking place recently were supposedly rotating strikes. Yet, what did we witness on the west coast at the port of Vancouver? The only strikes that were continuous and not being rotated were those that were affecting the grain industry. Labour organizations were once again putting on the pressure where they knew it hurts. I think it is time we heard not just speeches from the government in which it talks about the right to strike but speeches about the rights of all Canadians, whether they be farmers, labour organizations or people in management. All rights go with responsibilities, and rights and responsibilities should not be separated. A right is something that is earned. Those who practice rights, irrespective of whether or not people die as a result, and irrespective of whether or not agriculture survives, should expect those rights to be challenged.
The question is whether or not we should be allowed to practice the right to strike when the national interest is at stake. What we hear from the Prime Minister, the Minister of Labour, and the President of the Treasury Board is that despite the fact that agriculture has been disrupted for almost two solid years, this is not a national issue.
I know of no hypocrisy greater than singling out within a nation a group of people, who are important both in terms of numbers and in what they produce, and then turn a blind eye to them and say that we do not care about their interests because we are protecting the interests of labour and management. It is high time that we lent full consideration to the damage inflicted upon innocent third parties.
I have made the following statement in this House before, and I will make it again tonight, that I believe there are legal grounds for farm organizations in this country to sue with regard to demurrage charges laid upon them due to strikes this past year at the port of Vancouver. I know of no business principle which allows two parties to negotiate and incur an expense and then charge that expense to a third party, yet that is what has happened at the port of Vancouver. We witnessed labour and management causing ships to be held up in port incurring an expense of at least $17 million-and there are estimates that it may be well over $50 million-and the full amount will be borne by the western Canadian farmer.
I think that that is such a shame that it should be tested in our courts because there are no precedents whereby two parties can incur an expense and charge that expense to a third party. I think that anyone who is closely observing the labour-management disputes is witnessing many kinds of illegal activity. It is on that basis that I think there is still a tremendous amount to be done in terms of setting up programs to alleviate these labour disputes which are so drastically affecting prairie farmers and subsequently our world markets.
There have been only two occasions since August of 1973 when vessels have not been waiting to load in Vancouver, and those two occasions amounted to only 18 working days. As of March 10 of this year, 30 vessels have been waiting and 15,000 boxcars from the west are bunched up at the port of Vancouver, and so we see, Mr. Speaker-
4304

March 19, 1975
Grain Shipments


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him for this debate has now expired. The hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain).


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, the fact that the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) could announce in the House tonight in a rather hilarious way that a settlement may have been reached in connection with the problems which have been plaguing the grain industry does not in any way change the relevance of this motion tonight. It does not preclude an emergency debate on a point of national interest now or at any future time in this House.
It has been my privilege to have been in a house of government for a little more than 20 years of my life, and as yet I have never seen the treasury benches abandoned in total as the Liberal government has abandoned its benches tonight.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Fred Alward McCain: I have never seen a group of people who cared so little for the public as the treasury benches of the Liberal government in 1975. They are a disgrace to the democratic system by any measurement which might be applied, and hon. members opposite, who sit there like a bunch of idle servants, should certainly tell them where they stand tomorrow. They have abused the very principles which are the responsibility of elected democratic representatives, particularly those who are willing to assume by appointment the responsibility for a cabinet position.
Let us consider the movement of grain in the Dominion of Canada in the last three years. Did hon. members opposite know that in the first quarter of 1972 we did not move as much grain as we did in the first quarter of 1971? Did they know that in the second quarter of 1972 we did not move as much grain as we did in the first quarter of 1971? Did they know that in the third quarter of 1972 we moved 15 million bushels less than in the third quarter of 1971? I could go on. In the fourth quarter of 1972 we did pretty well. There was good shipment. But let us go back again to 1973. The market was picking up, and there was a demand. We find that in the first quarter of 1973 we did not ship as much as we did in the first quarter of 1971. In the second quarter of 1973 we did not ship as much as we did in 1971. In the third quarter of 1973 we did not do as well as well as we did in 1971. The first three quarters of 1974 were the worst of all.
Any Liberal member who has been responsible enough to get himself elected to the House of Commons must share some of the responsibility, whether he sits on the backbenches or the frontbenches, for a deplorable state of transportation, labour problems, and disorganization which this government has perpetrated in the name of a majority or a minority government.


An hon. Member:: What about the just society?


Fred Alward McCain: The just society has deteriorated to the disordered society. I submit that the government for over three years has been playing the game of economic brink-

manship, and playing it quite successfully while all of Canada suffers.
One speaker had the temerity today to say that there would be just a little area affected and just a few people. There is a Liberal member to the right of the Chair who represents part of an agricultural area, and I represent another part of the same area. There are roughly 60,000 people there. If agriculture were tied up in that little community in New Brunswick as western agriculture has been tied up in part or in full for three years, 80 per cent of those people would find themselves with a deteriorating standard of living. Directly or indirectly 80 per cent of those 60,000 people living in the potato belt of New Brunswick are dependent, in full or in part, upon the agricultural industry. That is how people are affected, and that is how the public interest and the national interest has been neglected.
I am surprised that the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. MacFarlane), who has spent so much time in New Brunswick, is so jovial. If he had any concern for people at all he would be less than happy about the fact that some 48,000 could have their lives driven downhill by the kind of irresponsible neglectful government which we have been witnessing.
We have been told that we are not dealing with very much money and that we are talking in terms of 1.4 per cent of the budget. Those were the remarks of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) tonight. Mr. Speaker, 1.4 per cent of the Treasury Board budget is $375 million to $390 million of the taxpayers' money. That was a big joke to the minister but it is not a joke to the taxpayer.
Let us see what this has done to the Atlantic area. People from the Atlantic provinces made representations before the Standing Committee on Agriculture and were assured that there would not be another grain emergency in the east; that grain would be stored there. Mr. Speaker, the amount that would have been stored in the east for emergency purposes might have lasted two weeks. The grain was stored in Halifax and then the rules were changed. This grain was supposed to be available to feeders in the Atlantic area at competitive prices; but in the present emergency, when we inquired about drawing from the storage in Halifax we found that we could only borrow from the Wheat Board. The grain has to be replaced with the same grade that has been withdrawn and the borrower has to pay the extra freight to get it to his farm. I submit that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and all those who are associated with the selling and moving of grain have acted in a traitorous way in respect of the promises made to that area in case of another crisis in grain.
As of today, the maritime express service is 45 cars behind in New Brunswick and hour by hour the number is increasing. Hon. members opposite may say this is of no consequence to Canada as a whole. Maybe the Atlantic area does not count, but I say to the hon. member who left the Atlantic area that we have been abandoned by the government which he now supports. We should be able to look for a little help to a man as familiar with the requirements of the Atlantic area as he should be.

I have not heard of any reply being sent to the wire from the chairman of the transportation committee of the Atlantic division of the Canadian Feed Manufacturers Association. It was sent to three members of the empty treasury benches but so far there has not been any alleviation of the problem. I submit that this is of national interest when it concerns people from Vancouver to Halifax.
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member who introduced this motion. I see no reason why anyone should withdraw when grain movements have been deteriorating in four consecutive shipping seasons. For the second time in 18 months, the Atlantic area food industry is so short of supplies that it is using such materials as it can get, and this is clogging the handling equipment associated with the manufacture of food. The settlement today is in the best interests of Canada, but the pattern of the past bodes evil for the future. It is time that Liberals, and not just the rest of Canada, took this situation seriously.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Mr. Speaker, look at the government forces lined up for battle, shoulder to shoulder, obviously keen for the debate at hand. My hon. friend's tongue is flapping around more than a dozen fish with fins out of water. A few moments ago he made some reference to baby seals: we know what little baby seals grow up to be-Liberal backbenchers.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: I won't make any reference to your ancestors.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: We know now why the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is building a swimming pool-so that he can have a home-training program for backbenchers. I wish they were half as active on their feet as they are on their rumps. Earlier in the debate the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) made reference to "that little strike". If it is a little strike in his opinion, that reflects his little understanding of what it has meant to the west.
In the last election campaign we heard a great deal about leadership, and earlier this evening the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang), with a self-righteous attitude, talked about the challenge to hon. members on this side to be constructive. He also talked about the problems of strikes. One of my colleagues suggested to the government that they should adopt our long-standing policy for a public interest disputes board. To my knowledge, this government has never brought to this House or discussed the two-factor theory or the superposed economy. An hon. member asks, "What"? He has never heard of it. But there are new and innovative ways, Mr. Speaker, and we have talked about them in this House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mclsaac) on a point of order.


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member speaking on tomorrow's debate, or is he speaking on a point of order? What subject is he trying to deal with? He has not said anything in relation to the motion and that is true of several of the speakers opposite.


An hon. Member:: That is for the Speaker to decide.
Grain Shipments


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: I am making that point.


Sean Patrick O'Sullivan: Trying to control the Tories?


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: I am asking the Speaker if he has heard anything relevant to the motion?


Dean Waldon Whiteway: You see, Mr. Speaker, the little fish bite before the hook is even baited. Hon. members opposite have waited during 12 years of Liberal administration to get a policy on strikes. If they will just hold on for just another 15 minutes, maybe they will get something from me. The Minister of Justice continually offers the solution of "identifying the problem". We do not need great expositions of identifying and explaining and expounding the problem: we want the government to provide what it promised in the election campaign-that is, some kind of leadership.
I now want to talk about the right of people in this world to live. One week from today 200,000 Canadians will participate in the World Vision program. They will contribute $1 million for grain, which is to be sent to Ban-gledesh, the Sahalian area, Ethiopia, Cambodia, and so on. Current labour disputes resulting in ships being tied up mean than the possibility of shipping food from the west coast is non-existent. One million pounds of food other than grain cannot be shipped because of labour disputes. There is a backlog in shipments.
The Minister of Justice asked the opposition to suggest alternatives and solutions. We are suggesting them, but he is not present to listen. Let me tell him that some farmers are persuaded it is their moral duty to grow cereal grains. They are interested not so much in economic gain as in feeding the hungry peoples of the world. Their work is impeded by programs like LIFT and lack of government leadership which results in labour disputes.
The Japanese cancelled an order and prefer to buy from the United States. Unless the government resolves labour disputes and allows for free, predictable, and easy grain movements, this country's economy will suffer and aid efforts will be fruitless.
The Minister of Justice asked the opposition to suggest alternatives. He should have remained in the chamber because, just possibly, he might have heard something worth while.


An hon. Member:: He didn't miss anything.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should summarize tonight's speeches, so that cabinet ministers tomorrow morning can read a succinct account of what has taken place. I do not see too many of that breed of cat around.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is tomorrow
morning now.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I am proud this debate has lasted until 2 a.m., or one o'clock Saskatoon time. I am proud to talk in a debate relating to western grain. Government supporters may not think it is of much importance, but we do. I am
28996-67%

March 19, 1975
Grain Shipments
proud to be a member of my party and to be associated with the mover of the motion.
We are pleased that the strike has been settled, but we are not pleased at the number of strikes taking place in Canada. All members receive mail complaining about our great numbers of strikes. I agree that you cannot legislate workers back to work. We must consider the cause of our strikes.
The ministry asks for our suggestions, but there is not a single cabinet minister here to listen to us. The government argues that strikes must take their course. We say the people of the country are entitled to leadership in the resolution of strikes. This debate has had a therapeutic effect on negotiations on the west coast. On learning that parliament might act, the parties came to an agreement. Even government supporters agree that strikes are a futile exercise.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That's a lot of crap.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The hon. member just used a euphemism describing members of the NDP.
According to the Saskatoon Star Phoenix of March 4, 1975, the Minister of Justice said that the strike is too costly a weapon for us to put up with, and he said strikes often produce serious economic loss that leaves everyone poorer. He referred to the current strike of some civil servants that had stopped certain prairie grain movements.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: What about the role of management in strikes?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: As the hon. member knows, management and labour are the two components in the situation. I am not blaming one side or the other. When I talk about management I mean the government. No management group has been more incompetent than the government has been.
I know the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, as well as other responsible spokesmen for agriculture in Western Canada, has been calling on the government to act to end the strike. In the time I have been here the government has acted once to legislate to halt a particular strike affecting the wheat delivery system. At that time the government appointed a commissioner to investigate management and labour problems in the grain handling operation in Vancouver. A distinguished jurist, Mr. Justice Bayda, was appointed. That appointment was made in October, six months ago. I have asked the Acting Minister of Labour to tell us the standing of this investigation. Over a week ago he undertook to determine precisely what was happening with respect to the work of this commissioner, but so far no answer to my inquiry has been forthcoming, no indication as to the progress of the study.
We are dealing here with a commission which has been asked to make recommendations with respect to the grain handling system. Has the commission not been given the necessary resources to fulfil its task? Are we allowing the commissioner to drift along and take his time? I know he would prefer to get the job done. He said, when appointed,

that he expected his report to come down within six months. Yet we hear no word about what is taking place.
This is an area to which the government should be giving great attention instead of allowing the present system to carry on to the detriment of the western farmer. The government should be supporting these studies to the fullest possible extent and giving every assistance to the investigation of the problem in long range terms.
If Mr. Justice Bayda is investigating this matter it is germaine to our debate tonight. The minister responsible should tell us when we can expect his report and recommendations. I am disappointed that there has been no mention of this important investigation. I look forward to seeing the results of the work of this commissioner. I look forward to recommendations which will allow grain deliveries to continue while ensuring that those employed in the industry are getting a fair and reasonable remuneration for their services. I believe that is the wish of everyone in the House.
What has been said tonight about the serious effects of strikes on the grain industry is well founded. I do not think we on this side are interested in speaking about it in the sense that we want to encourage damage to the grain industry. We are all interested in promoting that industry and would be extremely happy if we had a vibrant and successful agricultural industry. We are conscious of our responsibility as agriculturalists. We are living in a starving world. We have the responsibility to ensure that we try to serve the needs of the people of the world.
I shall end my remarks with a request to the government that it make information available at the earliest date with respect to the study being carried on by Mr. Justice Bayda so that we may help supply a reasonable solution to this perplexing problem.


Frank Fletcher Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, although the hour is late-


Some hon. Members:: No, no!


Frank Fletcher Hamilton: -I am
pleased to see my favourite constituent in the gallery.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank Fletcher Hamilton: And I am
pleased to see another constituent from the neighbouring riding of Medicine Hat.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: He is kind of a half-decent fellow.


Frank Fletcher Hamilton: I want to thank my hon. friend from Vancouver South for introducing this motion. I am taking part in this debate because of the great concern felt by the citizens of western Canada over this issue. I am not getting letters and calls about little things like not being able to deliver to a country elevator. People are concerned about what is happening to the country. They ask "Where are we going?" We are in a real mess now. Grain movement on the Pacific Coast has been at a standstill for 42 per cent of the time during this crop year, yet we hear the same old arguments from the government. It is hogwash as far as my people are concerned.

The questions before us now are questions of national interest. What is happening to Canada? As I said a few moments ago, the ports have been closed for 90 days during this crop year. The government told us it wanted to wait a little longer before acting; it seems to us that until the pinch is felt down east there is no real pressure. It is interesting to note that grain from Western Canada is still flowing normally to eastern Canada.
The NDP did not want this debate.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Who said that? Where did you get that from?


An hon. Member:: Frank Hamilton said it.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That was a mean thing to say, Frank. It is not even true.


Frank Fletcher Hamilton: Hon. members opposite have said that this is a motion of desperation. I agree that it is a motion of desperation on behalf of a great number of Canadians. Grain is not moving from the Pacific seaboard, and it will not do so. The problem is far from over.
Not one speaker on the government side has mentioned inflation, which surely is the root cause of all our problems. If the longshoremen settle, we still have to deal with the foremen of the longshoremen, who are a unionized group and who told me on the telephone today that as soon as the longshoremen settle they will come out and tie up 90 per cent of the Pacific seaboard.
The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) mentioned that the government had chided us for having sad faces. I think we have good reason to have sad faces when we receive letters, telegrams and telephone calls from the grain producers of western Canada and from our overseas customers. The minister in charge of the Wheat Board has no real appreciation of the situation in human terms. The message that I receive in letters and from telephone calls is that the first step in solving this problem is to get rid of Otto Lang.
We can well ask, where is the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) tonight? I should like to go back to some of the statements he made on October 7, 1974, in the grain debate. The Minister of Labour, as reported at page 165 of Hansard, had this to say:
-the governor in council, having decided that any work stoppage would adversely affect the national interest, made an order pursuant to section 181 of the Canada Labour Code, Part V, Industrial Relations, to suspend any work stoppage until the election was over.
A little further on he said:
First, I take issue with those parties who consider that, by endorsing the commissioner's recommendations, the government has not acted impartially and is, in effect, encouraging so-called "inflationary" settlements.
We all know now that they sought the wind and are reaping the whirlwind. The settlement made last fall was an effective rate of 54.2 per cent. Further on in his speech on October 7, 1974, the Minister of Labour said:
To say this dispute is disturbing would be to understate the case. It marks yet another labour relations fiasco in an industry which for years has been characterized by confrontation and even hostility.
Grain Shipments
Surely that is an indication of the kind of problem the government is facing on the Pacific seaboard. It is obvious that the government does not hesitate to withdraw the right to strike when an election is in the offing. After the election it wants to govern, but it does not seem very interested in accepting the responsibility. As I have said, not one member opposite has mentioned inflation tonight, the root cause of labour unrest in Canada.
Hon. members opposite have claimed that the people of Canada spoke on July 8. If the people of Canada had known on July 8 what they know now, we would have a different government in this country. My colleague from Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) mentioned the government has absolute control over the grain industry. About the only freedom that the western farmers have left is how much to plant. Surely the government must accept some responsibility for the tremendous bills, demurrage and broken contracts that will ensue from the stoppage on the Pacific seaboard. Mention was made of $30 million; my guess is that it will be closer to $50 million in this crop year.
In the part of the country I am from, western Saskatchewan, we move all our grain to the Pacific seaboard. I should like to go back about nine months and tell the House what these producers have been up against. On May 1, 1974, the Vancouver grain handlers threatened to go out on strike. On May 27, 1974, the Minister of Labour evoked a section of the labour act to prevent lock-out or strike action at Vancouver until after the July 8 federal election. On July 12, 1974, 2,500 Alberta meat packing company employees, locked out since June 5, may return to work by July 17, it was reported.
In August, 1974, Canada's west coast labour dispute remained unsolved. On August 31, grain movements continued to be snarled by labour interruptions. Striking Canadian marine officers paralysed shipping on the Great Lakes. On September 25 the Minister of Labour closed the door to further negotiations between Vancouver grain handlers and terminal operators by announcing government approval of the Perry report. On September 26 the lock-out and strike of Vancouver grain handlers entered its second month. This dispute and the strike at Thunder Bay brought exports of grain to a virtual standstill.
Legislation to end the Vancouver dispute was introduced in the House of Commons on October 7 and received royal assent on October 10. On October 12 grain handlers reported to work at Vancouver for the first time since August 23. On October 15, Mr. Justice Bayda was appointed to investigate the complex issue on the west coast. On October 30 grain started to move again on the St. Lawrence, the first to be moved since August 7. On November 21 the entire system of the B.C. railway was shut down by striking shopcraft workers. On November 23 the grain inspectors went out on strike. On November 27 meat graders across Canada joined the grain inspectors in strike action. On December 5 the federal government and the grain inspectors ratified a new 15-month agreement. On January 6 of 1975 the B.C. railway and shopcraft unions ratified a new nine-month agreement. On January 23 wildcat strikes occurred on the CNR. On February 18 weigh-men at Canada's terminals went out on strike. On February 20 contract negotiations between the B.C. longshoremen and the B.C. Maritime Employers Associa-

Grain Shipments
tion reached an impasse and strike action was approved. From then on the Pacific seaboard was shut down tight. Is it any wonder that we want to debate this issue tonight?
During the ruckus last fall, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) sent a telegram to the president of the United Grain Growers and said that the present settlement should not be considered a precedent for wage settlements in other sectors of the economy because the men in that dispute were trying to catch up with the longshoremen. We now know that that was utter nonsense. As I said before, the government started the problem on the Pacific seaboard last year with an effective settlement of 54.2 per cent. The government's own employees are asking for much less.
Why could we not have settled long ago and got the workers back to work? Why cannot Treasury Board start negotiating contracts before they expire? It seems to me that the government is purposely screwing up the country. We must remember that the Japanese are shrewd buyers. They are in a falling market now and they are rubbing their hands. As I say, farmer after farmer has written to me suggesting that as a first step in a solution we should get rid of the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board.
During the ruckus last fall the minister in charge of the Wheat Board said, "Let us get grain moving again". That was the big thrust. Last fall we were in a rising market and producers were able to recoup some of their losses. The present situation is much more serious and harmful. Grain prices are falling. There is high-seeded acreage in the United States. Rapeseed is down $2 a bushel, wheat is down from $1 to $1.50 a bushel, and do not be misled by the asking price of the Canadian Wheat Board. When you are not able to deliver anything it does not matter what your asking price is. When we start to deliver, the price is going to be down $1 or $1.50 a bushel.
Farm organizations in the United States are asking for production controls. That shows how optimistic they are. This will add up to millions of dollars in lost sales and millions more because of a falling market.
The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale) mentioned a Saskatchewan Wheat Pool publication, and I should like to refer to it briefly. In the words of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, which is the largest grain handling company in the country, provincial wide anger and frustration are growing as farmers see the devastating effects on our whole Canadian economy. Well attended meetings without exception expressed concern, particularly regarding grain sales lost, and revenue lost to producers. They urged the federal government to invoke measures to send the workers back and have the negotiations continue.
The Saskatchewan pool wants an impartial board established to get the workers back first. It says we are seriously testing the loyalty of our overseas customers, and the organization would welcome the calling of a general conference of industry, labour and government to determine a means to improve collective bargaining in Canada. That is a good suggestion for the government. I do not think anyone should have the right to strike in essential ser-

vices. As I said before, there should be a start to bargaining before agreements expire.


Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say at the outset that I appreciate the appropriate remarks of the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Hamilton) about our friends in the gallery tonight, and I echo his sentiments. I want to assure the House tonight that I will be brief, but I intend to make a specific comment that is somewhat personal, relating to the fact that last week I had the privilege of attending three farm meetings, two of which were in my constituency of Medicine Hat. They were good rural meetings. One was held at Bow Island and one at Burdett, small towns west of Medicine Hat. The third meeting was in Swift Current, Saskatchewan, in the constituency of the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek.
At these meetings I had many personal contacts with farmers, and almost the only topic they wished to hear about and discuss was the one we are debating tonight, namely, the complete tie-up of grain handling facilities in western Canada, and particularly those on the west coast. These farmers were annoyed, frustrated, and in fact completely infuriated at the complete lack of action by the government here in Ottawa. I am relating their reaction rather than my own feelings.
These farmers were well informed as to what these tie-ups have cost them in a personal way. They were well informed, for example, about the 15,000 boxcars full of grain scattered on sidings all the way from the shipping points on the prairies out to the west coast. They were well informed about the incredible demurrage charges that every prairie grain grower must help to pay, and they were informed about the dissatisfaction of foreign customers at late or non-deliveries. They are very much aware of these facts and of the shrinking reputation of Canada throughout the world as an on-schedule supplier of quality products.
These same farmers told me in no uncertain terms what they thought of the situation. Most of them went even further, and said forcefully what they thought of the increases that have been suggested. In their opinion these increases were not justified. Their message to me was very clear. They said to get the grain moving again immediately, and not allow any more exorbitant settlements such as the one that grew out of the Perry Report last fall. You must admit this is a tall order for any group to fill in the atmosphere that exists at this time.
Just a week ago a delegation of the Palliser Wheat Growers' Association visited the various grain handling agencies and facilities on the west coast. They were told that as soon as the longshoremen go back to work the grain handlers are ready to go out on strike once again because management has not yet signed the contract that came from that Perry Report settlement last fall. Surely that is a rather frightening outlook.
The same delegation reported that these two groups, the longshoremen and the grain handlers, are about to amalgamate into one union to increase their bargaining power.
I seriously question if government members are truly aware of just how serious this grain situation is. Let us give these prairie farmers some credit for knowing their
March 19, 1975

own business. They are concerned enough to send a delegation out to the coast to observe the situation at first hand.
The time is long overdue for a new Canadian Wheat Board farmers' advisory committee to become operative. I am sure members are aware of the vote that is to take place in respect of this long overdue advisory group. I feel certain that the subject of the debate tonight will be the first major policy item to come before that important group. I suggest that group cannot meet too soon after the election this coming spring in order to sort out this situation.


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, some members might ask what I know about raising or merchandising grain, and therefore why I should want to speak on the motion moved by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser). In the first place I am just as concerned as any other member of this House, and any citizen of our country, that a small handful of irresponsible people should be allowed periodically to shut off the flow of wheat and grain. This group of people is presently posing a threat to every single sector of the Canadian economy.
The power held by these grain handlers and other groups of workers in essential services has to be checked. I have said in the past, as the government is saying now, that the right to strike is one of the legitimate tools of labour-management negotiations, especially in cases where the workers simply cannot get management to negotiate in good faith. However, unlike the government, I feel we have learned that the right to strike has been badly abused in recent years, and is certainly being abused today.
It is obvious to all of us that too many groups of essential workers are using the right to strike to blackmail the government and also the Canadian people at large. We have seen cases in recent months where workers have walked off their jobs over some petty grievance without even taking the trouble to see whether the grievance could be settled by arbitration or negotiation. We are not living in the old days of the sweat shop with 12 or 14-hour days on fixed wages, although that might apply to members of parliament tonight. We are not living in a time when workers are victimized on every hand by management. When you consider our very advanced and comprehensive labour relations then you have to say that the unions have had an advantage over those who are not organized.
In fact, every time a union goes on strike, especially a prolonged strike, the non-union strikers take the brunt of the strike, not to mention the innocent citizens who have nothing to do with the issue in question. In this regard I think of those on fixed incomes and the working poor who are not unionized. The fact of the matter is that far too many unions today have found they can use the strike weapon to bludgeon management and blackmail the government into awarding unreasonable and excessive settlements just to get the country moving again. We have been blackmailed long enough.
Grain Shipments
A few years ago we had the example of elevator repairmen remaining on strike for several months. The government did not take any steps to end the strike, nor did it take any steps to ensure that innocent people were provided essential elevator service during the strike. There were cases of elderly people being trapped in high-rise buildings without access to food, drugs or medical care. In many cases volunteers walked up and down stairs in those buildings to render assistance to people trapped in the buildings. In some cases people actually died from heart seizures after walking upstairs, and others because they could not obtain medical assistance. I say that such an attitude on the part of a union or government is inexcusable. Anyone who would refuse to render assistance by refusing to cross a picket line is simply looking for a convenient excuse to exercise a terrible kind of behaviour.
At the present time, thousands of railway cars are tied up on railway sidings. These cars cannot be used for any purpose until they have been emptied. Dozens of ships are lying in anchor at Vancouver harbour waiting to be loaded. This is the second time in a few months this has happened. Thousands of workers across this country are idle because of this strike by a handful of workers in an essential category. During a crucial period in this strike we did not have a Minister of Labour to answer to this House or to take positive steps to get these people back to work.
I would say that in this case every Canadian is affected in some way and will continue to be affected for some time to come. There is no doubt in my mind that we will lose even more markets for grain because countries around the world to whom we have been selling have already decided Canada is not a dependable supplier. We accept orders from countries such as Japan and then keep them waiting for weeks or months while we watch grain handlers, railways workers or some other group of workers walk off the job over a grievance. I do not say that their grievances always are petty or frivolous, but this often is the case.
Even in cases where the grievance is legitimate there are legitimate and responsible means available for the settling of the dispute. We have reached the point where such disputes must be arbitrated whether or not the unions wish it. Settlements will have to be made while the workers are on the job. There are too many cases today in which unions announce in advance their intention to strike when their contracts come up for renegotiation. They do this sometimes months before the expiration of a legal contract. This certainly does not represent responsibility. The right to strike includes the responsibility to negotiate in good faith. There are laws under which it is illegal for certain essential workers to strike. Even in this case we see strike after strike, very often in places where the disputes were over issues in respect of which the workers were bound by contract.
I am still waiting to see whether the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) will in fact lay criminal charges against some workers and labour leaders who recently have gone on strike and who have refused to go back to work when told to do so. If charges should not be laid and followed up, we can expect other unions and their leaders to flaunt the laws and resort to further blackmail.

Grain Shipments
It might appear to some people that I am against labour and the right to strike in any circumstance. If people believe this, then they have not been listening. I am, and will continue to be, against allowing a group of people in essential services to tie up the country every few weeks or months in order to force their employers to award them unreasonable and excessive increases in pay and other benefits. The Canadian people have a right to be protected from such irresponsible actions. Who is to protect them if we do not?
I have heard that the Canadian Wheat Board has advised farmers in the western provinces not to grow too much wheat in the coming season because it does not appear that we will be able to deliver the wheat we sell. It would seem that even a government agency today is assuming that wheat shipments throughout the country and to our foreign buyers might not be met because of a probable strike of essential workers. If this is a fact, and I have reason to believe it is, this certainly represents a sorry state of affairs.
On the radio news last night-since it is now three o'clock in the morning-it was announced that a settlement had been reached between Treasury Board and the General Labour and Trades Group. Of course, I congratulate the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) for having been able to make such an announcement. Certainly this situation has continued for far too long. I happen to believe there could have been a settlement a good deal earlier.
It has already been mentioned that we have been unable to deliver grain to China under a contract signed last year. It now appears that we will not be able to deliver in respect of a more recent contract with China. It has been suggested that the United States and other wheat producing countries will benefit from our inability to keep our commitments. This lends some credence to the reports that our farmers have been advised to cut back on planned wheat and grain crops. When I consider that this state of affairs has been brought about by a small percentage of the workers in the grain handling category, and when I consider it has been allowed to happen by the federal government with apparent disregard for the rights and welfare for the majority of Canadian citizens, I have to ask what is happening to our country. I have to wonder whether anybody is in charge of the country and, if so, whether or not they know what they are doing.
Our country cannot continue to fumble around with these vital issues year after year. There must come a time when the right to strike should take second place to the interests of the country and our citizens. If the unions continue to abuse the right to strike, and blackmail and bludgeon the country at will, then we must consider the wisdom of taking away the right to strike. At least we will have to consider taking away the right to strike from those workers in essential services, people who in the past have used this weapon for their own purposes without regard to the interests of the majority of Canadians.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, there are a few comments I would like to place on the record with respect to the motion which is before us this early in the

morning, specifically dealing with the grain handlers' strike. Since the time in 1967 when the present law was introduced and passed by this House certain conditions have changed which make it incumbent on all members of the House to examine seriously what is best for the country in respect of labour management. We have to consider whether or not the so called right to strike in essential services-which I will define more precisely later on-is beneficial to the country and more specifically whether it is of benefit to the individual worker who uses that weapon. I have serious doubts that it is to his advantage.
I think we are all familiar with the effect which this strike is having on the grain trade and on Canada's reputation. We heard today about the demurrage problem and that this money will have to be paid by the western Canadian farmer, a person who is facing tremendous increases in input costs as he is looking to the 1975 planting season, a person who has had to tolerate quietly, as the third party affected by the strike, the fact that whatever settlement will be made, whether a settlement legislated in the House or one agreed to by the two parties involved, its cost will be borne by him, and yet the input he had in that settlement was minimal.
We are also cognizant of the fact that as a result of the previous grain handlers' strike we will not recover until some time this summer from the effects of that strike so far as our commitments and our grain deliveries are concerned. That is not to include the present disruption that we hope has now been concluded with the tentative settlement that was to have been made today.
The Canadian people cannot simply state on the floor of the House of Commons, or in the editorial pages of our newspapers, that the right to strike is a basic right, irrespective of its cost. We must seriously consider whether or not there is a better way to resolve differences between labour and management. As Canadian farmers on the prairies are contemplating what to plant in the next few months, they are faced with the problem not only of grain deliveries but, as the frost will leave the ground, with road restrictions and with a reduced period of time for their grain deliveries so that those grain deliveries, which they thought they could make in the winter, will now have to be undertaken in the spring seeding time.
These are the practical problems that farmers have to face because of the strikes that have occurred. The public interest must be considered, and we say it must take precedence over union or management action. Our reputation as an international grain supplying country is at stake.
With regard to food aid, at the food conference in Rome the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Mac-Eachen) made a clear commitment to the third world that Canada stood behind its former commitments on food aid, and that we were willing to increase that food aid. We have not had the capacity, the capability or, for that matter, the moral courage to say that even though the strike continued, human need, human hunger and the spectre of death by starvation convince us that we must allow grain to move so that the hungry of the world can live. Surely that is a pretty high price to pay for the so called right to strike.
March 19, 1975

It is time that we looked at some of these issues outside of partisan debate and considered whether we do not dehumanize ourselves by retaining certain principles that we think are virtually inalienable. Surely the right to live is also an inalienable right of those who are looking for some help, and the help that we are giving at best will only give many people in the world a chance for a meager existence.
We must look at the moral implications. Have we in fact doomed certain people to death because we did not have the moral courage to say that there are more important things than X number of dollars in a wage package? I am sure all members of the House have received letters from farmers and, surprisingly, not only from farmers but from businessmen, housewives and people who are simply fed-up with the tie-up in the country, whether one is talking about airlines, the post office or, as we are debating specifically tonight, the strike at the port of Vancouver.
What is happening with productivity? When is the last time that in a labour contract we have seriously considered productivity? What we think about is "what did the other guy get" and, "I want that, plus a little bit more". We talk about catching up. So long as we have inflation, can we seriously look at productivity? How are we to retain our competitiveness as a world trader on which a large part of our standard of living depends if increases are to take place, whether in the price of goods or labour management settlements, and if we do not relate some of these increases to productivity?
I think that with increased productivity labour has a right to demand something in return. That is a dimension of labour management that the government should consider. I simply ask, why do we not give more credence, more emphasis to the whole concept of productivity as it affects labour negotiations in this country in which we pride ourselves on the strength of its economy, its high standard of living, and the generous social services that the people of Canada are making possible through their tax dollars?
How is it possible, with a population of 23 million people, that there is only one industrial country which had more man days lost through strikes than we did? Does that just mean that we are more greedy than anyone else, or does it show a fundamental problem in our society? With a population of 23 million, 9.2 million man days are lost, a 60 per cent increase over the year before. Is that a record of which the government is proud, and a record which its backbenchers want to talk about and support and defend? Surely that is a red flag to all members in this House that something is deeply wrong.
What about the right to strike? Most Canadians would argue that the right to strike is a basic human right whether it be in the private sector or the public sector. It is my opinion that it is time that the government, in consensus with the people of Canada, designate essential services. I believe that labour is not so blind and is not so tied up with its own labour packages that it could not participate in that process of deciding what are essential services. Once having decided that, the parties could come to an agreement that through a public disputes commis-
Grain Shipments
sion-or whatever label they want; I am not tied to labels-we would use a method whereby when negotiations at the table break down the matter would be submitted to arbitration, or to a public disputes commission which would bring about a final settlement.
Negotiation is compromise, and in a democratic society we must have a larger measure of compromise if it is to exist. Surely in the right to strike and in the pressures of society today we do not see enough of that compromise.
I am glad that the settlement has taken place today, but does it take place finally because everything else breaks down and we say: okay, fine, let's settle? That is not compromise.
A question I have been wrestling with for some time now is not simply whether people in essential services have the right to strike but whether people have what I like to call the right to work, whether in the private sector or the public sector. Does the Canadian worker who does not want to join a labour union have the right also, if his union withdraws services, to continue working? If I want to accept the right to strike for myself, do I have the right to say to another fellow that even though he does not want to strike he must do so? Does he not have the right to work? Does he not have the right to contribute, or has unionism become so powerful and so all embracing that it can tell a worker that he cannot work, or if he does certain things will be done to convince him that he had better strike?
In Manitoba specifically with respect to essential services this question has been asked of me, and it bothers me that governments feel that while a person may have the right not to join a union, he still must pay union dues and cannot withdraw himself totally from a union. For example, let us say that he has a personal conviction that he does not want to be a union member. There is then a closed shop policy whereby, if he does not become a union member he cannot work.
There have been cases where a person was willing to give the amount of the union dues expected of him to charity. I am talking about public servants. Governments did not allow him to opt out, and I wonder if we have not gone too far on the other side of the ledger on the right to strike and not given enough thought to the man who says that he wants to work regardless of what his union will do.
I personally am convinced that direct strike action is more damaging than healthy. I am convinced that many of the packages that are signed after a period of strike will not enable the workers to recover the losses they sustained during the length of the strike. Perhaps the strike action is outdated in many cases today. Years ago labour had a legitimate moral position which often forced them to withdraw their services-they were struggling for pensions, better working hours and conditions, but is that the position today? Is it not sometimes that, as they accuse management of doing, they are going to get every penny then can, irrespective of their responsibility to society? I think it is incumbent upon government and Canadian society to look at the strike question very closely in order to be certain that we find interim solutions to our present situation in respect of grain handling.
4312

March 19, 1975
Grain Shipments
The hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Smith) pointed out to the House tonight that the facilities at the port of Churchill are not being used to capacity. To move grain from Scott, Saskatchewan, to Rotterdam via Churchill rather than the Pacific coast means a saving of 15 cents per bushel; via the east coast the saving is 32 cents per bushel; via the St. Lawrence ports there is an 18 cent per bushel saving, and via Thunder Bay and direct overseas the saving is 11 cents per bushel.
As a result of the strike has the government considered what is wrong in Vancouver and our other ports, and what interim and long term changes should be made? I want to say to the House again that the right to strike today is damaging, and the short term benefits achieved do not make up for the damage the workers sustain. For every right in democracy there is a corresponding and correlating responsibility. It is time that society look not only at rights but at responsibilities, and we seem to have moved away from that point. It is time that this government showed leadership and responsibility and, Mr. Speaker, I believe the Canadian public would recognize that responsibility and follow it.


Mr. Frank Maine (Wellington):: Madam Speaker, it is gratifying to see you occupying the chair at this late hour. In International Women's Year it is gratifying to demonstrate to the opposition that our women work as long and hard as their male counterparts.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: That's a pretty good start for your maiden speech.


Francis William (Frank) Maine: The hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan) has added his comment to the debate. He is a good example to bad drivers-putting his mouth in motion before putting his brain in gear. The Conservative motion, in referring to the strike which has been settled, flogs a dead horse. But that is not unusual. That party has been flogging dead horses for years. For the benefit of those who say they are concerned about strikes, I draw the attention of the House to notice of motion No. 48 on the order paper, standing in my name, which reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should give consideration to the appointment of a special committee of this House for the purpose of finding an alternative to the use of strikes for settling labour-management disputes and thereby protect innocent third parties whose lives are disrupted during strikes in both the private and public sectors of the economy which threaten to be more serious than in past years owing to the large number of contracts to be renewed in the current year.
I know the Finkelman report deals with strikes in the public service, but we must also be concerned about strikes in the private sector. If hon. members opposite are serious in what they say, they will convince their leaders to ask for my notice of motion to be debated as soon as possible, and passed, so that the serious problem with which it deals can be tackled.
Last evening at six o'clock I spoke to the chairman of my local agricultural committee. I asked, how is the strike situation affecting farmers in Ontario? He said, "It is not affecting farmers in Ontario or farmers in Wellington riding, but the people in Canada are concerned because strikes are hindering the delivery of food to deprived

people in other countries." He, himself, was concerned about the effect the strike would have on prairie farmers and about the loss of money to their economy. Compared with the losses resulting from the present strike situation, the losses we suffered from eggs are small indeed. An egg farmer on my local agricultural committee hoped that grain would soon move again: most importantly, he mentioned the rising antagonism of Ontario farmers to unions. Such antagonism is potentially disastrous.
It is now 3.15 a.m. I have been here since 8 p.m. of the previous evening. Not until 12.35 a.m. did I hear a constructive comment from the opposition. It was made not by a Conservative member, but by a Creditiste member, the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard). He made the first positive suggestion that I heard from the opposition. He talked about profit-sharing and guaranteed annual income. Perhaps the Creditistes woke up the Conservatives because after that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie) also mentioned profit sharing.


Mr. Whittaker:: Madam Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question.


Francis William (Frank) Maine: Madam Speaker, I prefer to finish my
speech first.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: You are like Eugene Whelan, sitting and hearing nothing.


Francis William (Frank) Maine: That is better than sitting and saying nothing, and I have been here all evening. The high points of the opposition's contribution were the suggestions made by the hon. member for Rimouski and the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. Then the debate sank to a low level when the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Malone) gave a history lesson. He talked about the burden of demurrage charges on farmers as being something new and suggested farmers should be able to sue. But does not every strike, whether in the public or private sector, injure innocent third parties and cause inconvenience?
Whenever a strike occurs in industry, some innocent people are inconvenienced. Demurrage charges, placing a burden upon people who are not directly involved in strikes, are nothing new. This problem is not one which affects only the farmer. It is one which should be tackled in both the private and the public sector because the total number of people involved is so large. If western farmers opposite are really concerned for their industry they will persuade their leaders to agree to bringing my motion forward for immediate consideration so that we can come to grips with this issue in a manner which is fair to all concerned.
I ask the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) to join this debate and show some of the members of the Conservative Party the error of their ways.


Mr.   Sean@: Madam Speaker, the points which I would have raised in a full speech on this motion have already been fully and adequately voiced by my hon. friends on this side of the chamber. As this important debate draws near its end, I simply wish to express on behalf of the official opposition, which took the initiative in bringing about this debate,
March 19, 1975

our very deep appreciation to all the House of Commons staff who have so willingly and with dedication stayed on the job.


An hon. Member:: They did not go on strike.


Sean Patrick O'Sullivan: They provide a shining example which might well be followed by hon. members who sit on the treasury benches. I think in particular of the Hansard staff, the protective staff, the officers at the Table, the sound system operators, the translators and those who operate the transportation system to the Confederation Building. We also wish to recognize that some especially diligent members of the press gallery have been on hand to report our proceedings.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Don't forget the cafeteria staff.


Sean Patrick O'Sullivan: With the help of these people and any others I may have overlooked, including the staff of the cafeteria, an issue of great importance has been debated, the purpose of this chamber has been fulfilled and the people of Canada duly served by the House of Commons. On behalf of the official opposition and, I would hope, on behalf of all hon. members, I wish to acknowledge their invaluable assistance and thank them deeply.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Gordon Towers: Madam Speaker, I am not sure whether this is a late hour or an early hour, but I want to impress upon you how composed and dignified you look as you grace this chamber.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Gordon Towers: At the same time I should like to impress upon this chamber, and the hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Maine) who has just spoken, that after several hours of debate he still does not comprehend what we are talking about. When he talks about demurrage charges he is talking about peanuts. Out in western Canada we are talking about millions of dollars.
Grain Shipments
The points have been well made by my colleagues on this side of the House. I do not intend to reiterate them, but I trust there is some member on the other side among the few who are left who will take this message to the cabinet ministers who have been absent from the chamber for several hours. If there is one thing of the utmost importance it is that it is the responsibility of the backbenchers on the government side to impress upon the cabinet that this is a very important issue. We trust they will not allow us to get into this position again where we have to ask for adjournment of the business of the House to protect the interests of the Canadian people in the House of Commons, the highest court in the land.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: Madam Speaker, I would most assuredly like to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Hamilton-Went-worth (Mr. O'Sullivan). We certainly appreciate the services that we have received from all the members of the House of Commons staff. I associate myself with those portions of his remarks.
However, I would like to say something to those hon. members who have given us good advice by telling us what to tell our caucus, what to tell our cabinet ministers and the government. Let me assure them that what we will say is that we stood as Liberals, and we stood in favour of the right of the individual to strike. We stood as Liberals and as responsible people. We honoured the strikers, respected them, and indeed solved the strike jointly with them. We stood as Liberals who said equally and together, not differently, that we understood where our government stood. Not only did we defend our ministers but we respected them, and we hope they are prepared and ready for the work to come tomorrow, because they work very hard and long into the evenings.
We want hon. members opposite to know that we tolerated them and listened to them. But we did not agree with them for one moment.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: According to section (13) of Standing Order 26 I am satisfied that the debate has been concluded and I therefore declare the motion carried. The House stands adjourned until two o'clock p.m. this day, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 3.26 a.m. the House adjourned, without question put.
28996 - 6814

March 19, 1975


APPENDIX &quot;A
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): What are the names of the Ministers, Acting Ministers and Second Acting Ministers of each department or ministry of the government?


P.C. 1974-1835
[Stage Direction]
Certified to be a true copy of a Minute of a Meeting of the Committee of the Privy Council, approved by His Excellency the Governor General on the 8 August, 1974.
The Committee of the Privy Council, on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, advise:
1.	that in the absence from Ottawa of the Prime Minister or in the event of his being unable to perform the functions of his Office, the next Senior Minister who is in Ottawa, and is able to perform the functions or the Office of Prime Minister, be authorized to act for the Prime Minister;
Certified to be a true copy P. M. Pitfield
Clerk of the Privy Council

[Stage Direction]
COLUMN II	COLUMN III
NAME	ACTING

[Stage Direction]
1.	Agriculture
2.	Communications
3.	Consumer & Corporate Affairs
4.	Energy, Mines & Resources
5.	Environment
6.	External Affairs
7.	Finance
8.	Indian Affairs & Northern Dev't
9.	Industry, Trade & Commerce
10.	Justice &
Attorney General
11.	Labour
12.	Manpower & Immigration
13.	National Defence
14.	National Health & Welfare
15.	National Revenue
16.	Post Office
17.	Privy Council
18.	Public Works
19.	Regional Economic Expansion
20.	Science
21.	Secretary of State
22.	Solicitor General
23.	Supply and Services
24.	Transport
25.	Treasury Board
26.	Urban Affairs
27.	Veterans Affairs
Mr. Whelan Mr. Pelletier Mr. Ouellet
Mr. D. S. Macdonald
Mrs. Sauve Mr. MacEachen Mr. Turner Mr. Buchanan
Mr. Gillespie
Mr. Lang
Mr. Munro Mr. Andras
Mr. Richardson Mr. Lalonde
Mr. Basford Mr. Mackasey Mr. Sharp Mr. Drury Mr. Jamieson
Mr. Drury Mr. Faulkner
Mr. Allmand
Mr. Goyer
Mr. Marchand
Mr. Chretien
Mr. Danson
Mr. D. J. MacDonald
Mr.	D. J. MacDonald
Mr.	D. S. Macdonald
Mr.	Mackasey
Mr.	Gillespie
Mr.	LeBlanc
Mr.	Sharp
Mr.	Drury
Mr.	Basford
Mr.	Andras
Mr.	Allmand
Mr.	Ouellet
Mr.	Lalonde
Mr.	Danson
Mr.	Munro
Mr.	Buchanan
Mr.	Munro
Mr.	MacEachen
Mr.	Goyer
Mr.	Marchand
Mrs,	. Sauve
Mr.	Pelletier
Mr. Lang	
Mr.	Richardson
Mr.	Jamieson
Mr. Drury	
Mr.	Faulkner
Mr.	Whelan

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Lang Mr. Faulkner Mr. LeBlanc
Mr. Buchanan
Mr. Richardson Mr. Pelletier Mr. Jamieson Mr. D. S. Macdonald
Mr. Sharp
Mr. Chretien
Mr. Goyer Mr. Marchand
Mr. Drury Mrs. Sauve
Mr. D. J. MacDonald Mr. Buchanan Mr. Lang Mr. Whelan Mr. Mackasey
Mr. Gillespie Mr. LeBlanc
Mr. Lalonde Mr. Danson Mr. Basford Mr. Turner Mr. Ouellet Mr. Allmand
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, March 20, 1975