1976-10-22

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the acquisition of options by Eldorado Nuclear Limited of land in the Warman, Saskatchewan area near Saskatoon for the construction of a uranium refinery, and in view of the veil of secrecy imposed on this project by the NDP government of the province of Saskatchewan and the Liberal government of Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski):
That this House direct the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to immediately table all documents relating to the establishment of a uranium refinery in the province of Saskatchewan, including agreements with the province of Saskatchewan, environmental impact studies and material relating to the operation and function of the proposed refinery.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion requires unanimous consent pursuant to Standing Order 43. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that many of the shipyards in British Columbia have laid off up to 90 per cent of their work force because of lack of contracts and the industry is in its most depressed state since the great depression, and in view of the fact that Canada's 200-mile economic zone will be effective as of January 1, 1977, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House request the Minister of Supply and Services and the acting Minister of National Defence to present to this House within the next two weeks their proposals for a Canadian ship construction for defence and search and rescue in the new economic zone and that Firm contracts be let for such construction at least prior to January 1, 1977.


Mr. Speaker:: The provisions of Standing Order 43 require the unanimous consent before the presentation of such a motion. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, this matter was brought to the attention of the House by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta. Pursuant to Standing Order 43, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that Miss Bethune, daughter of longshoreman Ray Bethune, has been incarcerated since February in a Mexican jail, and since her father has spent some $18,000 to obtain a hearing or a release, I move:
That the Department of External Affairs, after discussions with the Department of Justice and through the Secretary of State for External Affairs, protest in the strongest terms to the Mexican authorities that Miss Bethune be given an immediate hearing and, if innocent, be released from the deplorable jail conditions in which she is incarcerated, as a result of which she is subjected to indignities and conditions similar to those experienced by other Canadians, now and in the past, in that nation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The terms of Standing Order 43 require the unanimous consent of the House before the presentation of such a motion. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


ATOMIC ENERGY CONTROL BOARD
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask leave to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view

October 22, 1976
Oral Questions
of the lack of a full and ongoing survey by the Atomic Energy Control Board for possible radioactive contamination at Elliot Lake and other communities in Canada, the lack of disclosure of recent test results by the AECB in Elliot Lake and the threat to human health as a result of the negligence of this government agency, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom):
That this House instruct the government to institute a special judicial inquiry into the activity and competence of the Atomic Energy Control Board.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion would require unanimous consent pursuant to Standing Order 43. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to pose to the President of the Treasury Board: it arises out of yet another in the continuing series of specific criticisms advanced by the Auditor General in connection with the government's financial management and control practices. Having regard to the latest revelations in the public accounts of Canada, volume one, in connection with the government's accounting practices, may I ask the hon. gentleman whether he will provide to the House a full explanation with reference to this latest condemnation of the government by the Auditor General and will he, specifically, explain the questionable practice of including uncollectable loans to Crown corporations and foreign states so as to overstate the government's financial picture, all of which is tantamount to cooking the books by $7 billion, thereby misleading parliament and the people of Canada?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):: The hon. member, in his excitement, has rather overstated the case; I think that in his own mind, he knows this. The loans to the Canadian National Railways, the Harbours Board and the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority represent investments in capital facilities which are of great importance. They certainly contribute in a vital manner to the transportation facilities of Canada. In every one of those cases it was hoped that those improved facilities would result in an increased economic return which would service the debt. In any case, the primary purpose of the loan has been served. Most certainly, one could not argue that. We had to provide harbours where they were needed. The new waterway was required and it has been beneficial to the country. I do not think anyone would argue that it is not important to maintain and expand the CNR.

The issues raised by the Auditor General have been raised in earlier reports from his office and, as a result, it was included among the studies of the accounts of Canada carried out by the Treasury Board. As a result of that study, participated in by the public accounts committee, attempts have been made to rationalize those accounts with respect to these loans.
The Auditor General also makes comments about the loans to the Unemployment Insurance Commission which is a different matter altogether. It is not in the same class as the others because repayment is made in the immediate following year. So, Mr. Speaker, these are accounting problems that have been recognized for a long, long time which do not lend themselves to very easy or simplistic solutions.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I am certainly not one to argue with the professional views and opinions of the Auditor General. I think it is significant that he saw fit to include these rather questionable practices in his report. It is quite obvious from the remarks of the minister that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member has a question, would he please come to it?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: My supplementary question is this, Mr. Speaker. Since the evidence of the Auditor General and indeed the answer of the President of the Treasury Board clearly reaffirms the fact that the accounting practices of this nation are out of control, and indeed are undermining parliament's authority and distorting the government's true financial picture-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -might I ask the President of the Treasury Board whether he will now personally intervene to examine the progress of the implementation of the Auditor General's recommendations which were advanced in his latest report, and would he tell the House precisely what is happening to these recommendations? Because it is quite obvious from information that we have, and from information contained herein, that clearly the recommendations are not being implemented in accordance with the agreement that was undertaken by the President of the Treasury Board, and indeed by the former President of the Treasury Board. Would the minister undertake to clean up the mess that was left by his predecessor and his predecessor's predecessor?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I think I did reply in essence to the hon. member's question the other day when I indicated that we do, of course, take the recommendations and indeed the criticisms of the Auditor General very seriously indeed. We recognize the need for improvement in both the method and facilities of financial control and management. This is something that I am taking under my wing and to which I am giving very high priority. In due course, of course, the measures to implement corrective action on all these fronts will be made known to the House.
October 22, 1976


Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question which is supplementary to those of my colleague from Vegre-ville and it is directed to the same minister. As the minister has just agreed, these allegations are not new. The report of the public accounts committee of June indicated the problems. Therefore, would the minister agree that there is little use in our discussing in this House such things as televising parliament, reforming committee structures and strengthening parliament if the basic accounting of the country is so derelict that parliament has no control over spending?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, in candidly suggesting that there is a large area for improvement, I do not think it helps to be so grossly overstating the case as the hon. member is attempting to do now.


MEASURES TO CORRECT ACCOUNTING PRACTICES CRITICIZED BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL
John Raymond Ellis: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the throne speech promised that the government would provide the Auditor General of Canada with "better means of fulfilling his important function", if I am overstating the case would the President of the Treasury Board lay before the House all steps, including any new legislation necessary, which he is taking to put a stop to these sloppy practices? Surely this accusation of a $7 billion boondoggle demands an immediate and accurate answer in this House.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the legislation augmenting the facilities and strengthening and augmenting the independence of the Auditor General most certainly will be placed before the House in a very short time. The $7 billion boondoggle to which the hon. member refers really requires a great deal more analysis than has obviously been given it so far in suggesting any corrective measures that could be taken.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. Considering that unemployment in the country is scarcely new, having run in excess of 7 per cent for the past 18 months, and considering that independent forecasters are saying that for 1977 it will average 7.6 per cent and the same forecasters are saying that this winter it will hit upwards of 9 per cent, would the Acting Prime Minister explain why, during the summer, the cabinet could not come up with one proposal that could be implemented this fall to bring down the rate of unemployment during the coming difficult winter months?
Oral Questions


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I refer the hon. member to the excellent statement made in the House last night by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration in which the general employment strategy of the government is laid out.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, it is because I considered the speech the minister referred to with great care that I asked the question. Let me now switch to the minister who made that speech yesterday in the House. Given the fact that early in his address he gives a pious commitment on the part of the government to achieve full employment, but when we get down to the details half way through the speech we find there is nothing new to come into operation until the next fiscal year, can he tell us, as the new Minister of Manpower and Immigration, whether he really is assuming the appropriate responsibility to the people of Canada by taking on the old indolent attitudes of his predecessor?


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would commend greatly to the hon. member's attention the introduction to my speech where I paid glowing tribute to my predecessor for the tremendous number-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: -for the tremendous number of innovative measures that were introduced under his stewardship while in that particular portfolio. I remember one statistic, Mr. Speaker, regarding the LIP program, where 93,000 jobs were created over a very difficult winter period as a result of a program, not proposed by the NDP, but under the Local Initiatives Program. There was a myriad of other actions and steps taken by my predecessor recognizing the difficulties of unemployment without, hopefully, exacerbating inflation, as the hon. member's party seems to be advocating on almost a daily basis.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows that if every job which is listed as being available in Canada were taken up by the unemployed there would still be more than
600,000	Canadians looking for work, so I do not think he should be complimenting his predecessor. I would ask the minister if he takes seriously the contention he made in his speech that "at the beginning of the 1980's" we are actually going to have a shortage of labour in Canada. Does the minister take this seriously and will he please explain to the House why he believes that? Would he also explain how that would be of any consolation at all to the more than 700,000 Canadians who are now looking for work?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, once again I do not know where the hon. member was last night, but he obviously did not correctly read the statement. I indicated that we were more concerned with immediate problems of unemployment and pointed to the fact that in the early 1980's we would very likely face a shortage of workers rather than jobs. I indicated

October 22, 1976
Oral Questions
also that there was not a sufficient number of jobs available, hence the double thrust of the policy, namely, to help unemployed people, particularly the young, to achieve the skills to fill the jobs that are already there, and that in the interim we have to go down another road, and that is one of direct job creation in areas of the country where there is high unemployment and where community projects should be carried out so that we can move in these particular areas to help.


NATURAL GAS-REQUEST FOR REPORT ON PIPELINE FROM MELVILLE AND KING CHRISTIAN ISLANDS
Mr. Gdrard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
As the federal government is the main shareholder in Panarctic Oil Company, can the minister tell the House whether the study on the right of way for the construction of a gas pipeline from the wells located on Melville and King Christian islands in the Arctic to eastern Canada has been completed, and whether he intends to present a report on the activities of that company with regard to natural gas?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the work has not yet been completed. It is still underway. There is a great deal of work to be done both in respect of the main trunk line and the gathering system from the wells which connect them with the main trunk line.
[ Translation]


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary.
I should like to ask the minister, since to my knowledge there are two proposed alternate routes, one west of James Bay or the Hudson Bay and the other east of the Hudson Bay, which would be in the province of Quebec, whether he has received representations from the Quebec government requesting, since this pipeline would serve eastern Canada primarily, that it be built on the Quebec side?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to make inquiries and to convey the information to the hon. member.


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Public Works I will direct my question to the acting Minister of Public Works. On Tuesday, October 19 the Minister of Public Works told us he was
receiving a report from his officials on the Les Terrasses de la Chaudiere project, and I am wondering if he could table that report or make a statement on it at this time?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I shall convey to my hon. colleague the question put by the hon member which I am sure he will take under advisement. As the hon. member knows, that type of report is subject to certain restrictions. Still, if those restrictions do not apply, the report will probably be tabled in the House.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, I thank the acting minister for the reply. I am wondering whether in speaking to the minister he will advise him that 16 days have passed since the Minister of Public Works called for a report and does the minister not agree that the taxpayers of Canada are entitled to a full and open inquiry on this contract, as well as the negotiations and circumstances leading to the contract?
[ Translation]


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I shall bring the remarks of the hon. member to the attention of my colleague.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question which was put to him by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta and in respect of which I moved a motion today under Standing Order 43. What steps are being taken by the minister and his department in reference to the long incarceration of Sharon Lynn Bethune who is being held in deplorable conditions not fit for a human being in a Mexican jail and who is being held there even though her father has put up $18,000, more or less, in order to have her released, but has been unable to obtain her release at this stage.
Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I will give the hon. member as much information as I possibly can on this question bearing in mind, as I think he will realize, that perhaps too much public discussion of this matter may not be useful at the present time.
The situation is that we were advised by the young lady's lawyer in the early part of this week that she would be released in a couple of days. The lawyer subsequently has advised our embassy that in fact he was misinformed and that the judge decided to wait until early next week in order to consider the matter. The most recent assurance we have had is that the case will be considered next week and, presumably, if it is disposed of and results in Miss Bethune's release she will be free to

October 22, 1976

return to Canada immediately. We are taking all steps possible for us to take by way of representations and assistance but, of course, the hon. member will recognize we must do this consistent with the laws and practices of the country concerned.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, ip light of the fact that this is one of the examples of Canadians being incarcerated in that nation-and I brought to the attention of the former Secretary of State of External Affairs a matter in respect in which he was most helpful-I wonder whether the whole ball of wax could be protested so that these people who are charged with offences can be at least brought before a court for a remand. It would seem that in that country one is assumed to be guilty until one has proven his innocence, and yet is never allowed to get before a court to prove his innocence.


Mr. Jamieson:: Mr. Speaker, as I said at the outset, the question becomes whether or not the kind of initiative to which the hon. member referred will be beneficial in terms of the parties who are presently involved in a most unfortunate way. I can only repeat, and hope for his understanding, that we are taking all the steps which the best judgment we can put together concludes are in the interest of this particular Canadian citizen.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Minister of Defence, but in his absence I will direct it to the Parliamentary Secretary for National Defence. The former minister of national defence, the hon. member for Winnipeg South, announced in 1974 that the defence research laboratory in Suffield, Alberta would be moved to the Tuxedo area in Winnipeg. At that time the minister also announced that construction would start in 1975. So far only land has been acquired for the laboratory. I should like to ask the parliamentary secretary if he could bring us up to date and tell us whether this defence research centre will be moved from Alberta to Winnipeg.


Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for his courtesy in giving me advance notice of his question. I believe the hon. member did not quote the former minister of national defence quite correctly. In his statement in 1974 the minister referred to the establishment of a new research centre in Manitoba and the phasing out, not the moving, of the establishment in Suffield. To date the negotiations for land in Winnipeg have taken much longer than was anticipated, but they are now nearing completion and I am pleased to inform the hon. member that the new research
Oral Questions
establishment in Manitoba will be constructed in his constituency.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: As a matter of fact, the lengthy negotiations have somewhat delayed the phasing out of the defence research establishment in Suffield, so that process will not follow the original schedule.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PENSION ACT
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. In view of the introduction yesterday of a bill to amend the Pension Act which provides only for certain appointments to the Pension Review Board, could the minister disclose when he will introduce an amendment to the Pension Act to include widows of veterans who were receiving 48 per cent or less, since there is a large number of them?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, may I say in answer to the first part of the question that the bill which was introduced yesterday is, I feel, a very worthwhile bill. It has become necessary because of the work that we anticipate in the near future.
With regard to further amendments to the Pension Act which would allow us to deal with widows' pensions in a different manner, the hon. member might recall that this year we gave priority to prisoners of war, something that I was very happy to do in a year of restraint. It necessitated an increase of $10 million in our budget. With regard to veterans' widows' pensions, we have this matter under review. I cannot give the hon. member a definite date on it, however.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that there is an inequity in the Act in that it is stated that a widow of a war veteran who was receiving 48 per cent would get a full widow's pension but a widow whose husband received 1 per cent less, or 47 per cent, will get nothing. It seems to me that an inequity exists there which should be corrected as soon as possible by making a very simple amendment to the act. Would the minister consider this in light of the inflation which exists now and the resulting suffering which this causes veterans' widows?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker, this is under consideration. We will certainly keep it in mind when we review the Act.

October 22, 1976
Oral Questions LABOUR CONDITIONS


STRIKE OF CANADIAN PRESS EMPLOYEES-REQUEST FOR PROGRESS REPORT ON NEGOTIATIONS
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Can he report to the House on his meeting with the Canadian Press management, and can he tell us whether progress has been made in reaching a settlement in this matter of a kind which the staff is seeking and to which I think they are entitled?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I did meet the publishers this morning. I thought it was a fairly productive meeting, at the conclusion of which it was agreed to accept my suggestion that Tom Eberlee, the Deputy Minister of Labour, be assigned on a special project basis as the mediator in an endeavour to resolve the dispute. This has put the matter on a more urgent footing. I spoke informally with some of the leaders of the Guild outside parliament and I indicated to them this particular conclusion reached at the meeting. They seemed to me to be quite satisfied with this report. So, I anticipate that the parties will soon be getting together under the aegis of the special mediator, Tom Eberlee and I hope they can come to some reasonable settlement.


ATOMIC ENERGY CONTROL BOARD
Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Will the minister tell the House how long the Atomic Energy Control Board knew that certain homes in Elliot Lake had unacceptable concentrations of radon gas, that at least eight homes were built on radioactive waste material, and why this information has not been conveyed to the residents affected and remedial action taken?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the investigation of the situation at Elliot Lake goes back many months, indeed back to the early part of this year. At that time the Ontario department of health made a number of surveys, particularly in schools and public buildings, and I am glad to report they were negative. Other samplings have been taken since that time right until very recently with respect to houses in Elliot Lake. Again, generally speaking, they were negative. It is only recently that this particular quartzite band has become an area of attention and houses on that particular band are now being surveyed. I can assure the hon. member and his constituents, and more particularly the constituents of the hon. member for Algoma, that the AECB will set up an office early in November. I think there will be three crews who will be directing their efforts to monitoring and investigating each of the houses on this quartzite band as well as other houses if it becomes necessary.

I invite all citizens of Elliot Lake to participate and to assist the Atomic Energy Control Board in this important activity.


SUGGESTED DELAY IN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AT ELLIOT LAKE IN VIEW OF RADIOACTIVE CONDITION
Reginald Cyril Symes: I find it difficult to believe that the problem appeared suddenly overnight. I would think it is the result of negligence on the part of the board in monitoring the situation in Elliot Lake over the past 20 years.
I should like to put a supplementary question to the minister. In view of the fact that as late as two weeks ago the Elliot Lake town council approved the development of two new mobile home sites on land which may be contaminated, will the minister ensure that there will be a moratorium on housing developments until the AECB has surveyed the land for possible radiation hazards?


Alastair William Gillespie: I can assure the hon. member that there have already been discussions between the AECB and the town council with respect to these new developments. Measures are being considered, including some design changes.


BILINGUALISM
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. It arises out of the assertion in the Speech from the Throne and the allusions in the minister's speech in the House yesterday concerning second language training among young people, specifically in relation to the four Ottawa school boards. Can the minister inform the House what is the intention of the government with regard to the extension of financial assistance for the special programs that were undertaken and which have proven to be of considerable value to the area?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the concern of the hon. gentleman in this regard. Unfortunately, we have not yet received any request for funding for these worthy projects. The school boards should, if they have not already done so, contact the provincial government, and I hope it would forward this request to us.


Walter David Baker: I thank the minister for that answer. In view of the fact that the boards are conducting what is in reality a pilot project on teaching methods which could be used in other parts of Canada and because of the particular pressure which exists in this area by reason of the concentration of the public service in the national capital, would the minister undertake to contact the provincial minister of education with respect to this matter so that the boards could know how much, when and by what method this funding
October 22, 1976

will take place and what are the intentions of this government in this regard?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech in the House yesterday, that has been an extremely successful program, and therefore I would be happy to undertake to make sure that this contact takes place, if it has not already been made, to see what kind of response we might expect from the provincial government.


HARBOURS
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I am interested in pursuing with the Minister of Transport the evolving ports policy. The minister told us that the policy is going on under existing legislation, and I am wondering where the money is coming from because no funding was provided for the task force.


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, officials working within the department on the task force report and the approved ports policy are working in the usual way through existing routes to move forward with those parts of the new ports policy which can progress before the legislation is passed. I would have to know to which particular expenditures the hon. member is referring in order to answer more specifically about sources.


Mr. Fairweather:: As the premiers, I am informed, opposed the new ports policy, and as the throne speech in ringing terms said that we were assured that consultation means that the government will place before interested Canadians its assessment of the major problems we must solve together-a superb use of the English language-I wonder if the minister will put his policy where the government's mouth is.


Otto Emil Lang: We have already very much done so in this case, and have had extensive consultations with the municipalities, the ports and the users of the port facilities. As I read the objections from the provinces, they were almost solely based on the fact that our proposed ports authorities would be composed of various appointees, very fully representing the municipalities concerned, but would not have direct provincial representation. That is a matter of decision on our part, which I think is quite right, but which was objected to, apparently, by the provinces.
The provinces will be allowed a role and will be invited to participate in regional advisory committees. Of course, there will be constant discussions between the port commissions and provincial as well as federal authorities. However, I think it would be wrong to have direct provincial representation on the port commission. The port commission, however appointed, is meant to represent the direct, knowledgeable interest in the
Oral Questions
port and not to represent as such, different levels of government. I think that would be unfortunate. Therefore, I think it is wrong to place very much weight on the objection of the provinces in this regard. The full consent of the municipalities is indeed very often present.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I wonder if I could have what is called a final supplementary. Surely, in the case of a province like New Brunswick the minister must agree that the province itself paid substantial moneys-many millions of dollars-to fulfill an obligation which should have been a federal obligation, and that therefore New Brunswick has an obvious interest in the port commission of the city of Saint John.


Otto Emil Lang: Certainly, the province and the federal government have interests in the port of Saint John and will continue to make arrangements from time to time with that port, for example, where construction is desired which might not be possible without direct assistance from the provinces and the federal government in the future as in the past, but I think that the hon. member will appreciate that our objective in moving to a port commission for that port will be to have the most knowledgeable, actively understanding citizens of the area appointed to a port commission. They can fully represent and understand the interests of the province and work with the province. I do not understand why the hon. member would want the province to be directly represented on that board. I do not see the federal government being directly represented either. The federal government will simply appoint those good and outstanding people to manage the affairs of the port.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the honourable and eminent President of the Treasury Board. In the light of widespread reports to the effect that the Treasury Board is studying the transfer of a substantial segment of DVA to Prince Edward Island, can he indicate when this move will take place, and more specifically, if we may expect the move before November 8?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the responsibility for the implementation of decentralization in the immediate future devolves upon my colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and I undertake to give him notice of the question so that he can respond when he is in the House.

October 22, 1976
Oral Questions AIRPORTS


LACK OF MEDICAL FACILITIES AT TERMINALS-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. F. A. Philbrook (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport. On September 5 a medical colleague of mine from Oakville, Dr. Terry Riley, attended an Air Canada pilot at the Toronto international airport who had a heart attack, and Dr. Riley found the medical equipment inadequate for such an emergency. I recently had such an experience myself. In addition, apparently there have been 18 such cardiac fatalities in the past year. Would the minister undertake to look into this situation thoroughly and to provide some improvements?


Otto Emil Lang: Yes, Mr. Speaker, indeed. The Ministry of Transport together with the Department of National Health and Welfare have established new and higher standards for facilities and equipment at international airports. Steps are under way to put the equipment in place and to find space in the most convenient locations.
There will of course be complete discussions at all times about exactly what equipment should be available and how much of it at various locations at airports. I will very much welcome expressions of opinion from doctors-some of which we have already received-in assisting us in finalizing a policy position with regard to the nature of the equipment we should have.


STATUTORY HOLIDAYS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State. My question relates to a national heritage day, which was the subject of Bill C-208 of the last session. In view of the fact that we were told that one of the reasons for that bill not being passed during the last session was that the Secretary of State would be bringing in a comprehensive holidays bill, including a national heritage day, is such a bill being drafted, and will it be presented to this House fairly soon?


John (Moody) Roberts: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will this bill be before the House in time so that this day can be celebrated in February, 1977, in view of the commitments which were made to railway workers and others?


John (Moody) Roberts: I would like that to be the case, but I cannot promise that it will be the case.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Communications. Since a meeting was scheduled for October 6 with United States FCC officials to discuss implications of Bill C-58, why did the minister choose to proclaim the relevant sections just two weeks before the scheduled negotiations? Was is not a deliberate snub on the part of Canadian officials to have Mr. Boyle, chairman of the CRTC, pull out at the last minute?


Hon. Jeanne Sauv6 (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, the reason that bill was proclaimed was because the time had come to do so.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jeanne Sauvé: I had made the necessary inquiries about whether there would be any available time on Canadian stations. However, the hon. member should know that these meetings with the FCC were designed to discuss things other than Bill C-58. Canadians do not discuss the proclamation or, indeed, the introduction of a bill with their United States counterparts. They legislate for their own needs, and this was not in any way a snub to the Americans.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ALLEGED LACK OF AVAILABLE TIME FOR ADVERTISERS
Benno Friesen: It is interesting that the minister should state that there is available time on Canadian television for Canadian advertisers. However, on August 12 the Joint Broadcast Committee of the Association of Canadian Advertisers Incorporated and the Institute of Canadian Advertising, the very people Bill C-58 was supposedly designed to help, wrote to the minister and said in part that since timing is of the essence they are prepared to attend such a meeting within the next few days. The minister did not ever acknowledge the letter, let alone meet with those people. Is it not a fact that there is not enough time on Canadian television for this industry and for the clients it represents?


Jeanne Sauvé: I made a full inquiry with regard to available time on Canadian stations. I asked all those interested in the matter to write to me. I did not call a meeting on this subject, but I looked at all the replies I got from all advertisers concerned and from Canadian stations. I was satisfied that there was sufficient time available on Canadian networks, and that is why I decided to proclaim the bill.
October 22, 1976


TRANSPORT
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Is the minister aware that consideration is being given to awarding a contract to a foreign firm of naval architects and designers, if, indeed, the contract has not already been awarded, for the design of replacements for such east coast ferries as the Abegweit, as well as ships chartered from a Swedish firm, which provide ferry service to and from Newfoundland?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the questions about design are in hand. I will look at the particular statements which have been made with regard to these facilities and provide the hon. member with the information.


Donald W. Munro: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the minister is not aware that Canadian designers who had been working on this particular project had their contract cancelled, after which the off-shore interest was shown. I wonder why the ministry would favour off-shore designers when there is a capability in Canada. He is destroying a Canadian industry.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is jumping to the wrong conclusion. The ending of certain phases of study does not indicate that the work has been switched to anybody else.


Donald W. Munro: But the contract was taken away from them.


Otto Emil Lang: That is right, but not necessarily switched to anybody else. It indicates, rather, that further time may be taken to examine the exact needs and the timing for expenditures which will be involved. These will be major expenditures; accordingly, we are reflecting further upon them.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. What does the minister's department intend to do about a somewhat questionable report, prepared in part by the Department of Agriculture, recommending that federal government financing of programs such as the Farm Credit Corporation be discontinued and that farmers should turn completely to private lending institutions for long-term financing?
Oral Questions


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of following such report, if such a report does exist.


Jack Burnett Murta: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. 1 submit that that kind of report exists, and I think it was prepared in part by a United States American consultant. I ask the minister this: is the government considering any changes in its lending programs for agricultural producers?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we have, in this country, one of the best lending programs in the world, and we intend to continue it that way.

[ Translation]


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr.   Albert@: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question of national interest to the Secretary of State.
Could he tell the House and all sincere Canadians whether he intends to take action about the sacrosanct CBC and find out how it proposes to react to the crusade against Canada launched today by Mrs. Lise Payette in her capacity as separatist candidate in the election campaign now under way in the province of Quebec?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's great concern and interest but am not sure if he is seriously asking me to take steps which would lead to preventing journalists, commentators or entertainers who work for Radio-Canada from entering political life. I hope he is not asking me to do that.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question, which is a follow-up of the question I directed to the Prime Minister a week ago, is for the Minister of Justice. In light of the judgment rendered by a Supreme Court of Ontario judge which places in question the minister's own propriety and credibility as well as that of a senior public servant affectionately known here as the hon. member for "commerce capital", is the minister prepared to make a statement today as to any disciplinary action which may be contemplated as a result of the judgment handed down by the judge?

October 22, 1976
Oral Questions


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, at the moment I am not certain to which judgment the hon. member refers.


Frank Oberle: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I suggest that the minister knows full well that I was referring to the judgment rendered against the government in the case of the wrongful dismissal of one Walter Rudnicki, a case in which the minister was intimately involved. Does the government intend ever to reinstate Mr. Rudnicki and take remedial action, in light of the allegations the judge underlined in his judgment?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the judgment has been obeyed by the Government of Canada. The question of re-employment is not a matter for me; it is a matter for the minister who reports for the Public Service Commission of Canada.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: It is also a matter of honour and morality.


REQUEST FOR TABLING OF DOCUMENTS RELATING TO ESTABLISHMENT OF URANIUM REFINERY IN SASKATCHEWAN
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Since the Saskatchewan Economic Development Corporation, acting on behalf of Eldorado, has now acquired options in the Warman, Saskatchewan area near Saskatoon for the establishment of a uranium refinery, would the minister, in the spirit of openness mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, now table all documents from the province of Saskatchewan relating to the establishment of this refinery, instead of keeping the matter wrapped in the kind of secrecy which would be appropriate to wartime?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I believe there have been preliminary discussions between Eldorado and the province of Saskatchewan. I am not sure that the discussions have yet moved to the point where it would be useful to table documents. I can tell the hon. member that when the time comes, I will be pleased to table them, provided we also get the approval of the province of Saskatchewan.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. As, in the five weeks since the cabinet shuffle, not one of the seven new ministers has placed a conflict of interest statement in the registrar's public file, can the Acting Prime

Minister tell the House why the government has been so negligent about requiring open compliance by the new ministers with even the rather lax conflict of interest guidelines which apply to cabinet ministers?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will make inquiries into this particular question. I assume that it takes some little time for new ministers and existing ministers to arrange their affairs in order to comply. I assure the hon. member that all ministers are obligated to comply with the guidelines.
 * *


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Since the government has announced a number of cross-country hearings relating to the establishment of a marketing board for broilers, and since thhe minister is the minister of consumer as well as corporate affairs, does he support the principle or policy which would create such a marketing board for broilers?
Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I think that question should more properly be directed to the Minister of Agriculture.


An hon. Member:: He doesn't know.


Mr. Abbott:: The National Farm Products Marketing Council is under the statutary obligation to conduct such hearings. This policy was not decided on a day-to-day basis; it was decided some time ago. I do not believe that the holding of hearings necessarily will lead to the creation of a marketing board for broilers. The purpose is to hear evidence as to why it should or should not be set up.


AGRICULTURE
William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture? Does the minister now support the policy and principle that such marketing boards for broilers should be set up, and is it now government policy that marketing boards for broilers should be established?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the National Farm Products Marketing Council has been requested by some provincial governments and provincial producer organizations to hold hearings. They are abiding by the legislation approved by this parliament and can do nothing
October 22, 1976

except pursue their present course. They cannot refuse so to proceed, and they are doing this at present. By the way, the head of the consumers association said the price of broilers had increased by 100 per cent in the last four years. Our statistics show that it increased 13'/2 per cent in the last 3!6 years.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Jack Pearsall (Coast Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. Is any action contemplated against those inmates involved in the recent hostage taking in the B.C. penitentiary, New Westminster?


Donald W. Munro: They will be sent to William Head.


Hon. Francis Fox (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, this matter was raised with the attorney general of British Columbia, because enforcement of the criminal law in that province is his responsibility. I am now informed that charges have been laid against seven inmates involved in the B.C. penitentiary disturbances.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Not being satisfied with the answer I secured from the Minister of Transport to the question I raised, I wonder whether I might be granted permission to continue the discussion at ten o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: In accordance with customary practice, I suggest that the hon. member submit that to the table in writing in the usual way.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the table the first report of the Clerk of Petitions, stating that he has examined the petition presented by the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) and finds that it meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
Anti-Inflation Board LABOUR RELATIONS


TABLING OF MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT BETWEEN MEA AND ILA
John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I am tabling a document which is a memorandum of settlement between the Maritime Employers' Association and local 269 of the International Longshoremen's Association which will be referred to in a bill I will be introducing.
As hon. members know, Mr. Speaker, it has not been possible for a settlement to be reached in the much prolonged strike at the port of Halifax. It is, therefore, necessary for parliament to legislate on the matter. In view of the urgency of this matter, I am now asking for unanimous consent to consider the bill in committee of the whole rather than in a standing committee. Perhaps the House will also agree now that we continue the sitting until the bill receives royal assent, if necessary suspending the sitting for a while if this has not occurred by our normal time of adjournment.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps we ought to get to introduction of bills before considering the minister's suggestion.

Upon introduction of bills, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) put forward to the House a suggestion that the House give unanimous consent for the introduction, without notice, of a bill entitled "An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of longshoring and related operations at the port of Halifax". Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we agree to its introduction, but with regard to all the other requests that the minister made, perhaps there might be consultation as the day moves on.


Mr. Speaker:: I specifically asked only for leave to introduce the bill at this time. Once the bill is introduced and dealt with under orders of the day, the House might then be prepared to give other consents.


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD TABLING OF FIRST YEAR REPORT OF BOARD
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Bob Kaplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table, in both official languages, the first year report of the Anti-Inflation Board.
[Stage Direction]
October 22, 1976
372______________________________________
Private Members' Public Bills PORT OF HALIFAX OPERATIONS ACT

John Carr Munro: for leave to introduce Bill C-14, to provide for the resumption and continuation of longshoring and related operations at the port of Halifax.


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


Some hon. Members:: Later this day.


Mr. Speaker:: By unanimous consent, later this day.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we agree to the bill being called for second reading later this day. We shall probably agree to all the requests made by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro), but we would like to do that as we go along. In view of the thickness of the document which the minister tabled a moment ago, I suggest that it might be desirable that we let the House rise for lunch at 12:30 or some such time, so that members on the opposition side can study the document and consider the speech the minister will have made.


Mr. Blais:: That is agreeable to the government, Mr. Speaker.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Speaker:: Under introduction of bills, the House has come to the moment where some 154 private members' bills have been drawn in keeping with past practice. I suggest to the House, if it is agreeable, and following past practice, that the House be deemed to have taken through introduction and first reading stage all private members' bills, taking all of them as having been introduced in the normal course. They were drawn in accordance with past practice. The list of bills introduced at this time will be printed in Hansard as if they had been processed in the normal way. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, basically there is no disagreement with what you say. However, it might be wise for us to ask ourselves whether all the bills that have been presented are within the power of private members to advance. I am certainly not rising to put Your Honour through the torture of having to go through the list of 154 bills; I emphasize that to you, Mr. Speaker. I am sure there must be some reason for parliamentary counsel to at least look at them, if he has not done so already. I wonder if it would be considered appropriate to put this item over until at least

Monday, so that the officers at the table, and others, can look at them to ensure we do not have any problems down the road.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member raises a very valid point of order. It is customary for the Chair to enter a caveat as to the procedural regularity or competence of bills. Therefore, the introduction of the bills in this manner is without prejudice to any arguments that may subsequently arise as to the procedural regularity when they are taken one at a time. Is that agreed and understood?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
[Stage Direction]
Bill C-201, An Act to amend the Department of Justice Act (annual report).-Mr. Fortin.
Bill C-202, An Act to amend the British North America Act, 1867 (abolition of the Senate).-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
Bill C-203, An Act respecting the inter-provincial enforcement of alimony and maintenance orders.-Mr. Huntington.
Bill C-204, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (permanent voters list).-Mr. Reynolds.
Bill C-205, An Act respecting the parliamentary ratification of the export abroad of nuclear fuels, equipment and technology.-Mr. Gillies.
Bill C-206, An Act to amend the Bank of Canada Act.- Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse).
Bill C-207, An Act to amend the Railway Act.-Mr. Martin.
Bill C-208, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (humane traps).-Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich).
Bill C-209, An Act respecting noise in factories.-Mr. Robinson.
Bill C-210, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (obscene literature).-Mr. Whiteway.
Bill C-211, An Act respecting Sir John A. Macdonald Day.-Mr. Macquarrie.
Bill C-212, An Act to amend the Criminal Records Act.- Mr. Rynard.
Bill C-213, An Act to amend the Statistics Act.-Miss MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands).
Bill C-214, An Act to register lobbyists.-Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton).
Bill C-215, An Act to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act (party status).-Mr. Caouette (Temis-camingue).
October 22, 1976
[Stage Direction]
Bill C-216, An Act respecting the implementation of International Labour Organization, Convention 96, concerning fee charging employment agencies.-Mr. Caccia.
Bill C-217, An Act to amend the Railway Act.-Mr. Schumacher.
Bill C-218, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (impaired driving).-Mr. Ellis.
Bill C-219, An Act to regulate trade and commerce.-Mr. Saltsman.
Bill C-220, An Act to provide for the constitution of a Federal Transport Commission of Inquiry (impartial investigation of transport accidents).-Mr. Forrestall.
Bill C-221, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (abduction of child).-Mr. Friesen.
Bill C-222, An Act to amend the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act.-Mr. Kaplan.
Bill C-223, An Act to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act (independent members of the House of Commons).-Mr. Jones.
Bill C-224, An Act respecting divorce.-Mr. Brewin.
Bill C-225, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (young offenders).-Mr. Woolliams.
Bill C-226, An Act to amend the Bank Act (qualification of directors).-Mr. Fairweather.
Bill C-227, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals).-Mr. McKinnon.
Bill C-228, An Act to amend the Pension Benefits Standards Act.-Mr. Guay (St. Boniface).
Bill C-229, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act (guidelines respecting portrayal of sex and violence).-Mr. McGrath.
Bill C-230, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (presumption from cheque issued without funds).-Mr. Turner.
Bill C-231, An Act respecting trafficking in exotic pets.- Mr. Watson.
Bill C-232, An Act to amend the Public Service Staff Relations Act and the Canada Labour Code (contributions to political parties).-Mrs. Holt.
Bill C-233, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act.- Mr. Joyal.
Bill C-234, An Act respecting the importation of exotic pets.-Mr. Maine.
Bill C-235, An Act for the control of forms in the public service.-Mr. Hnatyshyn.
Bill C-236, An Act to protect the Canadian environment by instituting mandatory impact assessment procedures prior to the construction of installations potentially damaging to the environment.-Mr. Wenman.
Bill C-237, An Act to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act.-Mr. Benjamin.
Private Members' Public Bills
Bill C-238, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (day-fines).-Mr. MacDonald (Egmont).
Bill C-239, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code.- Mr. Oberle.
Bill C-240, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (wilful destruction of laid up colours).-Mr. Douglas (Bruce-Grey).
Bill C-241, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (three weeks annual vacation after three years).-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
Bill C-242, An Act to provide for emergency measures to deal with the inflation of prices.-Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse).
Bill C-243, An Act respecting relief to non-smokers in transit.-Mr. Robinson.
Bill C-244, An Act respecting the designation of the Speaker of the House of Commons as the Member for the Electoral District of Parliament Hill.-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
Bill C-245, An Act respecting packaged perishable food.- Mr. Reynolds.
Bill C-246, An Act respecting National Hire the Handicapped Week.-Mr. Reynolds.
Bill C-247, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan (disability pension).-Mr. Caccia.
Bill C-248, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (disabled persons-postal vote).-Mr. Friesen.
Bill C-249, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (counterfeit of numismatic items).-Mr. Reynolds.
Bill C-250, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (increased minimum hourly wage).-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
Bill C-251, An Act to amend the Interest Act.-Mr. Robinson.
Bill C-252, An Act to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act (time off without loss of pay for appearance in Citizenship Court).-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
Bill C-253, An Act to establish a universal emergency telephone number.-Mr. Reynolds.
Bill C-254, An Act respecting the disclosure of financial interests by Senators, Members of the House of Commons and certain other persons.-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
Bill C-255, An Act respecting the conditions under which public servants may accept employment upon leaving the public service.-Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton).
Bill C-256, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (counterfeit of rare coins and notes).-Mr. Kaplan.
Bill C-257, An Act to amend the Bank of Canada Act.- Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue).
Bill C-258, An Act to amend the Immigration Act (parents of landed immigrants).-Mr. Caccia.
[Stage Direction]
October 22, 1976
Private Members' Public Bills
Bill C-259, An Act to provide for the establishment of the Office of Archaeological Curator for Canada.-Mr. Watson.
Bill C-260, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act.- Mr. Forrestall.
Bill C-261, An Act to amend the Department of the Environment Act (fisheries).-Mr. McGrath.
Bill C-262, An Act to provide for the establishment of the Office of Parliament Hill Curator.-Mr. Watson.
Bill C-263, An Act respecting the cancellation of credit card purchases.-Mr. Reynolds.
Bill C-264, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (provision for ten general holidays with pay).-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
Bill C-265, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act.- Mr. Reynolds.
Bill C-266, An Act to amend the British North America Act, 1867 (tenure of place of Senators).-Mr. McKinnon.
Bill C-267, An Act to provide for the establishment of an Indian-Eskimo Employment Authority.-Mr. Watson.
Bill C-268, An Act respecting the control of lobbying.-Mr. Robinson.
Bill C-269, An Act to protect the indexing of payments made under the Canada Pension Plan.-Mr. Reid.
Bill C-270, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (abortion).-Mr. Robinson.
Bill C-271, An Act to amend the Public Service Staff Relations Act and the Canada Labour Code (strike vote).- Mrs. Holt.
Bill C-272, An Act respecting the international airport at Ottawa.-Mr. Isabelle.
Bill C-273, An Act to amend the Bank Act (regulation of excess of loan interest rate over rate of interest on debts payable by bank).-Mr. Saltsman.
Bill C-274, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (rights of the accused).-Mr. Symes.
Bill C-275, An Act to amend the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (passive restraint crash protection devices).-Mr. MacDonald (Egmont).
Bill C-276, An Act to amend the Interpretation Act.-Mrs. Holt.
Bill C-277, An Act to amend the Immigration Act.-Mr. Fairweather.
Bill C-278, An Act respecting the disclosure of financial interests by Senators, Members of the House of Commons and certain other persons.-Mr. Grafftey.
Bill C-279, An Act to amend the National Defence Act.- Mr. Huntington.
Bill C-280, An Act to amend the Department of Manpower and Immigration Act (handicapped persons).-Mr. Reynolds.
Bill C-281, An Act respecting the continental shelf.-Mr. McGrath.

Bill C-282, An Act respecting full employment.-Mr. Broadbent.
Bill C-283, An Act respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (Beauharnois-Salaberry).-Mr. Laniel.
Bill C-284, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (loan sharking).-Mr. Robinson.
Bill C-285, An Act to amend the Public Service Staff Relations Act (strike ballots).-Mr. Forrestall.
Bill C-286, An Act respecting the sale of firecrackers to minors.-Mr. McGrath.
Bill C-287, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act.-Mr. McKenzie.
Bill C-288, An Act to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1965 (duration of the House of Commons).- Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue).
Bill C-289, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (animal traps).-Mr. Whiteway.
Bill C-290, An Act to establish and provide for the government of the province of Yukon.-Mr. Nielsen.
Bill C-291, An Act to amend the Railway Act (definitions).-Mr. Brisco.
Bill C-292, An Act respecting disclosure of credit rating records.-Mr. McGrath.
Bill C-293, An Act to provide for the establishment of an authority to conserve for public use all abandoned railway lines in Canada.-Mr. Watson.
Bill C-294, An Act to amend the British North America Act, 1867 (National Capital of Canada).-Mr. Isabelle.
Bill C-295, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan (housewives' contributions and benefits).-Mr. Saltsman.
Bill C-296, An Act to provide for the elimination of inactive and overlapping Federal programmes and agencies by requiring Parliamentary review every five years.-Mr. Forrestall.
Bill C-297, An Act to provide for the establishment of a Canada-Alaska and Maine Corridors Authority.-Mr. Watson.
Bill C-298, An Act to amend the Narcotic Control Act.- Mr. Reynolds.
Bill C-299, An Act to provide for the prohibition of the killing of polar bears in Canada.-Mr. Reynolds.
Bill C-300, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (black powder firearms).-Mr. Reynolds.
Bill C-301, An Act to amend the British North America Act, 1867 (appointment of Senators).-Mr. McKinnon.
Bill C-302, An Act to amend the Immigration Act (mental retardation).-Mr. Reynolds.
Bill C-303, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act.-Mr. Woolliams.
Bill C-304, An Act to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act (corporate and political office prohibited).- Mr. McKenzie.
October 22, 1976
[Stage Direction]
Bill C-305, An Act to amend the Supreme Court Act.-Mr. Reynolds.
Bill C-306, An Act to establish a universal emergency telephone number.-Mr. Robinson.
Bill C-307, An Act respecting the presence of the Flags of Canada in both Houses of Parliament.-Mr. Schumacher.
Bill C-308, An Act to amend the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.-Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West).
Bill C-309, An Act respecting the domestic and industrial use of solar energy.-Mr. Caccia.
Bill C-310, An Act to codify the law of evidence.-Mr. Fairweather.
Bill C-311, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code.- Mr. Jelinek.
Bill C-312, An Act to amend the Public Service Staff Relations Act.-Mr. Joyal.
Bill C-313, An Act to divide the calendar year into three parliamentary semesters.-Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton).
Bill C-314, An Act to amend the Harbour Commissions Act.-Mr. Reynolds.
Bill C-315, An Act to amend the Public Service Staff Relations Act and the Canada Labour Code to provide for the establishment of sector bargaining.-Mr. Jelinek.
Bill C-316, An Act respecting the control of lobbying.-Mr. Reynolds.
Bill C-317, An Act to amend the criminal law (punishment of certain offences).-Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich).
Bill C-318, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act (advertising on children's programs).-Mr. McGrath.
Bill C-319, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (leave of absence).-Mr. Reynolds.
Bill C-320, An Act to rescind the Memorandum of Understanding signed on June 28, 1976 between the Minister of Transport and The Canadian Air Traffic Control Association (CATCA) and The Canadian Air Line Pilots' Association (CALPA).-Mr. Joyal.
Bill C-321, An Act respecting National Heritage Day.- Mr. MacGuigan.
Bill C-322, An Act respecting the acquisition of land by non-Canadians.-Mr. Stollery.
Bill C-323, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (pornography).-Mr. Robinson.
Bill C-324, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (age discrimination).-Mr. Reynolds.
Bill C-325, An Act to provide for the establishment of a Canada Sea Coast Conservation Authority.-Mr. Watson.
Bill C-326, An Act to amend the Inquiries Act (publication of reports).-Mr. Alexander.
Bill C-327, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (abortion).-Mr. Oberle.
Private Members' Public Bills
Bill C-328, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals).-Mr. Robinson.
Bill C-329, An Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971.-Mr. Oberle.
Bill C-330, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (abortion).-Mr. Roche.
Bill C-331, An Act respecting Magna Carta Day.-Mr Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich).
Bill C-332, An Act to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1965, with respect to the quorum of the House of Commons.-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
Bill C-333, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (use of contributions).-Mr. MacGuigan.
Bill C-334, An Act proclaiming the Canadian Flag Day a national holiday.-Mr. Haidasz.
Bill C-335, An Act to amend the National Housing Act (proof of need).-Mr. Reynolds.
Bill C-336, An Act relating to the control and management of the water resources of Canada.-Mr. Reynolds.
Bill C-337, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (drive-in polling stations).-Mr. Whittaker.
Bill C-338, An Act to establish a press council for Canada.-Mr. Scott.
Bill C-339, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (opinion surveys).-Mr. Reynolds.
Bill C-340, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (prisoners enfranchised).-Mr. MacDonald (Egmont).
Bill C-341, An Act to amend the Railway Act (half-fare railway tickets for senior citizens).-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
Bill C-342, An Act to amend the Criminal Records Act.- Mr. Reynolds.
Bill C-343, An Act to amend the Criminal Records Act.- Mr. Robinson.
Bill C-344, An Act to establish the Office of Ombudsman.-Mr. Reid.
Bill C-345, An Act to provide for the protection of domestic animals while in transit.-Mr. O'Sullivan.
Bill C-346, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (intimidation of employees).-Mrs. Holt.
Bill C-347, An Act to provide for a national plebiscite on the removal of the abortion provisions from the Criminal Code of Canada.-Mr. Reynolds.
Bill C-348, An Act to amend the Holidays Act.-Mr. Reynolds.
Bill C-349, An Act to provide for the establishment of the Alaska-Yukon Highway Authority (Alaska Highway).-Mr. Oberle.
Bill C-350, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (political affiliation).-Mr. Jones.
[Stage Direction]
October 22, 1976
Halifax Operations Act
Bill C-351, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cautionary label on alcoholic beverage container).-Mr. Robinson.
Bill C-352, An Act to amend the Post Office Act (search with warrant of suspicious material).-Mr. Robinson.
Bill C-353, An Act to amend the House of Commons Act (Internal Economy autonomy).-Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West).
Bill C-354, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act.- Mr. O'Sullivan.
Bill C-355, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (preventive detention).-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-356, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act (equal time to opposition parties.)-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-357, An Act to amend the Canada Evidence Act (incriminating statements).-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-358, An Act respecting employment with the Government of Canada not covered by the Public Service Employment Act.-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-359, An Act to amend the Public Service Staff Relations Act.-Mr. Orlikow.


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of a ways and means motion to amend the Customs Tariff.
Hon.   J.-J. Blais@for the Minister of Finance: That a ways and means motion to amend the Customs Tariff Act, laid upon the table on Wednesday, October 13, 1976, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Jean-Jacques Blais: for leave to introduce Bill C-15, to amend the Customs Tariff.


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

John Carr Munro: that Bill C-14, to provide for the resumption and continuation of long-shoring and related operations at the port of Halifax, be read the second time and referred to committee of the whole.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for the unanimous consent which they gave. As Minister of Labour, it is

always distasteful to me to take the time of this House to bring an end to a labour-management dispute. It should not be necessary for me to reiterate my faith in the free collective bargaining system. Canada's industrial relations system reflects our heritage of fundamental western values and our belief that the common well-being can be encouraged through free collective bargaining and the constructive settlement of disputes.
The state has assumed the task of establishing a framework of rights and responsibilities within which management and organized labour are to conduct their relations. That framework places the responsibility for resolving labour-management disputes clearly on the parties to collective bargaining. There are, nevertheless, times and situations when the government, as custodian of the economy and the defender of the public interest, must assume its responsibility. This is the case today in the dispute involving the Maritime Employers' Association and local 269 of the International Longshoremen's Association in the port of Halifax.
Parliament must be resorted to if we are to bring an end to the lock-out which has closed the port since August 8, 1976. Parliament must legislate an end to the dispute if we are to save the port and the city of Halifax from further crippling economic damage, the effects of which have already rippled through the community, resulting in lay-offs, lost income and lost business.
I have emphasized that the government is, and remains, committed to our system of industrial relations which rests on the principle of free collective bargaining. It might be useful, therefore, if I were to summarize briefly the sequence of events which have led to the present impasse, and remind hon. members of the extended efforts deployed over ten months to resolve the dispute.
The parties to the dispute, the Maritime Employers' Association, which acts for its member steamship companies and agents employing labour, contracting stevedores and terminal operators handling vessels in the Port of Halifax, and local 269 of the International Longshoremen's Association, representing some 650 workers, have been seeking to negotiate revisions to their collective agreement which expired on December 31,
1975.
The parties met in direct negotiations on a number of occasions prior to the expiry of their previous collective agreement. As these meetings were not successful, on January 2,
1976,	I appointed Messrs. C. A. Ogden and R. L. Kervin, of Labour Canada's Halifax office, as conciliation officers to assist the parties in their deliberations. Numerous meetings were held with the parties during the next two months and the conciliation officers filed their report on March 4, 1976, recommending the next step in the conciliation procedure, the appointment of a conciliation commissioner to deal with the items still in dispute.
On March 17 of this year I therefore appointed Judge Nathan Green, Q.C., of Halifax, as conciliation commissioner
October 22, 1976

in the dispute. Judge Green met extensively with the parties during the course of the following three months and filed his report, containing his recommendations on all issues in dispute, on June 24, 1976. On July 17 the Maritime Employers' Association notified my department of its acceptance of the recommendations contained in the report. However, the union rejected the recommendations "in part" and requested mediation assistance based on terms of reference put forward by the union.
On July 13 I appointed Mr. R. L. Kervin, of our Halifax office, as mediator pursuant to section 195 of the Canada Labour Code, with instructions to assist the parties but without placing any restrictions on what areas of the dispute were to be mediated. Mr. Kervin was able to arrange a settlement between the negotiation committees on August 2, subject to its ratification by the union membership. This settlement was rejected by the union membership through a vote held on August 5, 1976. It was following this rejection that the Maritime Employers' Association locked the longshoremen out of the port of Halifax on August 8, effectively closing down the operations of the port.
On September 17 I assigned Mr. W. P. Kelly, assistant deputy minister, Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, to this dispute to assist the parties in reaching a settlement. Mr. Kelly began meetings with the parties on September 20, assisted by Mr. Kervin, and on September 25 a settlement was reached and a memorandum of agreement executed by the parties, subject to ratification. The membership of local 269 rejected the mediated settlement by a 56 per cent majority.
Because of the threat to the port's reputation, as well as the serious economic effects resulting from the shutdown, I instructed Mr. Kelly to return to Halifax on October 4 and assess the situation following the rejection of the mediated settlement reached on September 25. Mr. Kelly resumed mediation sessions with the objective of developing a formal proposal of terms of settlement. On October 6 I joined Mr. Kelly and met with both parties and submitted a formal proposal setting out suggested terms of settlement.
The proposal, basically, involved the acceptance by both sides of the agreement reached on September 25, but reserving for further negotiation and arbitration, if necessary, four of the contentious items dealing with the dispatching of longshoremen. The parties were given until December 10 to reach agreement on the four contentious items of the rules of dispatch, and failing this I would appoint Judge Nathan Green to arbitrate the items and his award would be incorporated into the collective agreement effective January 1, 1977.
While the union membership accepted this proposal on October 8, although by a narrow margin, the Maritime Employers' Association rejected these terms and put forward their own conditions for the lifting of the lock-out. I found this turn of events most unfortunate and I felt-indeed, I still believe-that this proposal met the requirements of both groups and especially provided the employers the flexibility and stability of the work force it sought. I therefore suggested to the Maritime Employers' Association that they give the
Halifax Operations Act
proposed terms of settlement careful reconsideration, but they informed me on October 13 that they would not accept this proposal as a basis of settlement.
At this juncture, Mr. Speaker, I see only two courses open to the government: to allow the lock-out to continue, in the hope that the pressure of economic strain on the parties will eventually lead to resolution of the dispute, or legislate an end to the lock-out and bring about a resumption of operations in the port while presenting a method for resolution of the dispute. If I have opted for the second solution it is because, having exhausted over the last ten months all procedures and good offices to resolve the dispute through mediation, it is now clear that the serious adverse economic effects of this dispute are such as to warrant legislative action.
Many members of this House are painfully aware of the adverse economic repercussions of this industrial dispute. I have received numerous representations from business and labour representatives, including important shipping interests, as well as elected officials at all levels of government, and of various political affiliations, to put an end to the dispute because of the severe adverse effects on the economy of the city of Halifax and of the province of Nova Scotia.
May I at this stage acknowledge the good intentions and assistance offered by members of parliament from the city of Halifax, and the assistance of the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) in efforts to bring this matter to a resolution. It has been estimated that the economic loss is now well over $1 million a week and that the number of workers laid off as a result of this dispute is close to 3,000. When I expressed gratitude to hon. members from Halifax, I should have added from the city of Dartmouth also.
That this situation can no longer be tolerated in light of the continuing deterioration of the port's reputation will be evident to all. Accordingly, the Halifax Port Operations Act orders the immediate resumption of longshoring and related operations. The longshoremen will return to work under the terms of the tentative agreement reached on September 25 with the exception of certain contentious items relating to the rules of dispatch. Immediately upon passage of the legislation, local 269 of the International Longshoremen's Association will draft rules of dispatch to cover the outstanding items for submission to and the approval of the Maritime Employers' Association. The proposed rules of dispatch must be submitted by local 269 of the ILA to the Maritime Employers' Association not later than December 10, 1976. If the Maritime Employers' Association agrees with the rules of dispatch as submitted, they will be incorporated into the collective agreement as of January 1, 1977, or as soon as practical after that date.
Should the Maritime Employers' Association fail to agree with the rules of dispatch as proposed, or should local 269 of the ILA fail to submit language on these rules of dispatch to the MEA by December 10, either or both parties may notify me and I will appoint an industrial inquiry commissioner to make a determination on the specific items in dispute. In such

October 22, 1976
Halifax Operations Act
event, within 15 days following his appointment the industrial inquiry commissioner shall render an award prescribing rules of dispatch which will be final and binding on the parties and incorporated into the collective agreement, effective January 1, 1977, or as soon as practical after that date.
I must at this point, Mr. Speaker, explain why the bill before you departs, in two aspects, from the recommendations of my proposed terms of settlement. The first matter concerns the date on which I had proposed the rules of dispatch be incorporated into the collective agreement; that is, January 1,
1977.	It has been brought to my attention by the legal officers of the Crown that we must guard against unforeseeable events. The severe illness of the industrial inquiry commissioner is one example of such unforeseen circumstances that would prevent the fulfilling of this obligation. Thus it is necessary to incorporate in the bill the wording "January 1, 1977, or, where in the opinion of the Minister of Labour that date is impractical, on a date after January 1, 1977, that is designated by the Minister of Labour as the earliest practical date".
The second change to the original recommendations concerns the person of the industrial inquiry commissioner. In my proposal, which was approved by the union, the commissioner charged with the determination of the four items in dispute was identified in the person of Judge Nathan Green, a provincial magistrate of the city of Halifax. Again, legal officers of the Crown have advised that the industrial inquiry commissioner should not be specifically identified in the bill, should unforeseeable events prevent this individual from accepting or from carrying out this assignment.
Having said this, Mr. Speaker, I wish to place clearly on record that the commissioner I intend to appoint is Judge Green, whose labour relations expertise and knowledge of the matters in dispute-he was, after all, the conciliation commissioner-eminently qualify him for this task. I also wish to assure all concerned that in my mind the date on which the rules of dispatch are to be incorporated into the collective agreement, whether by agreement of the MEA as submitted by local 269 of the ILA or as presented by the industrial inquiry commissioner, is January 1, 1977, and both parties have my pledge that I shall see that this is indeed the effective date, barring unforeseen circumstances of the nature I have just indicated.
In closing, may I emphasize that considerable efforts have been made in recent years to transform the port of Halifax into an efficient year-round harbour, and I look to both employers and workers, who have so much at stake here, to co-operate fully to ensure that the productivity of this port is such as to guarantee its competitiveness.
I trust, Mr. Speaker, that with this understanding, and in full realization of the seriousness of the situation that confronts us, this House will give speedy and full approval to this legislation.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, there can be no question about the importance of the port of Halifax to the cities, harbour, the region and the nation. As the minister

has pointed out, the port has not been in operation now for more than two months as the result of a lock-out. While I am generally reluctant to see parliament legislate men back to work, or on the other hand legislate the termination of a lock-out, I do not think there can be any question that the regional and national effects of the continuation of the tie-up of the port of Halifax fully justify this House of Commons and parliament taking action to open the port again on the terms outlined by the minister.
I think I should indicate immediately that as far as I and the colleagues in my party are concerned, we are prepared to see quick passage of this legislation. My colleagues from Halifax-East-Hants (Mr. McCleave) and for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) may well have some comments to make at the committee stage. There may very well need to be some questions posed for purposes of clarification, and it may be that we will want to suggest the reconsideration of some of the wording in clause 8 of the bill which seems to be rather unusual. But in terms of the principle of the bill and its importance, I do not differ in any way from what the minister has put forward.
I do not mean to suggest that the lock-out or the issues in dispute, between management and labour in this instance, are in any way frivolous or lacking in importance. It is obviously of the greatest importance to the cities there and the province, indeed to the whole country, that the port be efficient and competitive. There has, as the minister has indicated, been a prolonged period of inability on the part of management and the men to agree on rules of dispatch which those on the management side have felt, I am quite sure sincerely, are necessary for the efficient operation of the port.
I am not suggesting in any way that the lock-out or the discussions or lack of agreement have in any way been frivolous or that it ought to have been easy for the men and management to reach agreement. As the minister has indicated, Mr. Speaker, those on the management side felt that they were able to accept the proposal that the bill incorporates, with the exception to which the minister has called attention. It is my understanding that the reservations of management related simply to one aspect of the minister's proposal, and that was the duration of the period that the union would have to develop and propose rules of dispatch. Management took the position that a period of three months, to January 1 next, was unnecessarily long, and it is my understanding that had the proposal been for a shorter period of time it would have been accepted. I think I would have quite a difficult time trying to convince this House or people in the Halifax area that a proposal would be reasonable if limited to 30 days, and that it would be unreasonable and entitled to be rejected if extended over a period of three months.
We do agree, of course, that it is one thing for us to legislate to reopen the port of Halifax, and I agree that this does not necessarily mean the port will be fully utilized. I also recognize that there may very well be a period of some instability continuing over the period of three months, or perhaps longer.

But the proposal the minister has made and the bill which is now before us which incorporates this proposal hold out the promise that within a reasonably short period of time the problem of achieving a settlement of the rules of dispatch will be resolved. This does not promise to achieve this result as rapidly as those on management side would like, but for those of us who have concern for the port of Halifax it does hold out the promise of achieving a settlement respecting the rules of dispatch, if necessary by binding arbitration, within a reasonable period of time.
This, of course, is not the place to attempt to negotiate a settlement or a solution. I wish to express the hope that those involved in this dispute and in the operation of the port of Halifax, both on the management and the labour side, will use this period of time not only in an attempt to achieve agreement in respect of the rules of dispatch, but to get the port of Halifax back fully in operation, and that they will use this period of time to restore confidence in the port of Halifax which has received something of a setback.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues from the Halifax area will wish to say something in connection with this bill at a later stage, and there may well be some questions to be clarified on matters of detail; but as far as I know, I am the only member of my party who will be speaking at this stage. I simply wish to indicate that, in the circumstances, we feel there is no alternative but to proceed with the bill, and to proceed with it as rapidly as possible through all stages.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orli-kow), will be speaking for us on this bill and will indicate our readiness to go along with it. But because of the matters that are involved and the thickness of the document that was tabled, we think it would be a good idea to carry out the agreement made earlier and ask the House now to call it one o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is that agreed?


Mr. Robert  Mc@: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak for only ten minutes during the debate, and my remarks will be of a very general nature. I think the suggestion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is a very sensible one and we should have an opportunity to study this measure, but surely that can be done after I have spoken, and perhaps my colleague, the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall). Otherwise, I do not intend to intervene in this debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be better to call it one o'clock now and preserve the usual order. It is not going to take very long. Would it not be sensible for us to look at the material that was tabled?


Mr. Robert  Mc@: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to be dictated to by anybody regarding my right to represent my area. If I
Halifax Operations Act
am allowed to speak, I will speak, but if I am not recognized, I will not. That suggestion is totally unacceptable to me.


An hon. Member:: Let us hear him.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I certainly am not going to be stubborn, but I thought the House had agreed to this during the discussion about proceedings on this matter. I am not trying to cut the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCIeave) off, or to prevent him from speaking. We want to hear him. Our contribution will also be about ten minutes on second reading, but it does seem to me to make sense to take a lunch hour now and look at the whole matter.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The Chair was under the impression that there was agreement, but there does not seem to be now. I recognize the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCIeave).


Mr. Robert  Mc@: Thank you, Mr. Speaker; you have restored yourself to my favour. As a result, I am going to send down that old pair of black pants I used to wear when I occupied that position. Perhaps you can make them over to your own suitability. I am pleased to see you in the chair. I think you will contribute a great deal to this session and to the proceedings of this parliament.
This will be only the second occasion on which I have publicly made reference to the lock-out which has gripped the port of Halifax. After the lock-out started, someone from radio station CHNS in Halifax called to ask what my intentions were regarding the lock-out. I said I had none at that particular time; that was back in early August. He was the only member of the journalistic world in Halifax who called and solicited my opinion. That may seem strange, but those great figures who are always so prone to rush to get into public print in my part of the world have had their say and their words have been emblazoned on the pages of the Halifax Chronicle-Herald and Mail-Star, as well as on television and in radio newscasts.
Some time earlier, after meeting with my colleagues, the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield), the former leader of the opposition, and the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall), we determined that we would stay away from publicity on this matter, working behind the scenes to see if any resolution could be found of the issues.
I am not going to give the House a blow by blow account of the 30, 40, 50, 60 or 70 meetings, phone calls, etc., that we had in the interim, but I will sum up our position with regard to this legislation. I say this because of what you will find in dealing with the press in Halifax on a matter such as the hanging bill. Do you know who they went out and interviewed? They interviewed the dog-catchers all over Nova Scotia to find out what they thought about hanging. They would not go near a federal member of parliament, because he is the one who had to make the decision and that would be too direct an approach. That is really what I have to say about the press in Halifax in

October 22, 1976
Halifax Operations Act
respect of this miserable business that has occupied us for some time and is occupying us in this place now.
My colleagues and I have talked to the people from the Halifax-Dartmouth port commission, we have talked to members of the Maritime Employers' Association, and we have talked to members of the International Longshoremen's Association, the chief disputants in this matter, as well as to others. There were times, I think the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) would have to agree, when it appeared that perhaps we had come close to helping him and Mr. Kelly solve a very difficult issue. Our only purpose was to try to be of help in seeing that the issue was solved outside parliament. We worked like hell trying to do that, Mr. Speaker. We came close at times, but we did not come quite close enough.
I made one promise to everyone I talked to, and that is why I am not mentioning names today. I said they could talk to me, the hon. member for Halifax, and the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East, without getting their names in the press in any way, shape or form. We told them we would honour their confidence and do our best to carry forward their points of view. We did this all through the piece and, as I say, we came remarkably close to solving it. We worked among the parties daily, and if we did not qualify for the title of statesmen in that posture, I do not know what we would qualify as. We tried, and we missed.
I just want to tell the House that after consultation with the parties concerned-I think I can mention two names, Mr. Masters of the Maritime Employers' Association, and Mr. Quinn of the Longshoremen, and you will appreciate that we speak to these people every day and sometimes twice a day-* there is no way this lock-out can be ended unless we take action in parliament. When any labour dispute has to come into the House of Commons and the other place to be solved, that is a miserable solution, but I simply say it is the only solution that can possibly work.
I do not want to single out any of the people I have spoken to for this comment, but I am convinced that they are so exhausted by the process in which they found themselves, the lock-out, with all the pressures from every conceivable angle, that it would be impossible for them to reach agreement. There are too many feelings that can be tenderly bruised just by the sheer process and the fact that they have been fighting for too damn long. Too damn long has come to an end, and I say let us pass the legislation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: One o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is it agreed that we call it one o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m.
At 12.45 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a good deal of interest to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) when he introduced this bill, and to the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield) who represents the area which is directly concerned with the lock-out.
Our position on this question is one which we have held for a long time, and our views have not changed. We believe in free collective bargaining between an employer and an employee or his union. We believe that it is wrong for a government to intervene directly very often. We hoped the government would never have to intervene in a dispute between employees and employers. We have been, we are, and we will continue to be, opposed to the views expressed by some members of this House, and certainly by many people outside the House, that there should be legislation requiring compulsory arbitration. We think that is wrong. We think that kind of policy which is used in some countries would embitter rather than help solve or lessen the differences between employees and employers.
Having said that, we accept the fact that when a dispute between employees and employers which leads either to a strike by employees or, as in this case, a lock-out by employers, continues for any length of time, it has such grave consequences on the community directly concerned, and indeed on the whole region, if not the whole country, that there comes a time when the government must intervene. We have had examples of this. I did not take the time to search the record for the years in which I have been here, but on a number of occasions in the 14 years I have been here the government has had to bring in legislation to end a work stoppage.
There were occasions, when Saskatchewan and British Columbia had NDP governments, when both governments found it necessary to bring in legislation to end work stoppages. We accept the fact that this can and does happen, and it has happened. It has happened in this case. The differences involved in this case go back even longer than the minister recounted to us earlier: they go back three or four years. Arguments and discussions have gone on at least that long in connection with the port of Halifax, and that is not surprising.
With regard to loading and unloading goods which are shipped by boat, there has been a veritable revolution in the past 25 years. Many products which used to be loaded and unloaded individually are now packed in containers and moved by new and modern equipment, large cranes and other equipment, and as a result the port of Halifax and all other ports require fewer employees than once was the case. The way in which employees are to be dealt with as a result of this containerization and modernization has been, and will continue to be, a matter of dispute between employees and employers for a long time. I say that as a statement of fact and it must be accepted.
October 22, 1976

This dispute has gone on for at least a year and there has been a lock-out for several months. The activities of the whole region are being very adversely affected. For that reason we agree with the minister that it is time the government acted. We feel that the proposal he has made, namely, that the employees and employers be told that work must begin as soon as this bill is passed, will give the two sides until some time in December to try to reach agreement between themselves on the matters which are still unsettled. Failing such agreement, an arbitrator will be appointed to look into the matter and to make findings and recommendations, and these will be binding on both parties.
As I said at the beginning, we are not enamoured of or enthusiastic about this kind of intervention, but we accept the fact that there is a time when governments have a responsibility to the community as a whole to act when the effects of a stoppage are too serious. We believe the time has come for the government to act, and that parliament should support the government.
Let me conclude by saying that we accept this principle with regard to this particular case. I hope there are no more cases like it, but if in the future there should be, we will take the same view as we have in the past. We will look at the situation as it exists at the time the matter arises. If we are dealing with this specific case, and if it is not a precedent for cases in the future, or the beginning of a permanent method of solving disputes put forward by the government, we are prepared to go along with this bill and to co-operate in ensuring its rapid passage.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Charles-Eugene Dionne (Kamouraska):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with much attention to the explanations given by the minister in his statement. I also watched the reactions of opposition members, and I realize that by general admission this is not the best procedure. But in the circumstances, it is time the government decide on some approach, especially since, under the legislation before us, the main interested parties would still have some time before them to think things over and look for what might be considered the best solution.
To my unfortunate amazement, there are still people who believe the remedy to labour-management problems is a work stoppage. This is rather strange, because the fact is that everything has been accomplished in our world through work. How can strikes solve problems? That is beyond me! For this reason, I suggest from time to time to the government they should try and come up with a labour legislation that would fit the workers involved, a comprehensive legislation to avoid the ever more numerous strikes that cause economic upheavals affecting everyone, even those who are responsible for deciding and legislating in the labour-management area. But the government appear to be reluctant. It would seem they are afraid of labour unions. Apparently, they fear they will lose the labour vote at the next election. The legislation before us is not in the interest of the people, but rather in the interest of the
Halifax Operations Act
next election. We must strive for a fairer solution to the various problems now facing us. The only possible reason for a strike is an attempt to regain lost time in the race against soaring prices. But the right to strike is not basic to the current situation. It is something linked to various general illnesses, and it is becoming a tool of hypothetical efficiency. No one knows whether it will succeed or not. And generally speaking, strikes are aimed at the people who pay, rather than those who deprive. I shall deal with the main causes and the multiplication of strikes. First the workers say: Our wages are not high enough. Management replies: If we increase your wages, we shall not be able to make ends meet. Let us pause for a moment and examine the main cause, as we should. It is found in the financial system which deprives us of all sorts of things. It often happens that by abusing the means employed we contribute to preventing ourselves from achieving the objectives we have set, because of resulting clashes in labour relations. We have noticed agreements turn to disagreements. It is true: we have seen it happen. We can see it within the postal service: there was agreement and now there is disagreement.
Some negotiators persist in clamoring for reinstatement of their rights which results in a lot of contestation often based on misunderstanding and degenerates most of the time into confusion. I jumped on the occasion to point out to the House that the time has come for the government to act. This is no time for squabbles between political parties but time to try to find a real formula, acceptable first of all to the workers, because they need a decent wage to live, and also to management which has to be able to bank on normal activities in their field of operation.
So, in that atmosphere of constraints and industrial conflicts and others, with legislation permeated with timorous inspiration in the face of finance that dominates, it is difficult to find a solution at the present time that can be fair to employers and employees alike. Once again governments will have to become aware of their responsibilities and implement real legislation that does not smack of the domination of the profiteers, nor of the fear of what some unions might do, but legislation that is understanding, honest, humane, just and truly social, which guarantees an equitable distribution of profits and reasonable income to the workers.
With the group of experts governments have at their disposal, it should be possible to draft legislation that is clear in style so that the interested parties can understand it. It is worth a try. That is the price we will have to pay for peace in labour relations.
We evidently support the government's approach in this bill. I do not feel it would be possible to adopt another. We therefore support this bill and hope that it will be adopted soon, so that normal activities in the port of Halifax may resume.
[DOT] (M20)


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.
382

October 22, 1976
Halifax Operations Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on the motion for second reading. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Laniel in the chair.
Gérald Laniel: Order, please. The House is in committee of the whole on Bill C-14, an act to provide for the resumption and continuation of longshoring and related operations at the port of Halifax. Shall clause 2 carry?
On clause 2-Definitions-"collective agreement to which this act applies".


Mr. Forrestall:: Mr. Chairman, I find this bill deficient in that it does not properly describe the locale of the dispute we are considering. The locale, in fact, is the port of Halifax-Dar-mouth. I regret that the full name of the port is not mentioned in the bill. Is it confidential?
I wish to ask two or three questions about the details of the bill. I join with the hon. member for Halifax and the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants in regretting the necessity to conisder the matter at all. At the same time, we recognize the importance of the government's action. We hope that both sides will do everything necessary to bring about a return of trust and confidence in the port of Halifax-Dartmouth.
If users regain their trust in the port, it will work immediately at about 60 per cent of normal capacity. It may take another two or three months to recapture 100 per cent of all the port's business. Restoration of confidence is most important to the port. We all hope that confidence will be restored within a week or ten days of the coming into force of this act and that the port will regain its previous stature in the shipping world. The question concerns us. I hope everything will be done to facilitate this process.
I would now direct my first question to the minister. Essentially, what services will the department make available to both sides? I am concerned about the question of dispatch. In other words, will the services of departmental officials be available to either side if they should need such services?


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Obviously if the parties want the department's help in resolving the matter voluntarily before the cut-off date, December 10, the department will respond positively.


J. Michael Forrestall: May I ask another general question? I shall ask two or three specific questions when we come to the relevant clauses. In his statement to the press yesterday, the minister, in looking generally at difficulties at other ports in Canada between the MEA and various locals of the ILA, indicated that he would have to take a fresh look at labour relations and difficulties which have plagued the past history of negotiations between the ILA and the MEA. What did the minister mean; can he elaborate?

In the eyes of some, he left the matter dangling; he left the impression that it would be resolved in a judicial way. Some took the minister to mean that he would not consider the history of these relationships but would consider ways of imposing guidelines, restrictions or directions with respect to how the parties should conduct themselves in future. Will the minister elaborate on what he said?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Chairman, yes, I will. I welcome the opportunity to respond to the hon. member's question. In the department we are pleased because we have been able to resolve this year all those areas of concern which, if left unresolved, could have had a severe national impact in terms of tying up the country. Labour and management have entered into collective agreements and this has been an encouraging sign. I am talking about the railways, the towboats, the St. Lawrence Seaway workers and the grain handlers. All have settled. The grain handlers even agreed to voluntary arbitration, which is a leap forward, a new point of departure and an encouraging sign.
On the other hand, when one considers the history of the ports in terms of the collective bargaining process, one is not encouraged. Eighteen months ago I came to this House with legislation ordering men back to work in the port of Montreal, and here we are again with legislation to end the work stoppage at the port of Halifax. I have read the history of the involvement of competent mediators, both locally as well as nationally-oriented, who have lent their services to find some resolution of the difficulty, without success. I have reviewed the pattern of the efforts undertaken in Halifax; I think it is impressive. Yet we are still not able to resolve the difficulty. The result has been the port being closed for two months, a closure which has affected the economy of an entire region as important as Nova Scotia. Business was lost at the port of Montreal owing to the work stoppage. All this indicates that something is seriously wrong with the collective bargaining process between employers and the unions with which they deal.
Perhaps there is a fundamental lack of trust of the most basic kind, a lack of trust which does not enable the parties to enter into a contract without government intervention. That basic lack of trust is most serious. I do not know its precise cause. I only know that this continued history of breakdowns is injurious to our economy, particularly that of the regions.
If this history establishes a pattern of poor industrial relations between employer and employee, or vice versa, there may be a reasonable basis for an examination and investigation of the state of labour relations in this industry. It is an option that should be considered. I have not made any such determination. However, perhaps if some competent people set up as commissioners, who have an intimate knowledge of the industry and who would enjoy the competence of all those on the employer and employee side, would look into this situation and make recommendations, it may lay the basis for a resumption of the basic type of trust that is needed for the parties to arrive at any successful collective agreement which, as I say, is not very encouraging in this particular industry.
October 22, 1976

[DOT] (M30)
I might point out that we looked at the grain handlers situation. That seems to be a catalyst to a degree; it seems to encourage the parties to resolve their disputes without the constant necessity of government intervention. We started out looking at that process through the appointment of an industrial inquiry commissioner whom I have the authority to appoint under the Labour Code.
I was looking at that situation and expressing the frustration that many members have with regard to breakdown of the system in terms of resolving this particular dispute. I find it regrettable that parliament again has had to intervene. Every member of the House has expressed that sentiment during this debate. There must be a better answer for this particular industry.


Gérald Laniel: Shall clause 2 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 3-Longshoring operations to be resumed.
J. Michael Forrestall: With regard to clause 3, Mr. Chairman, 1 wonder if the minister will take a moment to elaborate on subclause (3) which reads:
Every officer or representative of a union shall comply with any order or request made pursuant to the collective agreement brought into force by section 4 that is applicable to him for the despatch of persons to perform longshoring or related operations at the port of Halifax.
The document the minister tabled today does not include the sections with regard to dispatch. I would like some clarification. Is the document that was tabled today complete? How does it dispatch persons during such a situation? Perhaps that is a better way to put the question.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Chairman, this clause refers to the collective agreement that was agreed to on September 25 and which has been tabled. It does include those sections relative to the rules of dispatch. However, the bill exempts the four sections upon which there could be no agreement and throws that option to resolution between the parties themselves up to December 10.


J. Michael Forrestall: Those four sections have been removed?


John Carr Munro: The bill removes them. Does that answer the hon. member's question?


J. Michael Forrestall: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


Gérald Laniel: Shall clause 3 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 4-New collective agreement.
Gérald Laniel: On clause 4, I should ask hon. members to fill in the blanks as to the date of the tabling of documents referred to in that clause. Line 36 should read "October 22, 1976". The following line should read "document number 302-73". Shall the clause carry?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Halifax Operations Act
Clauses 5 to 7 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 8-Injunction.
J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Chairman, I wish to pose one or two questions to the minister and his officials with regard to enforcement. Passage of this clause implies a request to the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia for an injunction. Why did the minister feel it necessary to extend the right to that injunction to July 1, 1977?
[ Translation]


Mr. Olivier:: Mr. Speaker, I shall reply to the question of the hon. member by saying simply that, according to the spirit of the bill, we would like everything to be over one day. In this case, it will end on July 1, 1977. Afterwards, we shall come back to what must happen, that is negotiation between the two parties. Ordinary labour legislation will prevail afterwards. This agreement will therefore be an 18 month agreement between the parties.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Chairman, I am slightly uncertain, but I think it is quite unseemly for the House to determine the length of an agreement between two parties.


John Carr Munro: Just to elaborate on what my parliamentary secretary said, Mr. Chairman, the collective agreement dated September 25 that we are now inaugurating runs from January 1, 1976, to July 1, 1977. It is an 18-month agreement. We want to give the court authority for compliance for the duration of the agreement. The termination of the agreement that has been tabled is July 1, 1977.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Chairman, I wish to raise a question about the use of the word "shall" in the third line of clause 8. It seems to my colleagues and myself that this almost suggests instruction to the court. To that extent, there is a removal of any discretion as far as the court is concerned. I wonder why the word "may" would not be appropriate.
The final paragraph of that clause looks, on the face of it, as though it is rather gratuitous. The court would have the authority, in any event, to cite for contempt anybody who failed to comply with an injunction issued by the court. What is the purpose of spelling out the right to impose punishment for contempt, which is implicit in any event? Why does the bill virtually instruct the court to issue an injunction rather than simply authorize it?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the notice the hon. member for Halifax gave me with regard to raising this question. That gave me an opportunity to get hold of the legal advisers in Justice to assist me in answering. I am told that it is not interpreted in that fashion. It is not an instruction to the court as such, but an instruction under certain conditions, the conditions being set out in (a) and (b).
I am also told that we had a similar provision in the legislation ordering the men back to work in the port of Montreal 18 months ago. The courts were called upon, follow-
80001-2 5%

October 22, 1976
Halifax Operations Act
ing that legislation, with regard to the issuance of injunctions against the union to comply. The section was not contested by the courts. Indeed, the courts acted under it. The opinion I have received from Justice is that it is an appropriate section and according to precedent.
I will now turn to the hon. member's question with regard to the gratuitous element in the last three lines of clause 8. Perhaps in a sense it does seem somewhat gratuitous, but even if it is, it is not offensive. Again, I can only say this is the precise wording of the section in the previous legislation, on which the courts acted without adverse comment of any kind.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Do those final five lines restrict the right of appeal? This section does designate the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia in relation to the issue of injunctions. Do those lines mean, also, that the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia is the court to cite or punish for contempt? Is that restrictive as far as the right to appeal is concerned? Would that be a reason for slipping that in there? Or am I unnecessarily suspicious?


John Carr Munro: I believe that subsection 6 sets out the procedures with regard to appeals-where they would lie. Perhaps the hon. gentleman would check to see whether it deals with his point. I think it might.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 9 agreed to.
On clause 10-Coming into force.
Mr. McCleave:: Might I ask the minister, with regard to clause 10, whether the other place is standing by and, if so, whether it is expected that this legislation will be operative on Monday morning.


John Carr Munro: The answer to the first part of the question is yes; the other place is standing by to act promptly after the bill leaves this chamber. I believe the legislation comes into effect 24 hours after royal assent, which means that it can come into force earlier than next Monday.


Robert Jardine McCleave: It would come into effect, then, on Sunday morning; am I correct in that assumption?


John Carr Munro: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
John Carr Munro: that Bill C-14, to provide for the resumption and continuation of longshoring and related operations at the port of Halifax, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
John Carr Munro: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION ACT AND SATISFIED SECURITIES ACT
Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance) moved: that Bill C-8, to amend the Financial Administration Act and to repeal the Satisfied Securities Act be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
He said: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, my colleague the parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan), will be speaking on this legislation.


Mr. Bob Kaplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the provisions of this bill would expedite the discharge of securities taken by Her Majesty in the form of liens, mortgages, hypothecs, privileges or other charges, once the debts for which such securities were taken have been satisfied.
The Satisfied Securities Act, the statute under which such discharges are now given, authorizes the governor in council to effect the discharge of a satisfied security through the passing of an appropriate order in council. This, however, is a cumbersome and time-consuming procedure. Recognizing that the elimination of the requirement to effect a discharge through reference to the governor in council would materially reduce the time required to obtain a discharge, this bill proposes that the authority to effect a discharge of security be given to the minister responsible for the administration of the security. Hon. members may be interested to know that the volume of such discharges has greatly increased because of the number of programs administered under the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
It is further proposed that the authority be included in the Financial Administration Act, with the Satisfied Securities Act being repealed. This would have the advantage of incorporating the authority to discharge securities in the major piece of legislation which deals directly with government financial administration while eliminating a small and insignificant statute.
The securities in question are those taken by Her Majesty, not those taken by Crown agents such as Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation or the Farm Credit Corporation. Those corporations are empowered to execute a simple corporate discharge of mortgage. The bulk of the securities which would be discharged under the proposed legislation have been taken by Her Majesty to secure loans made from the Indian economic development fund and the Indian off-reserve and Eskimo housing program, and are administered by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
This is not the most momentous bill which parliament will be asked to consider this session, but it is an important matter of housekeeping and I look forward with great anticipation to dealing with this measure in the finance committee.
October 22, 1976


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, there are aspects of this bill which the parliamentary secretary has not covered. It is one of those sleeper bills. Immediately after I had read it the first time, I was tempted to think it could be handled in the way such measures are often handled on a Friday afternoon, that is to say, dealt with in committee of the whole and passed through all its stages. Then an innate sense of conservatism and my instincts as a lawyer caused me to reflect further. I looked at the bill again, and I am satisfied that my second thought was superior to the first.
As Your Honour knows, after a good deal of struggle on this side of the House a committee has been set up to deal with statutory instruments. That committee has under its examination-and it can examine not only once but, if necessary, a second or third time-any instrument executed by way of delegation of powers and incorporated either in an order in council or some other statutory instrument.
Unfortunately, there has arisen a difference of opinion between members of the committee of both this House and the other place, on the one hand, and officers of the administration, on the other hand, as to what constitutes a statutory instrument, the more restrictive interpretation naturally being applied by the administrative officers.
As the Satisfied Securities Act provides, there would have to be an order in council passed to discharge any particular security in favour of Her Majesty regarding not only affairs dealing with Indian lands but, I suggest, also the parks department. I suggest that would have some interest as well.
I cannot agree with the parliamentary secretary that mere administrative convenience shall be the overriding consideration. I know it is difficult to have all of these orders in council cluttering up the landscape, and I also realize many other orders in council are having to go through. I remember, when dealing with the Immigration Act, often the admission to Canada of an immigrant, after initial admittance by ministerial permit, had to be validated by order in council, which was perhaps anything from five to six months after the event.
In this particular instance, not merely administrative requirements have to be met under the Satisfied Securities Act; the rights and obligations of subjects of the land must also be recognized. As long as the Satisfied Securities Act is in force, an order in council discharging the right of the Crown against any land held by a subject shall be subject to scrutiny by the statutory instruments committee.
As I have indicated privately to the minister, when we get into committee we want to get an answer to the question whether there is a guarantee that the instruments to be executed by any minister in any form authorized by the deputy attorney general-I am not too sure that the language of the new section of the Financial Administration Act is any more felicitous from a legal point of view than the provision in the Satisfied Securities Act-are not merely departmental documents but will also be subject to examination. Not only the
Financial Administration Act
parties themselves but the interests of the public can be satisfied by examination.
The proposal that is before the House in this bill merely means that a minister may execute the discharge of a security, in whatever form it is, and that it will then be sent out, say to a land titles office, where the discharge of the security is registered. Outside of that there is no other means of examining the document, whereas under an order in council, of course, the document is to be examined by the statutory instruments committee.
That is basically my point this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, and it is the question on which my colleagues and I will have to be satisfied in committee. Let me reiterate that this motion to give the bill second reading is not an acceptance of the bill. The motion is that the bill be read the second time and referred to the committee for examination. Then the bill is read the second time, after the report stage, if one examines our procedures. I would therefore recommend to the members of the House that the bill be read the second time and referred to the committee so that the committee can look into the judgment of what is the better legal position under either the Satisfied Securities Act or under this amendment to the Financial Administration Act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I had thought that the first reaction of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) was the correct one. In fact, at that point I felt that he had stolen the sentence that I was going to offer, namely that this bill is so simple that we might as well take it in committee of the whole and complete the job this afternoon. I see that he has now been drawn away from that position; he feels that the bill should go to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. I have listened to his argument but he has not convinced me.
There are times around here when we demand the right to see more things, and so on, but there are other times when we complain about the place being cluttered with too much detail. It strikes me that this is a very simple administrative process that ought not to clutter the work of the committee on statutory instruments or any other body, and I feel that it would have been better just to finish the job this afternoon. Of course, this would require unanimous consent, so all I can say is that if we are prepared to agree to second reading of the bill, and if there is still a suggestion that it be dealt with in committee of the whole, we would agree with that as well.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
[Stage Direction]
October 22, 1976
Income Tax INCOME TAX

Donald Stovel Macdonald: that Bill C-12, to implement an agreement between Canada and the Federal Republic of Germany and conventions between Canada and Morocco, Canada and Pakistan, Canada and Singapore, Canada and the Philippines, Canada and the Dominican Republic and Canada and Switzerland for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, this is not a bill which we would recommend be considered all in one afternoon, all three readings, because it deals not only with the important treaty that has been entered into, subject to ratification by parliament, with the Federal Republic of Germany, but there are other treaties included for the elimination of double taxation between Canada and Morocco, Pakistan, Singapore, The Philippines, Dominican Republic and Switzerland. The treaties tend to follow the OECD model but there are important differences among all of them. With this bill, as well, I look forward to taking up these interesting matters when the bill reaches the finance committee.
I might say by way of background that the tax reform of 1971 brought an urgency to extending the network of tax treaties that Canada holds with countries around the world because of the imposition of a higher witholding tax, for one thing, and the revision of existing treaties that were in effect between Canada and a number of other countries.
I offer this substantial bill for second reading, Mr. Speaker, and look forward to speaking on it further when the bill reaches the Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs Committee.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I suppose this is the second slice of a whole series of bills of this nature which will come before this House and the other place arising out of the amendments to the Income Tax Act of 1971. The then minister, Mr. Benson, indicated that Canada would have to go through a whole series of changes to agreements to avoid double taxation with all of its partners who participate in this type of convention around the world. On this occasion we have some six or seven which extend wider application of what I think are common sense rules between the various countries which are our trading partners and with which we do have a great deal of trade.
Last year through Bill S-32 this parliament ratified agreements between Canada and France, Canada and Belgium, and Canada and Israel. I would suggest that possibly the government at this time in bringing forward I3ill C-12 will have benefited from amendments brought forward by the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs as the result of the initiative of myself and my colleague, the hon. member for

York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) and it will arrive at a much more workable review of regulations as they appear, not in detail, at page 7 of this bill.
The insertion of clause 23 in the bill points out the fact that there are a great number of vacua in the rules of this House dealing with a concept that was introduced when this House was considering the establishment of the Committee on Statutory Instruments and the Statutory Instruments Act. This House considered for the first time the concept and application of affirmative and negative resolutions. However, the House has never come to the point of establishing its practice with regard to either of those types of resolutions.
Unfortunately each one of these bills at the present time has to carry an elaborate procedure in a statute which has to be laid out, at least until the House has determined what shall be its rule. To this extent let me say as a member of the committee that I would welcome a reference to it by the House, because our procedures are archaic enough as they are now in that our standing committees must wait until there is a reference before any consideration is given and report back is made. I appeal to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen), as government House leader, to inscribe such a motion on the order paper so we can clean up the Statutory Instruments Act and avoid the problem we had in respect of Bill S-32.
The parliamentary secretary might clear up another point for us. The explanation may be very simple. The title of this bill refers to an agreement between Canada and the Federal Republic of Germany, whereas all the others are called conventions. Would the parliamentary secretary please clear up the difference in that regard and tell us why the others are referred to as conventions between Canada and other countries?
I do not think there is anything further that can usefully be said at this time. Officials from the Ministries of Finance and National Revenue will undoubtedly explain to members of the committee the complexities, not so much in respect of the Statute itself, but the schedules, because there are some very difficult details of interpretation and specification which occur in these schedules that in fact lay down the rules so that double taxation may be avoided or attached. I agree with the parliamentary secretary that this bill should be referred to the committee for examination and report back to the House in due course. Perhaps before that occurs he will explain the distinction between agreement and convention.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the last bill had only one paragraph whereas this bill has 185 pages. I agree that the place for it to be dealt with in detail is in the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. At this point I should like to indicate general agreement with the bill, the purpose of which is to avoid double taxation between Canada and the other countries mentioned in it.
If I have a particular interest in this bill it is because at least in the agreement with the Federal Republic of Germany, and I
October 22, 1976

think this applies to one or two other countries as well, there are special references to pensions earned in either Canada or the other country. In a sense this is ancillary to an agreement under the provisions of the Canada Pension Plan signed between Canada and the Federal Republic of Germany some years ago. There are some aspects of that agreement which have not been satisfactory. In part they will be corrected by this agreement on taxation having reference to pensions originating in either country. I suggest to the parliamentary secretary who is now in the Department of Finance that this is why there is a need for reciprocal arrangements between this country and others with regard to pensions. He will recall from his former incarnation in the Department of National Health and Welfare that there is a proposed bill to deal with that situation.
I believe the agreement with the Federal Republic of Germany, which is Schedule I to this bill, is to be effective as from January 1, 1976, some nine or ten months ago, which makes it desirable to get the legislation passed as quickly as possible if it is satisfactory to all concerned. In general we believe the bill merits approval and we are prepared to give it second reading so it can be sent to the standing committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.

Donald Stovel Macdonald: that Bill C-3, to amend the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to propose amendments to the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act that in the main can be described to be of a housekeeping nature. This act, which established a system of deposit insurance, came into force about nine years ago and, apart from an amendment that came forward less than a year after, no changes have been made to this legislation. This indicates, I would think, that the deposit insurance scheme was well conceived; but after that length of experience it is felt that certain changes ought to be made to the act to make certain provisions more effective, to clarify others, and, generally to enable the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation to carry out its activities more efficiently.
Before mentioning some of the proposals contained in this bill it might be appropriate to explain briefly the deposit insurance scheme as embodied in the act and mention something about the operations of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation, which I will henceforth refer to as "C.D.I.C.".
Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act
The main purpose of the act is of course to provide deposit insurance for the protection of persons making deposits in banks, and trust and loan companies against the loss of part or all of such deposits. The insurance covers each deposit up to $20,000. As of the end of 1975 the deposits held in 83 financial institutions were insured by C.D.I.C. This figure represents eleven banks, thirty-two federally incorporated trust and loan companies, and forty provincial trust and loan companies. The total of the insured deposits held by these institutions at the end of 1975 was just under $49 billion.
The act provides for the payment of premiums by the insured member institutions, and at the end of the last calendar year the deposit insurance fund and accumulated net earnings had reached a level of 99 million dollars.
It should be mentioned that, apart from the basic function of C.D.I.C. under the act of providing deposit insurance, it has other powers of an incidental or ancillary nature such as the authority to assist member institutions through the making of loans and the purchase of their assets. C.D.I.C. can also act as a liquidator or receiver of a member institution when appointed by a court and in such a case assume the related expenses.
The most important of the amendments proposed in Bill C-3 relates to the growth of the assets of C.D.I.C. and the rate of premium that should as a consequence be charged member institutions. The act now requires each member institution to pay an annual premium of one thirtieth of one per cent of its insured deposits but authorizes the corporation to reduce this premium if it considers the deposit insurance fund adequate having regard to all the circumstances. However, the annual premium cannot be reduced below an amount that, when added to the total of all previous premiums paid by an institution, would equal one sixth of one per cent of insured deposits. This existing formula for the reduction of premiums has proven inadequate because the rate of increase in deposits held by the institutions has been much higher than was anticipated in 1967. The result is that the premium payments are now enough or more than enough for the deposit insurance fund to maintain a reasonable growth rate.
The objective in deciding on the level of premiums that member institutions should pay is the maintenance of a fund of assets that is adequate in relation to the total of insured deposits. A good deal of thought has been given to the problem of determining when this equilibrium has been reached. There is no sure method of achieving this, but the approach embodied in the proposal is to authorize the board of directors to assess the growth rate of the fund at the end of each financial year, and where the fund is considered adequate having regard to all relevant circumstances to make rebates, subject to the stated limitations, in respect of the premiums paid for the preceding financial year.
I might note that the directors of the corporation are deputy ministers and other government officials, and not representatives of the institutions which are insured.
This bill deals with another matter that is also related to the fact that the deposit insurance fund is soon likely to be considered sufficiently large to meet present normal require-

October 22, 1976
Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act
ments and is expected to grow at an adequate rate. C.D.I.C. was created with a share capital of $10 million contributed by the government to get the corporation into operation. When the board of directors considers the fund adequate, it would seem unnecessary to continue this investment of capital in the corporation. It is proposed therefore to authorize the C.D.I.C. to redeem its shares and abolish the share capital structure. I may mention that the C.D.I.C. regularly pays a dividend on this capital equal to the rate of interest charged to Crown corporations on funds advanced to them.
A further amendment proposed in this bill concerns the definition "deposit". When the act was passed the board of directors was authorized to define that expression for the purposes of the act. When the act was amended in 1968 a time limit, March 27, 1969, was placed on the power of the board to alter the meaning of deposit which of course is of basic importance in the legislative scheme. Although the definition "deposit" is not found in the act, it is in reality part of the statute and this bill proposes to put it in a schedule to the act because of the numerous provisions involved in the definition. At the same time a few changes are being made in the definition for clarification purposes.
A relatively minor substantive proposal put forth in this bill is one giving C.D.I.C. the authority to guarantee the expenses of a liquidator of a member institution that is being wound up. Such expenses can now be paid by C.D.I.C. if it is itself appointed as liquidator, but it is felt that circumstances could very well arise where it would not be appropriate for C.D.I.C. to act as liquidator and where a professional liquidator would not wish to do so unless its fees were guaranteed.
The remainder of the proposed amendments are of a more minor nature and are for the most part intended to clarify existing'provisions. Among these is a change in the provision providing for the designation of an alternate for a director who might be unable to attend a meeting of the board of directors. It was also felt that the provisions of the act regarding the subrogation of C.D.I.C. to the rights of a depositor paid off by C.D.I.C. should be clarified and strengthened. The proposal would accomplish this by specifically authorizing C.D.I.C. in its capacity as subrogee to maintain an action in its own name and by providing that C.D.I.C. can require a depositor who is being reimbursed to give C.D.I.C. a written assignment of his rights against the depository.
Those are examples of the changes proposed in this bill. It might well be that this bill could be combined for consideration by the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs with the first of the three bills we considered this afternoon.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, this bill is one that arises out of experience with the operation of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act since about 1967 when the act was brought into force for the first time.

I recall those periods when there have been some rather unfortunate incidents with deposit taking institutions which, not only with regard to deposits but with regard to deposit certificates, had engaged in some rather speculative ventures and of course went bankrupt to the almost total loss of the deposit. All along the way it has been felt that there should be some form of guarantee at least to a certain limit of the deposits of individuals with various types of deposit taking institutions.
I have always felt that we should have a definition of banking which includes all deposit taking institutions subject to a general bank act. I hope I will be able to prevail rather better than ten years ago in getting my views known to the members of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, to members of the House, and to administrative officials, because I think we have got ourselves into a series of pidgeon holes without creating an effective credit granting system in Canada, much of it outside the legitimate purview of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) who is held responsible for the banking policy of the government and for the economy as a whole. The present restrictions that are imposed upon him and on any minister of finance, I think, are quite wrong, quite unfair. There are some institutions in the financial world in this country operating with impunity, without any control or supervision. Of course changes in the Bank Act will attempt, with some band aids, to bring these people under some sort of mandatory supervision regarding their security and the protection of the public-not supervision and direction of their operations because there is a well established philosophical difference in that connection.
I must say that it is rather difficult for me to comment upon the purposes of a housekeeping type of bill such as this when, as a matter of fact, I was able to get a confidential copy of this bill just before 11 o'clock, even though it had been given first reading yesterday. It is rather difficult, when you are going to discuss a bill in the afternoon and you have received it just beforehand, a bill based on the existing act, to see where the amendments fit in and to make a cogent argument one way or the other. All I can say is that we will examine this in committee and by'that time the Superintendent of Insurance, who is the officer of the Department of Finance charged with the supervision of the operations of this act, will be able to come forward with his assistants and explain to the members of the committee why these changes are wanted. We will then see whether other changes are required as well.
I am always mindful about the deposits of individuals and the interest they demand. I am glad to see that in the schedule which will be introduced in the bill there is a definition of the date of the deposit. I have a son who is an employee of a chartered bank. He always tells the story about an individual who came along storming some time between Christmas and the New Year insisting that the deposit which he put into a night depository some time on December 24 should carry interest for all the days that applied over the holiday and before the deposit could be handled. In any event, this bill
October 22, 1976

defines exactly what is the date of a deposit. As today's rates of interest are very high, this becomes very important.
I am glad to see this bill and I hope that the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs will meet shortly to elect a new chairman. However, I am rather sorry about another matter and I will take this opportunity to say publicly that I regret that the minister saw fit to insist that the finance committee not undertake the trip that it had arranged after a great deal of difficulty. The dates for travelling were not determined totally by the committee. They were fixed by the host countries, which in two cases faced general elections.
I think it would have been of considerable benefit to members of the House if members of the finance committee, some of whom have considerable experience with the financial operations in this country, could have an intimate look at operations in other countries. 1 would have thought that the ministry would have welcomed a fresh approach from members who might have picked up fresh ideas. They are not the prerogative of the officials of the Department of Finance or of the Bank of Canada. I think it was the wrong decision and the committee should have been able to undertake its program.
In my experience over many years I think this committee's only ventures from the precincts of parliament had been two times to accept invitations to luncheon from the Governor of the Bank of Canada across Wellington Street. That is as far as the finance committee has ever gone.
I can assure members of the House that membership on all sides would have benefited greatly from examining the economic situation, trade patterns, and the banking systems in Sweden, Belgium, and Germany, as well as the operations of the money market in Germany and in Paris. They have many problems similar to the ones we are facing here today. Their solutions in many instances are different from ours. Some are succeeding more than others, but I find it rather difficult to understand why members of the House who are attempting to broaden their knowledge so that we can deal more adequately in principle with some of our problems in Canada should be denied that opportunity for one reason or another. I want to say that publicly at this time because I think it was a retrograde decision.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, this bill is going to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs and most of the details can be discussed there. Nevertheless there are one or two pieces of information which I should like to secure. We are not in committee of the whole but it may be that either the parliamentary secretary or the minister himself in closing this debate might be able to give us some of this information which I think would be useful to us before the bill is finally passed.
I gather from the statement of the parliamentary secretary, first, that one of the changes proposed is to alter the premiums which will be paid by the institutions which avail themselves of the services of the C.D.I.C. I for one would be interested in knowing two things about that. First, what losses have had to be met by the C.D.I.C., and how do those relate to the
Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act premium income which has been received by the C.D.I.C.? It is not always safe, on the basis of a fairly short experience of eight or nine years, to predicate a premium which is too low, and I would be interested in knowing just what the losses have been. Second, what reserves have been built up against a very serious situation which could develop if a number of institutions happen to get into financial difficulties at the same time?
Another question I want to raise is whether any thought is being given to raising the ceiling with reference to this particular program. It seems to me that, with inflation, it may be that the ceiling, which I think the parliamentary secretary said was $20,000, is probably too low at the present time in view of the dwindling purchasing power of the dollar over the past ten years.
Another question I raise is whether at the present time institutions such as banks, trust companies and so on, which can avail themselves of the C.D.I.C., are required to come under the provisions of this legislation if they are under federal jurisdiction? I can understand the difficulty with respect to bringing provincially incorporated institutions under the provisions of this bill, but it seems to me that if we are really going to protect the public some thought ought to be given to making it mandatory for all these institutions which come under federal jurisdiction to become depositors with the C.D.I.C., and I wonder if the government has done that. If it has not, is any thought being given to doing so? I think that would give the people of Canada a much greater sense of security.
The average citizen does not know-and I doubt if many members of parliament know-which financial institutions are depositors under this act and which are not, and it would give to the average individual a sense of security to know that at least all federally incorporated institutions which would be eligible to come under the C.D.I.C. are required to become depositors.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, nobody needs to worry because I am not going to speak for very long. However, I want to know from the minister or from the parliamentary secretary whether there are any women on the board of directors of the corporation. Certain of our national banking institutions have found it impossible to find, among 11,547,000 women in Canada, anybody with the capability of serving on a board of directors. I hope very much that there is a woman or women on the board of this corporation.
I myself have been proposing a change to another act, the Bank Act. The minister has been rather forthcoming about this. Surely in 1976 we should not be fooling around trying to teach bank presidents what their responsibilities are in this area. I hope that when the Bank Act is revised the whole matter of qualifications of directors will be looked at again. There is a qualification now with regard to capital stock which is quite outmoded, and I think The Canadian Bankers' Association hopes it will be changed. I hope that the government, as the bellwether of reform-or at least I thought it was-will
390

Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act in this particular legislation make sure that women are represented.
It seems to me that bank directors in Canada should be fully representative by the very nature of their office and by the very nature of section 18 of the act. 1 hope that in this statute the government will see to it that the directors of this corporation are representative of the wide spectrum of life in this country, which unhappily is not now the case in most of our banks.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: One bank, one director.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, before I disclose the selection of the directors of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation I want to-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Kaplan) may have the floor only with unanimous consent because he has already spoken. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I would like to thank all hon. members for this opportunity to reply to some of the points which were raised. I will be very brief.
Last night I had the opportunity to discuss the issue of there not being representation by women on some boards of directors of banks, and I had the opportunity to indicate the many steps the government had taken to advance the status of women by legislation, by the human rights code, within our public service, within order in council appointments, and by campaign to change public attitudes.
It was with some satisfaction last night that I was able to note that when it was brought to public attention that banks thought they could not find women capable of filling the job, public reaction was such that the conservative bankers themselves were brought around to recognizing that their posture on the matter was unacceptable.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Aren't all bankers Conservatives?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Not a Liberal among them.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: The chairman of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation, as appointed by order in council, is Gerard Gingras. The other directors are appointed by office. They are the Governor of the Bank of Canada, the Superintendent of Insurance, the Inspector General of Banks, and the Deputy Minister of Finance. Hon. members will be aware that all these individuals are men.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Shame!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: We look forward to the continued process which the government has undertaken of positive action to advance women to important jobs within the government so
[Mr. Fairweather.J
that in due course-and hopefully sooner rather than later- there will be a woman serving as a director of this corporation.
I want to reply just summarily to some of the shorter questions which were asked and perhaps leave others until the bill is referred to and dealt with in the committee. All institutions under federal jurisdiction which accept deposits are obliged to be part of the Deposit Insurance Corporation, but provincial institutions may become members of the corporation if their province of incorporation permits them to do so and if the powers they exercise are substantially similar to the powers exercised by federal institutions covered by the insurance.
I am interested in the idea that the ceiling might be raised above $20,000, and I would want to be able to canvas that further with officials and discuss that in the committee. I want to reassure hon. members by pointing out to them that, as I noted, the deposit insurance fund is close to $99 million at the moment, and without any further deposits being put into it and without any further premiums being paid into it, it is now anticipated to be growing at the compound rate of over 13 per cent. That would be regarded by informed observers as an adequate rate of growth, and as we are submitting, a more than adequate rate of growth to maintain the deposit insurance fund at the appropriate level.
The annual report of the corporation indicates that there has been one claim against the fund other, of course, than the claims for the cost of supervising and auditing the accounts of all the institutions covered. That claim was in 1970. It was for something over $5 million and, at the date of this particular report, at the end of 1975, over $4 million of the $5 million disbursed had been recovered by the fund. Its operations have been secure. It deserves the confidence of the House. I look forward to satisfying members of the finance committee that a reduction in premiums is justified as well as a return to the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the $10 million which was contributed by the federal government to establish the corporation.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.

Mr. MacFarlane:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Since we anticipate being called to the Senate shortly, at approximately four o'clock, I believe there is unanimous agreement for putting over the motion whir' would otl. ;rwise have
October 22, 1976

been considered in private member's hour and recessing, or suspending the sitting, until that call to the Senate and, after we have been to the Senate, adjourning.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, that is agreeable to the hon. member concerned. I have consulted him about the matter. We agree, on the understanding that the notice of motion standing in his name will not lose its place on the order paper. I think that is the understanding at which we arrived.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: Yes. Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we agree to the suggestion, although it occurs to me that if we were to sit another 15 minutes we could clear the order paper of all the business the government has put before the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is it agreed that we recess until the call of the bell?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am prepared to bring forward Government Order No. 5 regarding the Currency and Exchange Act, and at least speak on that legislation, if other hon. members agree. I do not intend to talk for 15 minutes. Perhaps other hon. members might like to reflect on the subject of international monetary reform which is implicit in that bill.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. 'Speaker, with the greatest respect, if I may talk on the same point of order, since I am first on the hit parade, so to speak, which would automatically begin at four o'clock, I would not mind speaking until the arrival of the messenger from the other place and having my time subtracted from the total time I shall be allowed to speak on the motion on some other day. I hope that is agreeable. Perhaps the House leaders might consider my suggestion. At least I am here; I can make a speech, if it will make people feel better.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, may I touch on the suggestion of the Minister of Finance. (Mr. Macdonald) with respect to Government Order No. 5. It would be most inconvenient to consider that bill at present, the bill having come into the hands of hon. members only a short time ago. I presume it is a bill of some substance and ought to be considered after a modicum of preparation. In the circumstances that is not possible. I would not want to listen to the minister's speech unless the bill were in front of me and in front of hon. members. I wonder if the House would consent to the suggestion of the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. MacFarlane), the deputy government whip, that we recess for a short time. Perhaps it might be appropriate to ask the House again.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is it agreed that the House shall stand recessed until the call of the bells?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
At 3.47 p.m. the sitting was suspended.
The Royal Assent SITTING RESUMED
The House resumed at 4.03 p.m.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

['I have the honour also to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has been pleased to pass Bill C-14, an act to provide for the resumption and continuation of longshoring and related operations at the Port of Halifax, without amendment.']
Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have the honour to inform the House that I have received the following communication;
Government House,
Ottawa
22 October, 1976 Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Jean Beetz, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 22nd day of October, at 4 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant, Edmond Joly de Lotbiniere Administrative Secretary to the Governor General.



Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour also to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has been pleased to pass Bill C-14, an act to provide for the resumption and continuation of longshoring and related operations at the Port of Halifax, without amendment.



[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
392
[Stage Direction]
October 22, 1976
The Royal Assent
Mr. Speaker informed the House that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bill:
Bill C-14, an act to provide for the resumption and continuation of longshor-ing and related operations at the Port of Halifax-Chapter No. 1.
Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being five o'clock this House stands adjourned until eleven o'clock on Monday morning pursuant to Standing Order 2(2).
At 4.15 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, October 25, 1976