1977-08-09

Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that unemployment is now 878,000, a record for the month of July, in light of the fact that second quarter job vacancies have dropped to only four per thousand from 14 per thousand three years ago, and in light of the fact that the bill for unemployment insurance benefits in May was $12 million per day, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That this House urges the government to adopt the following Progressive Conservative program for the economic reconstruction of this country: income tax cuts of $250 million to low and middle income earners; a cut in the federal sales tax on building materials to stimulate housing and create employment in the construction industry; long term Fiscal or tax contracts for companies investing in Atlantic Canada or Quebec; a new budget with major emphasis on private sector job creation; and a reallocation of government funds presently budgeted for inessential projects to direct job creation programs.


Mr. Speaker:: The question called under Standing Order 43 by the hon. member for Don Valley can be put for debate only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CITING OF ORDER FOR RECALL OF PARLIAMENT
Mr. Speaker:: I should inform the House that by virtue of a resolution passed by the House on Monday, July 25, 1977, appearing in Votes and Proceedings at page 1441, dealing with the adjournment of the House, I caused to be published in the edition of the Canada Gazette for August 6, 1977 a notice causing this House to meet this day, which reads as follows:
In accordance with the provisions of the resolution adopted by the House on Monday, July 25, 1977, having been satisfied after consultation with the Government, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time during the adjournment, I hereby give notice that the House of Commons shall meet on Tuesday, August 9, 1977, at 2.00 o'clock p.m., for the
purpose of considering legislation in relation to an impending strike by the Canadian Air Traffic Control Association and to transact the business of the House as if it had been duly adjourned to that time.
Given under my hand and seal at Ottawa this 6th day of August, 1977.
James Jerome Speaker
House of Commons Canada
In addition, on the same date I sent telegrams to each member of the House containing the substance of that notice.


COMBINES
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under Standing Order 43. As it is now clear an international cartel in uranium succeeded in rigging world prices, so that the floor price per pound of uranium was set in the $14 per pound range in the early part of 1974, and as it is now evident from the director's minutes of Ontario Hydro that this "world price" was proposed by Rio Algom in their uranium offer to Ontario Hydro of February 25, 1974, and that Denison in the same period proposed to Ontario Hydro a floor price of $14.50 per pound, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies):
That a reference be made to the public accounts standing committee of this House so that the activities of this uranium cartel may be reviewed with particular reference to their impact on Canadian domestic consumers.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In light of the continuing increase in unemployment particularly in the Atlantic

August 9, 1977
Rule Changes
provinces and most disastrously in Cape Breton, and with the requirements needed for materials to upgrade and rehabilitate the rail system in western Canada, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin):
That this House request the government to provide capital funds necessary and require the railways to place orders for and stockpile the many hundreds of miles of steel rails in preparing for such work and that priority be given to the steel mill in Sydney, Nova Scotia, for the filling of these orders so as to provide immediate and substantial employment.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented for debate only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE MINISTRY
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In the years since the current finance minister first joined the cabinet, he has been responsible first for the uranium cartel, for our present legacy of energy rises as minister of energy, and now, as Minister of Finance, for record inflation followed by record unemployment. The long arm of coincidence cannot be stretched to encompass so many acts without indicating incompetence. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski):
That this House demands the minister now resign.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PROPOSED CHANGE IN RULES TO PROVIDE FOR DEBATE OF BACK-TO-WORK LEGISLATION FOR AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Ralph Stewart (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion which would permit us to accomplish what we came here to do. Since our convening at this time in emergency session has been prompted by a crisis in the country, the Canadian public expects us to debate the matter as soon as possible.
The ordinary rules of this House are such that many hours can be used discussing a number of other matters, thus deny-

ing us the possibility of getting to the debate at hand for some time and therefore at great additional cost to the Canadian taxpayers. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault):
That this House agrees to set aside all routine proceedings, including oral questions, and proceed with the emergency debate forthwith.
Furthermore, in order to preserve the prerogatives of members who wish to do so, that when all stages of the emergency legislation are passed, an additional sitting day be made available for the purpose of discussing matters that would normally be dealt with in routine proceedings.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be discussed only with unanimous consent? Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that this session might end one of these days, it is time that we started thinking about the next one. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Timiskam-ing (Mr. Peters):
That this House urges the government to include in the Speech from the Throne at the opening of the third session of this parliament legislation to increase the basic amount of the old age pension, to make both old age security and the Canada Pension Plan available at age 60 to those who are out of the labour market, to establish pension equality between men and women, to increase the basic rate of the war disability pension, and to establish pro rata pensions for the widows of veterans whose disability pension was less than 48 per cent.


Mr. Speaker:: In view of the nature of the motion being a recommendation and since it relates to the beginning of the next session, I can hardly assign to it the urgency required under the Standing Order.


AIR CANADA
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent public necessity under Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that many towns and cities in western Manitoba and eastern Saskatchewan have been without air service not for three days but for more than four years, and in light of the promise of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) to provide a subsidy for a jet service between Regina, Brandon and Toronto as well as a subsidy for a connecting commuter service, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie):
August 9, 1977

That the Minister of Transport authorize Air Canada to provide the daily jet service between Regina, Brandon and Toronto and return at the earliest possible moment.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation for debate of such a motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and it comes in light of the fact that today's unemployment figures for the month of July are the highest in the history of Statistics Canada. Since it is very clear from the statistics revealed today that the job creating part of the budget of this spring simply has not taken hold, has not created the jobs that Canadians require, will the Prime Minister tell the House whether it is his intention to bring in a new budget at the earliest possible time, a budget that will include effective incentives to the Canadian private sector that will create the jobs that Canadians need?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, while sharing the concern of the Leader of the Opposition on the high rate of unemployment, I would not agree with his feeling that the budget has not begun to take effect. If the hon. member looks at the figures for the first six months of the year, he will see that there has been a relatively strong increase in employment. Of course, the number of people entering the labour force has also been very high, and this is the cause of the present statistic. As to the solution, I will keep the hon. member's suggestion in mind.


Charles Joseph Clark: What I was looking at in part was the large number of new entrants to the work force, something which surely should not come to this government as a surprise. They have been there for years. Also what I was looking at was a speech given on July 12 by the President of the Treasury Board in which he admitted that there does not yet appear to be the kind of response to the budget the government was looking for. At that time the President of the Treasury Board indicated that the government might have to move away from encouragement of the private sector and move toward direct public sector job creation.


An hon. Member:: It's about time.


Charles Joseph Clark: That has the knee jerk support of the NDP, but I would like to know whether the President of the Treasury
Oral Questions
Board was speaking for the government and whether it is the intention of the government of Canada now in light of the clear failure of its March budget-which is admitted by the President of the Treasury Board-to move toward direct job creation or whether the government is going to bring new stimulus to the private sector to create the jobs Canadians require.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I cannot recall if the Leader of the Opposition was present, but just a few days ago the Minister of Finance dealt at some length with this very question in answer to a question of privilege raised by the leader of the New Democratic Party. I encourage the hon. gentleman to look at Hansard, and he might find the answer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POSSIBILITY OF CONFERENCE OF PROVINCES, LABOUR AND BUSINESS
Charles Joseph Clark: As well as sending young Canadians looking for jobs out of the country because they cannot find them here perhaps the Prime Minister will also send Hansard to the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who are out of work right now, and their dependents, so that they can find what comfort they might from the fact that the Government of Canada refuses to respond to this new crisis in unemployment by taking action which might create jobs.
Since the Prime Minister is apparently unwilling to take action himself and in light of the crisis nature of the situation does the Prime Minister intend to call in representatives of the provinces and of organized labour and of business for a major economic conference which might give some leadership to this government, which lacks leadership in trying to create jobs for Canadians?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I must remind the Leader of the Opposition that his question had to do with some quotation from the President of the Treasury Board, and it is rather unfair to conclude from my answer-which was just a suggestion that the hon. gentleman look at the answers which had been given-that the government is not prepared to do many things, one of them being the convening of precisely the type of conference he just suggested. We discussed this with labour and business groups with which we met a couple of weeks ago, and we are hoping to have a positive response from them. One of the things we put to them was the suggestion of convening a conference of responsible decision makers in the economic sector, to which observers from the provinces could be present if they so desired.


Charles Joseph Clark: What does the Government of Canada intend to do to create jobs for Canadians?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Leader of the Opposition just made a suggestion, and I said we are going to do that very thing. Does he have another question?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

August 9, 1977
Oral Questions


UNEMPLOYMENT-POSSIBILITY OF NEW JOB-CREATING MEASURES
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. In actual terms unemployment figures are up all across the country but are especially critical in the province of Quebec, which had the sharpest increase, as well as in the Atlantic provinces generally. Notwithstanding the job creation programs presently in force, is it the intention of the minister in the face of these startling statistics to announce to the House new job creation initiatives now?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to add to the quarter billion dollar announcement which was made by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration some weeks ago.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, many of the jobless in the country are unemployed heads of families. A very large proportion of these people have been unemployed for three months or more, and they are running the risk of having their unemployment insurance benefits expire. I appeal to the minister to examine with his colleague, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, the situation regarding unemployment insurance for people who have been unemployed for more than three months and perhaps through some program to assist these people so that they will not have to fall back on provinces which can ill afford to meet these extra welfare payments now.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I will be most happy to look at that specific group of the work force. As I have indicated in the past in the House, job creation measures are specifically aimed at groups, such as those in the Atlantic provinces, where the levels of unemployment have been above the national average.


EFFECT OF UNEMPLOYMENT ON NATIONAL UNITY-SUGGESTED JOB-CREATING PROGRAM
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister, who correctly told the Leader of the Opposition that I had directed a question to the President of the Treasury Board in which I suggested that unemployment was contributing to national disunity and that the Minister of Finance had replied to the question. But the Prime Minister did not add that the Minister of Finance on Friday, August 5, withdrew his accusation about my having deliberately misled the House-


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Deliberately. That's the word.


John Edward Broadbent: -the clear implication being that the President of the Treasury Board was quoted accurately.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No.


John Edward Broadbent: Let me ask the Prime Minister this question, Mr. Speaker. Since the President of the Treasury Board

has already admitted that current levels of unemployment are contributing to national disunity, and considering that in the province of Quebec alone unemployment during the last month increased by 21,000, the largest increase in any province of Canada, from the point of view of unity in the country does the Prime Minister not think it is time for the government to move directly with respect to job creation programs of the kind the Minister of Finance promised last month but withdrew two weeks ago?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, 1 find the question-
An bon. Member: A little long.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -rather surprising. I am not sure if the preamble to the question was necessary but it seems to me that in its present form it states a new falsehood. In it the hon. member said that the Minister of Finance withdrew his statement about the quotations by the hon. member not being to the effect he said. All the minister withdrew was the suggestion that there had been a deliberate misleading of the House, and that is the total picture. I am surprised that the leader of the New Democratic Party would not at least be correct in that.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Prime Minister will answer my question when he replies again. Considering that ministers of the Crown have both raised the serious question of disunity and acknowledged it as being directly related to unemployment levels, and considering that since President Carter took office last fall unemployment in the United States has been dropping steadily to its present level of 6.9 per cent, whereas in the same period of time unemployment in Canada has worsened, will the Prime Minister now acknowledge that the financial policies of the government have been wrong and, from considerations of human dignity and national unity, commit the government to some new, early action to create jobs?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, on a question so important, a question which I acknowledge, as does the Minister of Finance, is giving us great concern, I really do not understand why the NDP leader has to put in all these preambles which are wrong and misleading. It is well known that over a period of years the performance of the United States was very much worse than ours.


John Edward Broadbent: And they changed the president.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: They changed their president, Mr. Speaker, and changed their economic policy.


John Edward Broadbent: Yes, and you know what happened.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That permitted them to catch up and do better than they had been doing for years.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: And their government is doing better than this government is doing.
August 9, 1977


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think the leader of the NDP is misguided again when he suggests that their policies are infallible and that unemployment has been steadily dropping. If he looks at the figures for June he will see that that is not the case. In the United States the figures have gone up.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: No, they have not. That is damned wrong.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Therefore, you cannot just assert a policy and say that that is the one which will apply, Mr. Speaker. You have to apply a policy to your country and do as best you can.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the level of unemployment in the United States is 6.9 per cent and over 8 per cent in Canada. The Prime Minister is right in saying that the Americans changed their president and changed their policy. We are calling for the same thing in this country. Is the Prime Minister happy with the situation whereby, according to his own government's forecasts, we will spend $3.8 billion on unemployment insurance payouts alone this year? Does he not agree that money would be much better spent on job creation to provide jobs for people in Canada instead of handouts?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it is of course our intention, as we have said constantly, to do what we can from month to month to improve the economic situation in the country. The Minister of Finance made it clear in his budget last March that it would take a period of several months before we would see a marked improvement. As to the question of changing leaders, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to hear a case from the leader of the NDP. If he wants to give the people of Canada an occasion very soon to change their leaders, I am prepared-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


COMBINES
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe) Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Referring to the uranium cartel on Friday, the Prime Minister stated at page 8074 of Hansard, and I quote:
We will put every fact we have before parliament so it can debate this matter properly.
Will the Prime Minister indicate when we may expect these facts to be put before parliament and will they include all the documents now before the Moss committee in Washington, of which 500 are still held on the secret list, and will the facts referred to by the Prime Minister include the material impounded by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources during November 1976 and still held by the minister?
Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I remember the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources inviting the hon. member to state clearly what documents he would like. We will do our utmost to provide them to parliament. I
Oral Questions
understand that the hon. member has now tabled such a list on the Order Paper. We will be very glad to look at it and comply in so far as possible.


ALLEGED URANIUM CARTEL-POSSIBILITY OF AMENDING REGULATIONS PROHIBITING POSSESSION OF DOCUMENTS
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I would emphasize that the list on the Order Paper is only a preliminary list. The Prime Minister on Friday conveyed the impression that he was still considering amending the cover up regulation saying as he did at page 8072 of Hansard:
-I would do everything possible to permit the opposition and the Canadian public to debate this fairly,-
Will the Prime Minister now indicate if he has asked to have the security of information order in council amended to ensure that it will not restrict a free and open debate and investigation in Canada with respect to uranium cartel activities.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have asked that. The Minister of Justice is presently considering that possibility. I hope we will be able to give an answer to parliament within a day or two.


ALLEGED URANIUM CARTEL-REQUEST FOR RELEASE OF DOCUMENTS TO DIRECTOR OF COMBINES
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, as we wait for that answer, perhaps I could direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. As the cover-up regulations permit the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to consent to material being released, will the minister indicate if he would be willing to at least ask that the document that we now have in our possession touching on the uranium cartel be released to the Director of Investigation and Research under the Combines Investigation Act so that any six Canadians may pursuant to Section 7 of that Act ask for an inquiry with respect to the uranium cartel activities.


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, if there is any cover-up in this operation, it is a cover up operation attempted by the hon. member for York-Simcoe. It is he who is trying to cover-up the fact the Canadian government acted to protect the interests of the Canadian people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alastair William Gillespie: What is surprising is that it has taken them ten months to discover that order in council which was published last September. I have seen a list of some 35 orders which the hon. member has asked to be tabled. We are giving consideration to doing so. I believe they fall into three different categories.

August 9, 1977
Oral Questions
One has to do with motion 117 for a copy of my recent telex to Judge Daniel Snyder of the U.S. District Court for the western district of Pennsylvania. As this telex presents my government's position on the release in the United States of classified Canadian documents I have no difficulty about it being made public. Indeed, it is presently being translated.
The other documents fall into two different categories. Some 23 of the motions mentioned in the hon. member's release-he mentioned 28 and I am not sure whether the 23 and the 28 are identical-appear to relate to internal communications within the Gulf Oil Corporation of the United States, not of the Canadian corporation. It is most unlikely that any of this material exists in our files but a search is underway at the present time.
As to the remaining papers which are sought, we are presently looking at this aspect from the point of view of confidentiality in the light of the test which I mentioned to the House at the end of last week-the very nature of the agreements entered into.


NORTHERN GAS PIPELINE-SUGGESTION CANADIANS NOT FUND OR GUARANTEE PIPELINE
James McPhail Gillies: My question is directed to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. It has to do with the recent decisions with respect to the Alcan pipeline in connection with the construction of which the government is now, presumably, about to enter into negotiation with the United States.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James McPhail Gillies: Can the government tell us and the people of Canada that one of the non-negotiable items as far as Canada is concerned is that Canadian taxpayers will not be asked to fund or guarantee the pipeline in any way?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the hon. member is suggesting the financing of the pipeline in a direct way, yes, that is our view; we do not intend that the Canadian taxpayer should pay for it in any sense. But the possibility that along with benefits there will be some cost is inevitable, and it is our intention to make sure that this cost is paid by those who need the pipeline. The pipeline is needed by the Americans but it is also needed by Canadians and it will be a matter of making the best possible arrangements for Canada.


James McPhail Gillies: I was concerned about whether or not the Canadian government would be willing to make any back-stop arrangements for the completion of the pipeline-whether the Canadian government is willing to take up a back-stop position with respect to any portion of the work?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the question is stated in that way, the answer, and I gave it yesterday at the press conference, is unequivocally no.


NORTHERN GAS PIPELINE-CANADIAN POSITION ON CONSTRUCTION OF DAWSON LOOP
James McPhail Gillies: I would ask the Prime Minister further whether or not our position with regard to the construction of the loop in the pipeline down through Dawson is a non-negotiable one as far as Canada is concerned. I want the Canadian people to know what the conditions are likely to be-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James McPhail Gillies: It is not like the cartel. They have every right to know whether or not our position on the Dawson loop is non-negotiable, so if it turns out there are economically viable reserves in the delta they can be brought out at the lowest cost.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The government indicated yesterday in its announcement that one of the reasons Canada undertook to negotiate a pipeline was that we wished to have access to our reserves in the Mackenzie delta. The way in which those reserves will be brought down is, of course, the subject of negotiation. I know the hon. gentleman has given a lot of thought to the subject and if he would make a list of the non-negotiable items he wants us to take to the Americans we would be very happy to have it, and, perhaps, if we were to stick with that list there would not be even much point in the negotiations.


NORTHERN GAS PIPELINE-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE MATERIAL AND EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURED IN CANADA
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Bearing in mind that Canadians are concerned that too much in the way of protection for producers and manufacturers has been given away without anything in return since the present government took office, and that the U.S. likes to protect its producers and manufacturers, will the hon. gentleman assure us that in negotiating with the United States for the building of a pipeline across Canada our negotiators will take steps to ensure that a large percentage of the material and equipment used is manufactured in Canada, thus protecting Canadian jobs?


Alastair William Gillespie: It has been made clear from the start that Canadian content would be a very important part of our approach to these negotiations.


COMBINES
Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs relating to the uranium cartel. Having told the House
August 9, 1977

on June 17 that he was "pleased the government withdrew its support of the arrangement as soon as possible after prices began to rise on 1974", will he explain why a letter written by a government official, Dr. Runnalls, of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources in late September, 1975, clearly indicates that Canadians continued to participate in the cartel and even remained dues-paying members of the cartel through 1975 and possibly into 1976 at which time uranium prices leap-frogged off the quote sheets and recorded their most marked increases?


Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: In answering a question on June 17, I did so in accordance with the facts in my possession. However, if the hon. member has a letter which I have not seen I would be grateful if he would table it.


An hon. Member:: How can a private member table a letter?


ALLEGED URANIUM CARTEL-EFFECT ON DOMESTIC PRICE
William James Kempling: The minister assured the House on June 17 that the director of investigations was following the situation for "any indication that the Canadian consumer has been adversely affected by the cartel arrangement." Would he tell the House whether, on the basis of discussions he has had with the director or on the basis of his personal knowledge, he still feels the cartel has had no adverse effect on Canadian consumers? Can he state unequivocally that the cartel did not have a bearing upon the price paid by the Canadian consumer?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I cannot state unequivocally that it did not, but to the best of my knowledge the arrangement was legal at the time it was concluded, there were no domestic buyers in the market at the time who were affected by the arrangement, and any export limitations under the arrangement were legitimized by the regulations made under the Atomic Energy Control Act relating to an export association which is permitted under the Combines Investigation Act. So I have no information which would lead me to conclude that there was any illegality in the transaction. The hon. member is citing a letter: I would be very grateful if he would table it for our information.


William James Kempling: Would the minister answer the question which was put to him by my hon. friend from York-Simcoe in relation to the release to the director of investigations under the combines legislation of the material we have?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That was the question asked by the hon. member for York-Simcoe, which was answered.


Some hon. Members:: It was not answered.
Oral Questions HEALTH


PROGRAM TO DEAL WITH HEROIN ADDICTION IN BRITISH COLUMBIA-POSSIBILITY OF FEDERAL PARTICIPATION
Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Recently, the province of British Columbia announced a new program to deal with heroin addiction, one upon which I congratulate those responsible. Can the minister advise the House whether he will be meeting with his provincial counterpart in the near future and whether the federal government will be providing assistance in any form to the province of British Columbia in connection with this worthwhile endeavour?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I have myself welcomed the initiative shown by the government of British Columbia in putting new money and effort into the fight against heroin addiction, though I have expressed some concern about the precise techniques being used. However, I have planned a meeting with my British Columbia colleagues toward the end of September, at which time we will review the British Columbia proposal.
As to co-operation, I have indicated that we would try to co-operate with the British Columbia government in every way we could. As to financial involvement, I must indicate that the federal government has already contributed substantially to health and social services costs in all provinces, including British Columbia. Obviously, whatever health and social services would be provided in these particular programs would be subject to the usual cost-sharing rules which exist under the health and social services legislation in Canada.


POST OFFICE
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Postmaster General. In view of the fact that Canada's air traffic controllers went on strike only after trying for nine months to reach a settlement with their employer, the government; and in view of the fact that the Canadian Union of Postal Workers is facing exactly the same serious problems with their employer, the Postmaster General; and that as in the case of the air traffic controllers these problems are being permitted to drag on for months and months thus poisoning the relations between workers and management, will the minister tell this House if he is now prepared to call a royal commission into the problems of the Post Office and to further assure the House that he will act on the findings of such a commission?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: Mr. Speaker, I wish the hon. gentleman would use his evident contact with the

August 9, 1977
Oral Questions
Union of Postal Workers in order to have them return to the bargaining table.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Blais:: I fully recognize, with the hon. gentleman, that the relations between the workers and their employers cannot but be detrimentally affected by the dragging on of negotiations. However, 1 have sent invitations time and time again to have CUPW return to the negotiating table. They have refused. Now, we have had to make an application under the Public Service Staff Relations Act for a declaration indicating that they are not negotiating in good faith. We had the initial hearing returnable on August 3. They requested an adjournment because they were not prepared to proceed at that time. Unfortunately, that matter will not be determined until the week of August 17. We hope there is a recognition that we have a responsibility to the Canadian people to keep the mails moving, especially in view of the experience with CATCA. We hope as well that all hon. members, who have some influence on CUPW, would use their good offices to have them return to the bargaining table.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PUBLIC SERVICE
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I see the Minister of Labour is not in his place, therefore I will direct my supplementary to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the Minister of Transport recently made a statement on a CBC program indicating that the government is prepared to remove the right to strike for those workers who are considered to be essential workers in the public sector-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: I am sure we have all noted that the banging came from the government side of the House.


An hon. Member:: Right on.
Prime Minister has changed Postmaster General as often as he has changed his underwear in trying to solve the problems of the Post Office, and in view of the fact that the Prime Minister said that he does not know what to do about solving the problems in the Post Office, is the Prime Minister prepared to remove this Postmaster General who is obviously incapable of dealing with the problem in the upcoming shuffle of the cabinet-


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Prime Minister. On July 25 for the second time 1 attempted to find out from the right hon. gentleman whether the government of Nova Scotia has made any specific proposal or request to the government of Canada in regard to the modernization of the Sydney Steel Plant. For the second time, the Prime Minister was unable to answer me; but he promised he would have someone send that information, which has not been sent. That is no way to treat a dog, let alone the people of Cape Breton. Could I have that information?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer the question in two points: First, we did receive from SYSCO a request for our assistance in the form of our participation in the study and completion of up-dating their facilities in Cape Breton; second, with regard to the information the hon. requested last week, I did take steps to have that information sent to his office and signed a letter to that effect advising him of the state of the situation.


John R. Rodriguez: Can the Prime Minister tell the House if the Minister of Transport was expressing a new government labour policy in regard to the right to strike of government employees?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport made it clear that he was expressing his opinion that it should be considered. I would not indicate that the government is considering it these days. The issue before the House is one of a single strike, and we want to deal with that before getting into any broader matters.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the
* *
*


ALLEGED URANIUM CARTEL-POSSIBILITY OF PERMITTING RELEASE OF DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION RELATING TO CARTEL
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. During the course of the reply to the hon. member for York-Simcoe, he stated that there was no cover-up at all. When he said it, he did so with such forcefulness as to convince anyone that he was covering up.

August 9, 1977

I have before me the order in council which was passed last September, and I ask him: does he intend to bring in any measure to allow any person to disclose or communicate the contents thereof, which is the agreement entered into with the cartel? Does he intend to bring in such a law to permit the information being given?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, if the right hon. gentleman is asking: are we proposing to introduce a law to replace the authority we have under the order in council, the answer is no.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to turn to the next one: He is required to do something under the law as provided in the order in council. He can do so only with the consent of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Therefore, I ask him: does he intend to give that consent? After all, every source of information has been concealed by this order in council, unless he is prepared to say that he will consent to this being done or that a law will be introduced, and he has already denied that.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, if the right hon. gentleman were to reread the answer I gave on Friday of last week and the answers I gave today, he should recognize that we have under expeditious consideration at the present time the making public, the tabling, and the answering of the questions placed on the order paper by the hon. member for York-Simcoe.


An hon. Member:: You sound like Richard Nixon.


Alastair William Gillespie: The hon. member has listed a number of documents. We are looking into our files to see if we have any documents. In some cases, we may not have them.


An hon. Member:: You have got them.


Alastair William Gillespie: In cases where we may have them, we are examining them from the point of view of the confidentiality of those documents. We will make our determination just as soon as we possibly can.


John George Diefenbaker: I heard the hon. member's explanation the other day. It might as well have been in Sanskrit if one were to understand what he endeavoured to say. In all seriousness I ask him: what are you covering up? Why is this order in council in the form it is? I have looked over the records and there has not been one in all of Canada's history which I can find that denies Canadians in such a manner the right to have information on the question or to disclose what anyone may know concerning it.
I should also suggest to him that he read what took place in 1956 when the St. Laurent government endeavoured to cover everything up in a manner which was amateur compared to this and what happened to them.
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, as I recall, when the right hon. gentleman was Prime Minister one of the things that concerned him most of all was Canadian sovereignty. I think it might be useful to remind him of positions that he used to take to protect the Canadian interest when it comes to the extraterritorial reach of foreign laws.


ALLEGED URANIUM CARTEL-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF LETTER FROM DR. O. J. C. RUNNALLS IN SEPTEMBER, 1975
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, having regard to the expression used by the minister of wanting to "disclosure completely" to the House of Commons, I would call the minister's attention to the question asked by my colleague from Halton-Wentworth of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In referring to the letter which is referred to in notice of motion No. 118 on the order paper, which is the copy of the letter dated September, 1975 from Dr. O. J. C. Runnalls to Gulf Minerals Canada Limited, his colleague, a minister of the Crown, asked the hon. member to table his letter, which of course he cannot do. However, that letter is in the custody of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Following the desire of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to have the letter tabled, would the minister make arrangements forthwith to table the letter referred to in motion No. 118 on the order paper?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I will be very pleased to look at it this afternoon to determine, first of all, whether that letter exists. Perhaps the hon. member would like to send me a copy so that I can determine to what it is that he is referring.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Veterans Affairs and I hope we can make more headway with him. The minister is aware of the discrepancy in the basic rate of pension under the Pension Act whereby disability pensioners are falling behind their counterparts in the public service classifications, resulting in loss of income to veterans of $536 annually. Can the minister now take this serious matter out of the "serious consideration" stage, show some action and give an indication whether or not he has been able to convince his cabinet colleagues that the legislation should be amended immediately to overcome this very serious discrepancy?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, this matter is under study by my department and we are aware of the discrepancy.

August 9, 1977
Oral Questions
It will be brought before the government and I hope to have something to convey to the hon. member at a later date.


COMPENSATION FOR PRISONERS OF WAR-REQUEST FOR CHANGES
Jack Marshall: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Turning to another glaring discrepancy having to do with the prisoners of war compensation act, the minister is well aware that there was an exclusion of first world war veterans who served as prisoners of war and escapees and evaders. These too were being discriminated against. In view of the fact that we have recalled parliament and the minister knows that we can get such an amendment to the act through in a couple of hours, would the minister prevail upon his House leader and bring these amendments in so that we can put them through and overcome these serious inequities which the government fail to realize?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, 1 appreciate the hon. member's question. We are also very ardently studying this and I expect to have something to offer before too long.

[ Translation]


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Albert Bechard (Bonaventure-tles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister tell the House whether the policy of his department, specially with regard to subsidies, is inflexible to the point where they must be curtailed drastically in eastern Canada, particularly in isolated areas such as the Magdalen Islands which are not linked with the rest of the country for a considerable part of the year?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, our policy attempts to look at all the needs of particular areas, but of course does so with very serious concern about the long-term financial implications.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for the Minister of Transport. In view of the welcome commitment that he gave to the western transport ministers to establish a prairie rail authority, and in view of the desire of those ministers and provinces that the Minister of Transport speed up the time frame, would the minister consid-

er, upon securing the approval of his colleagues, moving the date for establishing a prairie rail authority forward from the fall of 1978 to the fall of 1977?


Otto Emil Lang: First of all, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is perhaps being misled by one of his party from Saskatchewan who interpreted a statement of mine in my presence quite wrongly, and I immediately corrected him but obviously he persists in it. Our commitment was to give consideration to this whole issue. At this moment in time a great number of people in the west are very pleased with the formation of the prairie rail action committee and the deliberations we will have in connection with the problems, possibilities and powers of a prairie rail authority. I do not see those matters being solved so soon as the fall of this year, but certainly my objective is to have them solved as quickly as possible and then legislation will follow.


PROPOSED PLACING OF ORDERS FOR MATERIAL TO IMPROVE RAILWAY LINES
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Regardless of whether the prairie rail authority is established this year, next year or not at all, whatever are the duties of the prairie rail action committees, in light of the fact that the minister and I and everybody else know that many hundred, in fact a few thousand, miles of railway track need to be rehabilitated and upgraded, would he in the meantime call upon the railroads and arrange whatever loans or capital funding is necessary to place orders for the manufacture of several hundred miles of steel rail and many millions of railway ties so as to deal with serious unemployment in the lumbering and steel industries, particularly in Cape Breton, and to start stocking materials which will be necessary a year or two down the road in rehabilitating those rail lines?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I presume the hon. member has noticed that this government has committed $100 million in the next year and a half or two construction seasons toward the rehabilitation program. This will indeed involve the construction of certain equipment like ballast cars and others and a good number of ties will be involved. It may not involve a great amount of rail in this particular program so much as the replacement and moving of rail from some sections to others. Development of this work has been going forward very well and we are right at the point of being able to see it beginning now, the agreements with the railways having come to a fairly final state by this point.


SEARCH AND RESCUE
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. Would the minister look into and report to me, in the event that the

August 9, 1977

House is not sitting tomorrow or the next day, regarding the order issued last week whereby the word "rescue" is being removed from the fuselage of aircraft of the search and rescue squadrons and being replaced by a new coloured configuration. The reason presumably is that a French equivalent cannot be painted on the side of the aircraft in characters large enough and of the same size so they can be seen as heretofore, although the word "rescue" has been an international symbol for 20 or 25 years, perhaps longer.


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I became aware of this situation a short time ago and I am looking into it. I understand the problem, and my colleagues and I think that we have found a quite appropriate French equivalent. I will be reporting back to the hon. member in due course.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If the minister is at all worried about the international use of the English word "rescue", which is recognized the world over, perhaps he would look at the derivation of the word "Mayday", which has its origin in the French "M'aider". Therefore, one would be the equivalent of the other.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of Justice. It relates to the very admirable report filed some time ago by the Quebec crime inquiry which has as one of its most critical and important recommendations a request for federal legislation to enable provincial crime inquiries to issue subpoenaes which would be valid in provinces outside of the province of the royal commission. Are the minister and the government giving some consideration to the recommendation and if not, why not. If so, what is the decision of the government and of the minister?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the final report of the commission is being studied by my officials. I should like to note that when the final report came out, one of its principal recommendations was the immediate passage by parliament of the wiretap provisions in Bill C-51.
With regard to the extraprovincial subpoena power, we are considering that. We have made no decision. It could be accomplished in two ways, either at the federal level or by provincial agreement. I am examining further amendments to the Criminal Code for the coming session of parliament, and that will be one of the matters I will be considering.
Oral Questions


POSSIBILITY OF EXTRADITING JOHN DOYLE AND HUBERT DUCHARME
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, another recommendation of that crime commission was that the federal authorities intensify their efforts to bring businessman John C. Doyle, well known to the minister and his party, and Hubert Ducharme before the courts to testify about storefront cases, even if this involved extradition. My question to the minister is along the same lines. What is he doing about that recommendation from the royal commission?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, in terms of the federal court proceedings, they are in the nature of actions by the Department of National Revenue relating to assessments for income tax. They are being processed and proceeded with through the courts as expeditiously as possible.
With regard to extradition, it is believed that Mr. Doyle is currently in Panama. He is currently charged under the Criminal Code by the Attorney General of Newfoundland. There has been no request for his extradition made by the attorney general. I have discussed that with him and on the advice of his counsel he has not requested extradition on the basis that it is a very old treaty that we have with Panama and the prospects of any extradition hearing being successful are very slim indeed.


INCOME TAX
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of National Revenue. It is in respect of the report of the Quebec Crime Commission which recommended that the revenue departments of both the province of Quebec and the federal government once again scrutinize the incomes of prominent witnesses, such as Mr. Willie Obrunt, businessman Mitchell Bronfman and businessman Solly Levine. Are the minister and the government giving consideration to that request?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, we did not wait for the newspaper clippings to do our work. I would like to confirm to the House that the Department of National Revenue monitored the findings of the commission during its hearings and copies of the transcripts of all testimonies were immediately received by my officials and action was taken. However, I am in no position, because of the confidentiality clause of the Income Tax Act, to refer to any particular cases.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Without prolonging the question period, I should like to point out that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources left quite unclear in my mind, and in the minds of other hon. members, whether or not it was his intention to give consent to the release of the document referred to by my friend from

August 9, 1977
Air Traffic Controllers
Grenville-Carieton. As it might be the last day of the session, and as this party might have to consider taking proceedings with regard to the alleged illegality under the Combines Investigation Act, I should like to know the position of the minister. Will we have his consent under order in council with respect to the particular document in question and other documents which are in our possession, to leave us free to take the criminal proceedings which we may be advised to do upon consultation with our counsel?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member seeks clarification by way of a point of order. It is a rather important and far-reaching point. It seems to me to be a direct extension of the question period. However, the minister may want to give a brief clarification.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, as to the legal implications of the hon. member's question, I want to seek advice from the law officers of the Crown. As to the precise question that was put to me by the hon. gentleman opposite, I would like to discuss with him precisely what he has in mind. Perhaps he and I might get together. We might be able to determine whether or not this particular piece of paper or document to which he has alluded might be made public.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-63, to provide for the continuation of air traffic control services.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps hon. members will understand that we can now commence to distribute copies of the bill.
When shall the bill be read the second time? By leave, now?


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Speaker, this bill has just been presented. It is a serious bill. Although some of the contents of the bill are known, I suggest that we be given half an hour to examine it before the second reading debate commences.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I take it the suggestion is that second reading of the bill should be commenced later this day at a time to be agreed upon.


Mr. MacEachen:: I rise on that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand there is agreement to giving the bill second reading. It would be agreeable to this side of the House to delay calling second reading of the bill for half an hour, as has been suggested by the hon. member. In the meantime, it would

be my wish to call the two items standing under government notices of motions.


Walter David Baker: That would be agreeable to us. It is not our wish in any way to delay action with respect to the bill just introduced dealing with air traffic controllers.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there agreement to commencing second reading of the air traffic controllers bill at 3.45 this afternoon, and that in the interim the House should turn to other business as suggested by the President of the Privy Council?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government notices of motions:
August 4, 1977-The Minister of Finance:
That this House approves the canned tomato surtax order made by order in council P.C. 1977-335 dated 10th February, 1977, until the 30th day of June, 1978.
August 5, 1977-The Prime Minister:
That, in accordance with section 19 of an act respecting the status of the official languages of Canada, chapter 0-2, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, this House approves the appointment of Maxwell F. Yalden, Esquire, as Commissioner of Official Languages of Canada.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of Standing Order 21, these government notices of motions stand transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders later this day or at the next sitting of the House.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 3, 5, 7, 724, 1,375, 1,376, 1,377, 1,378, 1,379, 1,646, 1,810, 1,944, 2,295, 2,296, 2,297, 2,324, 2,328, 2,352, 2,353, 2,357, 2,374, 2,406, 2,412, 2,450, 2,759, 2,769, 2,770, 2,784, 2,793 and 2,878.


Mr. Cossitt: In each year since April 20, 1968, has a budget been set at the beginning of the year for renovations, alterations, construction, etc. along with purchases of new contents including antiques at the Prime Minister's official residence, 24 Sussex Drive, and (a) if so (i) what was the budget that was set (ii) what was the actual amount spent (b) if not, for what reasons?
August 9, 1977


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: See reply to Question No. 6 answered this day.


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the answer to Question No. 3,070 of the First Session of the 30th Parliament, what is a complete list of all items of Canadiana at the Prime Minister's residence, irrespective of date of purchase, and what is the estimated value in each case?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: See reply to Question No. 6 answered this day.


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the answer to Question No. 2,792 of the First Session of the 30th Parliament which stated in part that "for practical reasons there must be some limit as to the detail provided in answer to questions relating to expenditures", what is a complete list and the cost, in each case, of all items over $ 100 in value purchased for the Prime Minister's official residence at 24 Sussex Drive during 1973-74 under the heading "supplies" totalling $89,196.53?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Since the beginning of the current session, many questions related to the Prime Minister's official residences have been placed on the Order Paper. It seems therefore appropriate to place at this time on the official record of the House of Commons some notes on measures taken by successive Parliaments to provide official residences to the holder of the office of Prime Minister of Canada. The decision of the Government of Canada to make arrangements for an official residence for Canada's Prime Minister goes back to 1949, when it was announced in the House of Commons on September 30, by the Right Hon. C. D. Howe, Minister of Trade and Commerce. In his statement, Mr. Howe, after mentioning that Canada was one of the few countries that did not have an official residence for its Prime Minister, referred to "the difficulty of a Prime Minister, coming to Ottawa for an uncertain tenure, in obtaining the type of house suitable to the high office he holds". The Government had therefore decided to ask Parliament to make it possible to renovate the Edwards property (now known as 24 Sussex Drive) by making provision for the cost of alterations, repairs and future maintenance, and that if there was no serious opposition to this program, the House would be asked, in the estimates for 1950, to provide the necessary funds for that purpose. Mr. George A. Drew, Leader of the Opposition, supported the Government's decision in the following terms: ". .. I feel sure the decision is one which will meet with the general approval of the members of this house and of citizens in every part of Canada. Members of parliament know-it may not be known generally throughout the rest of the country-the extent to which the Prime Minister of Canada is called upon to receive official visitors. Certain duties which are essential to that high office should be a part of the responsibility of the state. I am not in a position to give any opinion as to the particular residence mentioned. I wish to express our satisfaction that the Prime Minister will have the opportunity of carrying on his official duties and receiving official visitors
Order Paper Questions
in a manner more in keeping with Canada's present position in world affairs. .. It will assist the Prime Minister of Canada, not only in receiving those important visitors but in carrying out his own heavy personal duties, to have a permanent home, where, as the elected head of the government of Canada, he can discharge his reponsibilities in a manner that will be in keeping with the status of Canada in the world today".
The Parliamentary Leaders of both the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation and the Social Credit Party also expressed concurrence with the proposal. Mr. M. J. Coldwell said that he was glad that the Prime Minister was to be suitably housed, while Mr. Solon E. Low, after welcoming the announcement, added that the Government .. should consider also the question of furnishing adequate recompense for him by way of indemnity. The prime ministers of this country have been notoriously underpaid. Over the years they have been called upon to make sacrifices far beyond the measure of the services they have given to the country". It should be noted that prior to the announcement, a number of MP's among them the Member for Fort William, the Rev. Daniel Mclvor, had suggested such a measure during the Address Debate. The following year, on June 7, 1950, the Government introduced the necessary legislation-"The Prime Minister's Residence Act"-which was passed the following day. The cost of renovation of the property, whether it might not have been more advisable to erect a new building, and other related matters, gave rise to debate. However, all parties supported the principle of the Bill. The consensus of the House can best be summarized by the following remarks of Mr. Coldwell. ".. . I think our country is doing the proper thing in conformity with what other countries have done in providing the first citizen of this country with a residence in which he may receive distinguished guests from at home and abroad".
Briefly, the Act provided that: (a) the Minister of Public Works would furnish, maintain heat and keep the building in repair: (b) the Federal District Commission would maintain the land and improve it as required; (c) the Governor in Council could appoint a steward or housekeeper and other employees deemed necessary for the management of the residence, and fix their rate of remuneration and conditions of employment; (d) the steward or housekeeper could from time to time engage casual employees to assist the regular staff; (e) the Prime Minister's chauffeur could be provided with lodging without charge; (f) moneys appropriated by Parliament for the operation of the residence could be used for the payment of the remuneration of the staff, for the purchase of food and other supplies required for the serving of food, for cleaning, laundering, and the ordinary maintenance of a residence and for defraying other costs of official hospitality provided by the Prime Minister; (g) the Prime Minister would pay to the Receiver General of Canada $5,000 yearly for food and lodging for himself and his family. The last provision was included at the personal insistence of the then Prime Minister, the Rt. Hon. Louis Stephen St. Laurent. Nine years after, on June 16, 1959, the Act was amended in order to bring within its scope the Harrington Lake (Lac Mousseau) Residence. Again as a

August 9, 1977
Order Paper Questions
result of a consensus among all parties the Bill went through all stages in one day. In his opening remarks, its sponsor, the Hon. Howard C. Green, Minister of Public Works, referred to a question which Mr. H. W. Herridge of the CCF had asked a few weeks earlier in the following terms: ".. . In view of the general concern that the historic and beautiful Harrington Lake residence and property be preserved and used to the best advantage, will the government recognize this concern and interest by the introduction of legislation that will establish this property as an official government country residence for use by the Prime Minister, his distinguished guests and other appropriate persons?".
After mentioning that he had replied that legislation could be introduced during the current session "should it be the wish generally of hon. members that such a course be followed", Mr. Green went on to say that this proviso had been added ". . . because legislation of this kind is not the type that any government wishes to introduce, and in particular that no prime minister wishes to have introduced, unless members are agreed that such steps should be taken. I remember the reaction of Right Hon. Mr. St. Laurent when the Prime Minister's Residence Act was introduced originally, and it was just the same as the reaction of the present Prime Minister to this proposed amendment. These men, in a position of great responsibility, think of themselves last. If it were not the wish of the house generally to have the amendment which 1 am moving today passed, the government would not, of course, proceed with the measure. May I hasten to add that the other members of the cabinet-and 1 am sure the members of the last cabinet-feel very keenly that this measure is appropriate and, as a matter of fact, is badly needed in order to help ease the burdens of whoever may happen to be the prime minister of this nation."
It will be recalled that nine years earlier, in 1950, a group of citizens representing all parties and residents in all of the provinces had purchased a property called Stornoway located in the village of Rockcliffe Park as an official residence for the Leader of the Official Opposition as they felt that the holder of that office should be provided with a residence consistent with the meaning and dignity of his position. These citizens, and others who were added over the years, maintained the property until 1971 when the government introduced a Bill entitled an "Act to amend the Prime Minister's Residence Act", which provided among others for the transfer of Stornoway to the government at no cost and its maintenance in the future out of public funds as an official residence for the Leader of the Official Opposition. As stated by the sponsor of the Bill, the Hon. Allan J. MacEachen, President of the Privy Council, the trustees, whose Chairman was the Hon. Grattan O'Leary, having carried the cost and care of the administration of the property for 20 years had concluded that its ownership and administration should justly pass into the hands of the Government and, as Senator O'Leary had put it, "become a part of the parliamentary structure". The Bill also proposed to give statutory recognition to the occupation on a rent-free basis by the Speaker of the House of Commons of the

building and associated grounds known as The Farm and located at Kingsmere, Quebec. Finally, in keeping with the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Parliamentary Salaries and Expenses (Beaupre Report) it provided that neither the Prime Minister nor the Leader of the Official Opposition should be required to pay rent for publicly owned residences provided for their official use. There was however a stipulation that the financial outlay of $5,000 then payable by the Prime Minister on his residence would continue at that rate until the day after the following general election. Again, there was a large degree of support in the House for the Bill. Referring to the provisions regarding Stornoway, the spokesman for the Official Opposition noted that it underlined "the importance of the man who is the number one critic of those in power, and the number one contender for succession when the people's will is expressed in another way" and that "of all the variations of the democratic parliamentary system, the one whereby the Leader of the Opposition is made, in fact, an official part of the system is a fine move". As to the changes involving the Prime Minister's residence his comments were that they were long overdue. The spokesman for the New Democratic Party concurred in this view that the Prime Minister should not be asked to contribute $5,000 annually recalling that it had originally been included at the personal insistence of Mr. St. Laurent: ". . .A case can certainly be made for our not requiring that, for if we are going to provide the Prime Minister with a residence in which he can live and in which he must be one of the nation's hosts, it does seem proper that we take care of the cost of it.. ." ". . . However, I am interested in the fact that the proposal to discontinue the requirement that this $5,000 a year be paid by the Prime Minister does not come into effect until the end of this parliament. It comes into effect on the day of the general election following dissolution of the 28th Parliament. No one knows who will be the occupant of that house at that point, but at any rate here is a clear case of deciding that a certain monetary benefit to one of the members of this House shall not accrue to him until after the next election".
The Bill received Royal Assent on June 10, 1971. During the 26 years that have elapsed since the passage of the original legislation, the House, through the normal process of scrutiny and approval of estimates and asking of oral and written questions, has carefully watched the spending of public expenditures for official residences and did not hesitate to question some of them whenever it deemed it necessary. A study of the Official Report of the House of Commons Debates for that period, which extends over a quarter of a century, shows on the other hand that successive governments have not hesitated to provide information in reply to inquiries from Members. See for instance, among others, replies to questions No. 804, 2,598 and 2,601 of the first session of the 29th Parliament and No. 45, 86, 87, 88, and 89 of the second session; and No. 1,351, 1,666, 1,667, 1,668, 1,669, 2,307, 2,523, 2,790, 2,793, 2,794, 3,236, 3,471 and 5,203 of the first session, 30th Parliament. For the convenience of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, a table was prepared in May of last year
August 9, 1977

showing yearly expenditures for the official residences incurred since 1950 (Appendix "Q", issue No. 36. of the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates). As to public expenditures for Stornoway and The Farm since passage in 1971 of the Official Residences Act, those of the Department of Public Works are as follows:
Order Paper Questions


Ralph Goodale: Requirements for awarding of contracts are merit, ability to conform to all requirements, icosts and experience. Information on political affiliation and candidature for federal or provincial election are not criteria pn which the contract is awarded.
Fiscal Year	Speaker's Farm	Stornoway1971-72	$ 2,571.64	$ 24,449.171972-73	23,671.91	48,328.961973-74	8,199.96	52,630.281974-75	8,464.53	25,051.461975-76	75,324.90	10,387.861976-77	23,000.00 (Est)	29,000.00 (Est)
As to the National Capital Commission the breakdown available is as follows:
Fiscal Year	Speaker's Farm	Stornoway1973- 74	$18,562	$ 9,5551974-	75	16,678	12,2691975-	76	22,500	17,3181976-	77	22,000	(Est)	17,000	(Est)
Should there be a general disposition within the parties represented in the House and within the public that the Official Residences Act should be repealed or substantially revised, then the Prime Minister would wish to consult with the Speaker and the Leader of the Official Opposition. If not, the Government proposes to answer current and future inquiries about the Prime Minister's official residences by reference to this statement and by suggesting that the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates be the proper forum for dealing with such questions.


Mr. Dick: For the year (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976, what law firms and/or lawyers in the County of Lanark, Ontario were (i) retained (ii) hired (iii) paid a fee for doing legal work on behalf of, or as agents for the government and, in each case, in what amount?


Stanley Ronald Basford: In so far as the
legal agents of the Minister of Justice are concerned: For the fiscal years 1973-74 and 1974-75, please see reply to Question
2,232,	First Session, 30th Parliament, ordered July 18, 1975. For the fiscal year 1975-76 please see reply to Question 979, Second Session, 30th Parliament, ordered April 27, 1977. For the fiscal year 1976-77, from April 1, 1976 to December 16, 1976:
Name	Amount
Dixon, N. D.	$2,037.25
Willson, J. E.	3,150.44


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What has been the total cost to the taxpayer of all food and drink at 24 Sussex Drive from April 20, 1968 when the Prime Minister assumed office up to and including the last month for which figures are available?
2.	Does the Prime Minister pay for any of the food or drink consumed by himself, members of his family or personal guests at 24 Sussex Drive and, if not (a) has he ever been officially advised of the practice in the United States concerning the payment for all food and drink consumed at the White House (b) how does he reconcile this with his statements on the subject of restraint and the necessity of cutting government expenditures?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: See reply to Question No. 6 tabled this day.


Mr. Dick: For the year (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976, what law firms and/or lawyers in the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton were (i) retained (ii) hired (iii) paid a fee for doing legal work on behalf of, or as agents for the government and, in each case, in what amount?


Stanley Ronald Basford: In so far as the
legal agents of the Minister of Justice are concerned: For the fiscal years 1973-74 and 1974-75, please see reply to Question
2,232,	First Session, 30th Parliament, ordered July 18, 1975. For the fiscal year 1975-76, please see reply to Question 979, Second Session, 30th Parliament, ordered April 27, 1977. For the fiscal year 1976-77, from April 1, 1976 to December 16, 1976:


Mr. Coates: 1.	Of the total number of persons who hold consultant contracts with the government, its agencies or Crown corporations, how many were candidates for the Liberal Party in either federal or provincial election campaigns in the past?
2.	In each case, what is (a) their name (b) the amount of the contract (c) the period of time the contract has been in effect (d) the amount received to date in fees and expenses?
Name	Amount
Barnes & Cannon	$ 318.50
Batt & Watt	1,282.24
Crane, Brian	17,376.80
Dent & Francis	617.75
Panet, A de L.	548.43
Roy, A.	2,742.00
Scott, David W.	3,884.98

August 9, 1977
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Dick: For the year (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976, what law Firms and/or lawyers in the County of Renfrew were (i) retained (ii) hired (iii) paid a fee for doing legal work on behalf of, or as agents for the government and, in each case, in what amount?


Stanley Ronald Basford: In so far as the
legal agents of the Minister of Justice are concerned: For the fiscal years 1973-74 and 1974-75, please see reply to Question
2,232,	First Session, 30th Parliament, ordered July 18, 1975. For the fiscal year 1975-76, please see reply to Question 979, Second Session, 30th Parliament, ordered April 27, 1977. For the fiscal year 1976-77, from April 1, 1976 to December 16, 1976:
Name	Amount
Bradley, Henry J.	$1,791.10
Bradley & Millette	572.06
Cooke, G. B.	1,223.59
Dickinson, R. H.	249.00
Garreto, S. A.	509.75
McNabb, A. A.	3,062.60
Millette, E. R.	9,049.80


Mr. Dick: For the year (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976, what law firms and/or lawyers in the County of Leeds were (i) retained (ii) hired (iii) paid a fee for doing legal work on behalf of, or as agents for the government and, in each case, in what amount?


Stanley Ronald Basford: In so far as the
legal agents of the Minister of Justice are concerned: For the fiscal years 1973-74 and 1974-75, please see reply to Question
2,232,	First Session, 30th Parliament, ordered July 18, 1975. For the fiscal year 1975-76, please see reply to Question 979, Second Session, 30th Parliament, ordered April 27, 1977. For the fiscal year 1976-77, from April 1, 1976 to December 16, 1976:
Name	Amount
Hart, Hugh R.	$8,458.98
Henderson, Hart &
Co.	1,544.25
Knotek, H. J.	*
Eastman, Gerald	1,242.50
* Work assigned during period in question but accounts have not yet been submitted.


Mr. Dick: For the year (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976, what law firms and/or lawyers in the County of Grenville were (i) retained (ii) hired (iii) paid a fee for doing legal work on behalf of, or as agents for the government and, in each case, in what amount?


Stanley Ronald Basford: In so far as the
legal agents of the Minister of Justice are concerned: For the fiscal years 1973-74 and 1974-75, please see reply to Question
2,232,	First Session, 30th Parliament, ordered July 18, 1975. For the fiscal year 1975-76, please see reply to Question 979, Second Session, 30th Parliament, ordered April 27, 1977. For the fiscal year 1976-77, from April 1, 1976 to December 16, 1976: Name: Tobin, R. M.-Amount: $1,706.49.


Mr. Marshall: Under the Transportation Policy "Access to and from remote areas" to assist communities that are without acceptable year round surface access, has the Government of Newfoundland submitted a proposal for funding under this programme and, if so, what is its status?


Otto Emil Lang: The Province of Newfoundland has not submitted a proposal for funding of improvements in "Access to and from Remote Areas". Transport Canada will soon complete a tentative proposal for improvements in access to and from isolated communities for preliminary discussion with interested provinces through the medium of the Federal/Provincial Committees on Transportation.


Mr. Crosbie: 1.	Did CNR increase the fares on the roadcruiser service in Newfoundland on or about June 28, 1976?
2.	Did CNR file with the Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities of Newfoundland a single fare rate schedule and, if not, has CNR operated with increased bus fares that were not authorized by either the Board of Commissioners or by the Canadian Transport Commission?
3.	Has legal advice been received by CNR or by the Department of Transport on the question of whether or not the increased bus fares were legal and valid and, if so, what is it?
4.	Was the roadcruiser service in Newfoundland removed from the jurisdiction of the Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities by order of the Governor in Council and, if so, has CNR reduced the service in any way by eliminating certain bus runs or reducing the frequency of bus runs, or both and, if so, exactly what changes in service have occurred since July 13, 1976 and the end of January 1977?


Otto Emil Lang: The Management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: 1. Yes.
2 and 3. CNR informed the Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities of Newfoundland of its intention to implement such schedule. Previously that Board's issuance of a licence under the provincial Motor Carrier Act had been invalidated


August 9, 1977

by the Supreme Court of Canada, and therefore no authorized fare basis then existed. CNR subsequently complied with the requirements of the Canadian Transport Commission, including submission of its fare structure, and was duly licensed to operate the roadcruiser service.
4. Yes the roadcruiser service in Newfoundland was removed from the jurisdiction of the Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities by order of the Governor in Council. Yes the Railway has reduced its service, making the following changes between July 13, 1976 and January 31, 1977: Effective October 31, 1976 Runs 517, 518 daily between St. John's and Cornerbrook were dropped from the Schedule. Runs 511 and 512 which formerly operated daily between Grand Falls and Port aux Basques were changed to operate between Cornerbrook and Port aux Basques. Runs 509 and 510 which operated between St. John's and Grand Falls were replaced by Runs 519 and 520 between St John's and Grand Falls. Run 519 operates on approximately the same time schedule as former Run 509. Run 520 operates on approximately the same schedule as discontinued Run 518 between these two points.


Mr. O'Sullivan: 1.	Was there a report prepared in May 1976 by former Warden Tom Ellis on the situation in the British Columbia Penitentiary with specific suggestions in regard to the prevention of further difficulties in the Penitentiary and, if so (a) has any official notice been taken of the report and of its recommendations and what form did this official notice take (b) has any action been taken on these recommendations and, if so (i) what specific action (ii) under whose authorization?
2.	Would the government consider referrring the report to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs which has a special subcommittee studying the problems in Penitentiaries?


Hon. Francis Fox (Solicitor General):: 1. Yes. (a) Official notice was taken of the report and its recommendations at the Regional and National levels of administration, (b) Yes; (i) Specific action was taken as follows: (A) The Team Concept was re-introduced and is now in operation; (B) Management is now holding regular meetings for all staff; (C) Institutional Standing Orders have been up-dated and published in sufficient numbers to meet staff requirements; (D) Commissioner's Directives and Divisional Instructions are being up-dated in keeping with institutional and staff requirements; (E) Institutional Contingency Plans have been up-dated and will be further revised to accommodate Team Concept Principles; (F) Some progress has been made in relieving supervisors of duties that can be performed by clerical staff. A further study of the total problem in this area is in progress; (G) Various supervisory courses have been developed and conducted at the local staff college emphasizing the supervisor's duties and responsibilities as spelled out in the Team Concept; (H) An effort to conduct refresher courses has been made with only limited success, due in large part to the lack of facilities and the availability of staff on a regularly scheduled basis; (I) A new Staff Training Officer is developing an organized approach to on-the-job-training. More progress is anticipated with the introduction of the Team Concept; and (J) The management
Order Paper Questions
of the institution is stressing the importance of adhering to the approved chain of command, (ii) The Commissioner and the Regional Director (Pacific Region) of the Penitentiary Service.
2.	The recommendations contained in the report have been forwarded to the Chairman of the Sub-Committee on Penitentiaries of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What is the government's best estimate of (a) tonnage to be handled at the Jacques Cartier Pier during each of the first three years of operation (b) total revenue to be obtained from the Pier by the NHB during the same years (c) return on investment or loss during the same years when all costs including interest and depreciation are considered?
2.	What is the government's best estimate of (a) tonnage (b) revenue resulting from Pier 55 in Quebec City during the first three years of operation (c) return on investment or loss during the same years after all costs including depreciation and interest are considered?


Otto Emil Lang: The National Harbours Board advises as follows: 1. The National Harbours Board is presently reviewing its forecast of container traffic for a possible public terminal in Montreal and reassessing the choice of the Jacques Cartier Terminal versus other possible sites within the Port of Montreal due to the following circumstances: (i) The decision to proceed with Jacques Cartier Terminal was approved by Treasury Board in June 1974. Since that time, container traffic patterns on the Atlantic Coast and in Montreal have changed due to various factors, (ii) Selection of a particular site and the existence of competing facilities within a port can influence the traffic patterns at a specific location.
2.	National Harbours Board estimates (a) 3.2 million (b) $1.86 million (c) Return on investment of 11.7 per cent is projected over a twenty-year period although losses are expected during the initial three-year period.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Did the National Harbours Board remove $10 million from the NHB budget for Halifax as proposed by the Halifax Port Authority for the commencement of construction of a container pier at Fairview Cove and, if so, what criteria were used to reach this decision?
2.	Did Dr. S. Weyman agree with the removal of the $10 million?
3.	In the best estimate of the government, what is the earliest practical completion date for a (a) one (b) two berth container facility at Fairview Cove?


Otto Emil Lang: The National Harbours Board advises as follows: 1. The 1977 capital budget submitted by the Port of Halifax was amended by the National Harbours Board by deferring an amount of $10 million representing part of the construction costs of a container terminal at Fairview Cove. The amount was deferred for the following reasons: (a) Construction would not start during the year; (b) No agreement had been reached with the Province of

August 9, 1977
Order Paper Questions
Nova Scotia; (c) The program had not been approved by Treasury Board; (d) Limited availability of loan funds due to budgetary constraints; (e) The Port of Halifax did not have any reserve funds.
2.	Dr. S. H. Weyman is a member of the National Harbours Board and the results of individual votes on Board matters are not made public.
3.	(a) The earliest possible completion date would be two and a half years after commencement of construction, (b) A two-berth facility could be completed in approximately three years after the start of construction.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What was the total revenue accruing to the National Harbours Board at (a) Saint John (b) Halifax (c) Montreal (d) Quebec City (e) Trois-Rivieres in (i) 1970 (ii) 1971 (iii) 1972 (iv) 1973 (v) 1974 (vi) 1975 (vii) 1976, exclusive of revenues from the operation of bridges or grain elevators?
2.	What volume of general cargo, containerized and non containerized, was shipped over the ports during the same years?


Otto Emil Lang: The National Harbours Board advises as follows: 1.
			Statement "A"					
(i)	(ii)	(iii)	(iv)	(v)	(vi)	(vii)1970	1971	1972	1973	1974	1975	1976(a)	Saint John	$ 1,569	$ 1,826	$ 2,372	S 2,022	$ 2,353	$ 2,828	$ 3,862(b)	Halifax	2,169	2,460	2,585	2,254	2,636	2,916	3,243(c)	Montreal	11,918	13,247	11,126	9,909	9,770	9,904	11,147(d)	Quebec City	3,325	3,901	3,753	4,103	3,981	3,524	4,563(e)	Trois-Rivieres	1,146	955	971	826	802	804	997
(Figures above in thousands ($000's))
Statement "B"
	Containerized Cargo	Non-containerized Cargo	Total General Cargo
Saint John			
1970	89,811	1,318,159	1,407,9701971	138,346	1,173,495	1,311,8411972	342,673	1,376,095	1,718,7681973	491,026	1,192,510	1,683,5361974	450,824	1,470,869	1,921,6931975	525,787	1,269,269	1,795,0561976	1,069,398	1,386,936	2,456,334Halifax	1970	251,047	552,291	803,3381971	695,712	544,471	1,240,1831972	1,107,202	612,217	1,719,4191973	1,310,955	530,016	1,840,9711974	1,705,857	606,648	2,312,5051975	1,384,436	669,042	2,053,4781976	1,056,692	532,984	1,589,676Montreal	1970	907,132	3,613,052	4,520,1841971	1,276,122	3,499,398	4,775,5201972	1,248,833	2,306,526	3,555,3591973	1,717,981	1,961,708	3,679,6891974	1,774,008	2,262,967	4,036,9751975	1,313,073	1,695,234	3,008,3071976	1,700,811	1,768,944	3,469,755Quebec	1970	300,586	709,312	1,009,8981971	602,649	690,139	1,292,7881972	685,292	466,773	1,152,0651973	850,335	249,520	1,099,8551974	855,587	367,268	1,222,8551975	500,543	159,020	659,5631976	720,620	336,176	1,056,796Trois-Rivieres	1970	-	498,414	498,4141971	257	395,337	395,5941972	1,640	328,311	329,9511973	1,477	266,169	267,6461974	695	234,769	235,4641975	-	250,687	250,6871976	324	280,669	280,993


Mr. O'Sullivan: What law firms in (a) Hamilton (b) Burlington (c) Stoney Creek (d) Grimsby (e) Oakville (0 Ancaster (g) Dundas, Ontario drew-up CMHC mortgages in (i) insured (ii) uninsured loans in 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975 and 1976 and, in each case, what were the amounts?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: am advised by CMHC as follows: (i) The following lawyers were retained by CMHC to process mortgage documentation for direct loans approved under Sections 58 and 34.15 of the NHA, in the Counties of Halton and Wentworth, and the Township of Grimsby, in the years 1972-76.
Number
of Amount
Insured Loans	Loans $000
1972	-	-1973	Hamilton	N. Borkovitch	20	322Dino J. Tessaro	19	2851974	Guelph	A. Braida	1	28Hamilton	S. Arthur Baldwin	10	321William J. Hubar	1	25Joseph Kostyk	150	4,772Milton J. Lewis	66	2,1001975	Hamilton	John L. Agro, Q.C.	26	882N. Borkovitch	14	477G. William Dandie	69	2,165Thomas A. Hickey	150	5,160Dino J. Tessaro	140	4,7021976	Hamilton	Gordon F. Morton	44	1,313Reno B. Violin	4	157

August 9, 1977

(ii) The following lawyers were retained by CMHC to process mortgage documentation for loans approved under Sections 15, 15.1, and 34.18 in Halton and Wentworth Counties and the Township of Grimsby in the years 1972-76.
			Number	
			of	Amount
Insured	Loans	Loans	$0001972	Burlington	Edward G. Ralfe	1	95Hamilton	Edward F. Cain, Q.C.	1	360Alan T. Marshal, Q.C.	1	761973	Oakville	Robert G. Lush	1	531974	Hamilton	Mary L. Dingle	1	49Robert B. Easterbrook	1	42John G. Langs, Q.C.	1	10,434Terence A. Whelan	1	31 .1975	Burlington	William C. Hawken	1	47Hamilton	Thomas A. Beckett	1	121Robert B. Easterbrook	1	135William J. Luchak	1	957N. P. Mackesy	1	73C. D. McCallum, Q.C.	1	72N. J. Monti	1	815George Petrini	1	183Edward Tharen	1	7,189J. van der Woerd	2	1,759Norman F. Williams Nicholas J. Zaffiro,	1	90Q.C.	1	3,828Oakville	Frederick E. Leitch	1	1721976	Hamilton	Thomas A. Beckett	4	597Anthony F. DeRubeis	1	814
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation records of NHA activity are based on the geographical location of loans approved, and not on the place of business of law firms or of individuals.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): During CNR's past fiscal year, by province, what was (a) the revenue (i) from the transportation of passengers (ii) from the transportation of goods (iii) in total (b) the expenditures for the transportation of (i) passengers (ii) goods?


Otto Emil Lang: The Management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: Since the company does not maintain its records by provinces the information is not available in the form asked.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What amount was spent on port promotion (including salaries, travel, studies, receptions and advertising) during 1976 by the National Harbours Board and local port authorities at (a) Halifax (b) Saint John (c) Montreal?
2.	Who are the current members of the (a) Port of Montreal Authority (b) Port of Saint John Authority (c) Port of Halifax Authority and, on what date was each last appointed/reappointed and for what term?
3.	Does an executive council exist at each Port and, if so, on what date was it appointed and who are the members?
Order Paper Questions


Otto Emil Lang: The National Harbours Board advises as follows: 1. (a) $64,647; (b) $24,000; (c) $121,453.
2.	(a) Roger O. Beauchemin; Aime Desautels; Louis R. Desmarais; Yvon Lamarre; Jean-Marc St. Onge; Regis Trudeau; Richard Strauss; lan C. Campbell; Joachim Carton; Arnold E. Masters: C. Pathy; J. L. Thom; J. P. Godin, (b) F. Gerald Elkin; A. David Case; Cecil E. Brownell; Philip W. Oland; T. C. Frink, (c) Gerald E. Simmons; F. M. Weston; D. A. Mosher; A. C. Huxtable; J. W. E. Mingo; F. H. Howard; P. C. Fralic. All members were reappointed for the period April 1 to December 31, 1977 or until establishment of a Port Commission if before that date.
3.	An Executive Committee of the respective Port Authority was established as follows: Port of Montreal effective February 1, 1975: Roger O. Beauchemin; Ian C. Campbell. Port of Saint John effective May 19, 1977: F. Gerald Elkin; A. David Case; Cecil E. Brownell; Philip W. Oland; T. C. Frink. Port of Halifax effective April 14, 1977: Gerald E. Simmons; F. M. Weston; F. H. Howard.


Mr. Forrestall: For each year 1970 to 1976, what was the number of tons of general cargo loaded and unloaded at the Port of (a) Montreal (b) Saint John (c) Halifax destined for (i) Grenada (ii) St. Vincent (iii) St. Lucia (iv) Dominica (v) Antigua (vi) St. Kitts?


Otto Emil Lang: The National Harbours Board advises as follows: The information requested is not readily available, and it would take an inordinate amount of clerical time and cost to search for and obtain this information.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What are the names of the companies who currently have leases from the National Harbours Board on shedded and open areas at the Port of Montreal for periods in excess of two months' duration?
2.	What facilities are leased by each company?


Otto Emil Lang: The National Harbours Board advises as follows:
1. 2.
Name of Company	Facility Leased	
Reliance Marine Terminals Ltd.	Shed	B-lReliance Marine Terminals Ltd.	Shed	B-2Reliance Marine Terminals Ltd.	Shed	B-3Reliance Marine Terminals Ltd.	Shed	B-4Reliance Marine Terminals Ltd.	Shed	B-5Reliance Marine Terminals Ltd.	Shed	B-6Lapalme Transport Ltee	Shed	4-UpperDaigle Lumber Ltee	Shed	4-LowerPlateau Chrysler	Shed	6-UpperWolfe Stevedores (1968) Ltd.	Shed	7-LowerWolfe Stevedores (1968) Ltd.	Shed	9-LowerKenmont Terminals Ltd.	Shed	10-LowerArctec Canada Limited (Laboratory)	Shed	11-Upper
August 9, 1977
Order Paper Questions
1. 2.
Name of Company	Facility Leased
Lapalme Transport Ltee	Shed 13-Lower
McAllister Towing and Salvage Ltd.	Shed 22
Mount Royal Marine Repairs Ltd.	Shed 23
Wolfe Stevedores (1968) Limited	Shed 25-Lower
Chimo Shipping Limited	Shed 27
Cooperative de Transport Maritime	Shed 33
Logistec Corporation	Shed 35
Rail and Water Terminal (Quebec) Inc.	Shed 39
Brown and Ryan Limited	Shed 40
Saguenay Shipping Limited	Shed 41
Saguenay Shipping Limited	Shed 42
Rail and Water Terminal (Quebec) Inc.	Shed 46
Logistec Corporation	Shed 49
Logistec Corporation	Shed 50
Logistec Corporation	Shed 51
Logistec Corporation	Shed 52
Federal Marine Terminals Ltd.	Shed 59
Ceres Stevedoring Company	Shed 63
Ceres Stevedoring Company	Shed 64
Ceres Stevedoring Company	Shed 66 (Part)
Clarke Transportation Canada Ltd.	Shed 66 (Part)
Clarke Transportation Canada Ltd.	Shed 67
Clarke Transportation Canada Ltd.	Shed 68
Reliance Marine Terminals Ltd.	Berth B-7
Domtar Chemicals Ltd.	Berth B-8
Montreal Harbour Cruises "MISS OLYMPIA"	Berth 20
Excursions Maritimes "MISS MONTREAL"	Berth 21
Chimo Shipping Limited	Berth 28
Logistec Corporation	Berth 31
Logistec Corporation	Berth 36
Iron Ore Company of Canada Limited	Berth 37
Saguenay Shipping Limited	Berth 43
Iroquois Salt Products Limited	Berth 44
Rail and Water Terminal (Quebec) Inc.	Berth 45
Federal Marine Terminals Ltd.	Berths 57-58
Federal Marine Terminals Ltd.	Berths 60-61
Manchester Liners	Berth 70
St. Lawrence Stevedoring Company	Berth 71
Canadian Gypsum Company	Berth 72
Logistec Corporation	Berths 73-74
Task Terminals Ltd.	Berths 77-78-79


Mr. Schellenberger: 1.	What practices or policies are followed when permits or leases are granted for farm land on federal airport property?
2.	Will the government consider restricting such leases to bona fide farmers who can meet certain standards such as machinery availability, nearness to locale and good farm management practices?


Otto Emil Lang: 1. Agricultural land not required for current use is made available to the public by the public tender process.
2. No. The public tender process is considered to be the fairest way to make use of such land to its fullest potential. Therefore it would not be in the government's interest to limit the opportunity of a tender to any specific group or party.


Mr. Roy: On the occasion of the Quebec provincial elections, on November 15, 1976, did the CBC invite people to attend, in its studios, the special election coverage and, if so (a) how many (b) on what basis were they selected (c) what were the

travel and miscellaneous expenses incurred for the broadcast (d) what was the aim of this initiative?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the CBC as follows: Yes. (a) The CBC invited 80 persons to this programme but in fact only 73 came to the studios and participated in the election night coverage, (b) The CBC wanted the group chosen to be representative of the population, covering a wide range of persons according to age, sex, type of occupation, geographical distribution and, of course, interest in the political and social life of the community. In view of the size of the Montreal and Quebec regions, the CBC gave the task of choosing the guests for Montreal and the Eastern Townships to its Research Department, which used the services of an information gathering agency, l'lnstitut national de cueillette de l'information. At Quebec City, the job was done by a group specializing in this type of research. For the other regions of Quebec, the CBC asked its basis stations at Ottawa, Matane and Chicoutimi, as well as its affiliates at Rouyn, Trois-Rivieres and Riviere-du-Loup to choose persons capable of reacting spontaneously, who met the above criteria as far as possible, (c) It has not been customary to require the CBC to supply such details of its internal management and administration as fees paid and expenses incurred to prepare its programs. The background to this custom is explained in detail in the reply to question No. 2,530, May 22, 1975. (d) The aim was to obtain public participation in the election coverage. Comments, often spontaneous, were obtained from this group as the results were announced. Those responsible for this program had previously seen an even larger operation of the same type on German TV, and the CBC thought it would be a good thing to have comments from members of the public themselves who were free to react as they pleased to the election results.


Mr. Howie: Is the government taking any new initiatives to ease the government's restrictive monetary policies in Quebec and the Atlantic Provinces and, if necessary, to reverse them in slow growth areas in Eastern Canada where tight money has an instant, lasting and disastrous effect?
Mr. Bob Kaplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance): The government does not have a restrictive monetary policy at the present time. Monetary policy is directed at achieving moderate growth consistent with continued progress in reducing the rate of inflation. As the rate of inflation has moderated, it has become possible to lower the bank rate, on four separate occasions since last November, to 7V) per cent where it now stands. These downward adjustments to the bank rate were necessary to push the growth of the money supply up towards the 8 to 12 per cent target range specified by the Governor of the Bank of Canada. In times of restrictive monetary policy, when money for loans is scarce, the Governor of the Bank of Canada has used moral suasion to encourage the chartered banks to have a special regard for the credit needs of the slower growth areas of the country. Nevertheless,
August 9, 1977

it is difficult to differentiate the stance of monetary policy in Quebec and the Atlantic Provinces from that in the rest of Canada. The Bank of Canada must operate in capital markets that are national in scope. If the Bank were to inject funds into Quebec and the Atlantic Provinces to lower interest rates in these regions, private funds would flow out of these regions seeking the higher interest rates in the rest of Canada. The outflow would continue until interest rates were comparable across Canada. Thus, the initial stimulus would be spread throughout the country and not retained in Quebec and the Atlantic Provinces where it was initially injected. Fiscal policy can be regionally differentiated much more satisfactorily than monetary policy. It has long been the practice of the government to distribute a significant portion of government expenditure on a basis which is favourable to higher than average unemployment areas. Some current examples of the government's use of regional differentiation of fiscal policy appear in our treatment of the investment tax credit and direct job creation in the March 31 Budget. The investment tax credit has been increased from 5 per cent to 10 per cent in the Atlantic Provinces, the Gaspe area and the Magdalen Islands; and to I'h per cent in areas designated under the Regional Development Incentives Act in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Northern Ontario and Quebec (other than the Gaspe Region). Of the $1.2 billion the government plans to spend on manpower programs in 1977-78, $458 million is committed to the direct employment strategy. As was stated in the last Budget, this strategy, which includes the Canada Works, Young Canada Works, and Local Initiatives Programs among others, is designed to have a greater impact in the higher unemployment areas of Canada. In addition to these two specific initiatives must be added the ongoing activities of the Departments of Regional Economic Expansion and of Industry, Trade and Commerce aimed toward improving the economic performance of regions experiencing comparatively high unemployment.


Mr. Cossitt: Is the Prime Minister aware that Question No. 3, requesting information on budgeting at the Prime Minister's official residence, remains unanswered and will the Prime Minister take steps to expedite the answer and (a) if so, on what date can an answer be expected (b) if not, for what reason?


Ralph Goodale: The government takes responsibility for the answers it provides to questions and for the process involved in replying to such questions. It is not appropriate therefore to provide information about internal administrative arrangements.


Mr. Jones: 1. Have any employees of the Department of the Secretary of State ever encouraged francophones in anglophone communities to agitate for separate French schools and, if so, what are the reasons and full details?
Order Paper Questions
2.	In each year 1970 to 1976, how many francophones have taken over positions in the Public Service formerly held by unilingual anglophones?
3.	What effect has the government's implementation of bilingualism had on non-French speaking graduates to find employment in federal, provincial, municipal and business in Canada and, in particular, what effect have brochures distributed by the government had on employment opportunities for non-francophones?


John (Moody) Roberts: In so far as the
Department of the Secretary of State is concerned; 1. No.
2.	To be answered elsewhere.
3.	The Secretary of State has not gathered data on these subjects and is, therefore, not in a position to answer this question.
In so far as the Public Service Commission is concerned: 1. To be answered elsewhere.
2.	The information requested is not available from the records of the Public Service Commission.
3.	To be answered elsewhere.


Mr. Matte: 1.	Did CBC construct a French language transmitter at/or near Peterborough, Ontario and, if so (a) is the station channel 44 (UHF) (b) what is the broadcasting power of channel 44 (c) on what date did construction commence and finish on the project (d) what was the approximate cost of construction (e) on what dates did broadcasting commence (f) what is the estimated radius that the broadcast signal will carry (g) is it possible for the signal of the transmitter to interfere with the broadcasting clarity of channel 29 Buffalo (UHF) and, if not, for what reason is that broadcasting signal interfered with?
2.	Does CBC possess data, or has it or anyone acting on its behalf furnished surveyed figures showing (a) what the English/French population ratio is in the Peterborough channel 44 broadcasting area (b) what percentage of the population, whose mother tongue is French, speak (i) French (ii) English as their daily language?
3.	What are the reasons justifying the establishment of a French television station at the expense of the taxpayer in a predominently English-speaking area?
4.	Will the government discontinue other such projects in view of its announcement in the Throne Speech that certain bilingual costs be reduced?
5.	Will channel 44, Peterborough cease transmitting and, if so, on what date?
6.	What is the mailing address of channel 44, Peterborough?


John (Moody) Roberts: In so far as the
Department of the Secretary of State is concerned: 1 to 3. To be answered elsewhere.
4.	No.
5 to 6. To be answered elsewhere.
In so far as the CBC is concerned: 1. Yes, on the Simpson Hill Road between Cobourg and Peterborough, (a) Yes. (b) 4 kw from the transmitter, (c) Commenced approximately June 1976, completed approximately March 1977. (d) $835,000. (e) May 1, 1977. (f) The Grade "B" contour extends to a 28-mile radius, (g) CBC is not aware of any mechanism that would cuse interference with channel 29 and has heard of no complaints regarding interference caused by the CBC station.
2. Yes. (a) Mother tongue: English, 172,000; French, 2,300 (1971 Census), (b) According to language data in the 1971
8150

August 9, 1977
Order Paper Questions
Census, approximately 26 per cent of the people whose mother tongue is French use French "most frequently in the home". Census figures are not readily available showing the language used by the remainder or for "daily language" use, but it can be presumed that the majority of the remainder speak English "most frequently in the home".
3.	The 1968 Broadcasting Act states that "all Canadians are entitled to broadcasting service in English and French as public funds become available" and requires that the national broadcasting service "be extended to all parts of Canada, as public funds become available".
4.	To be answered elsewhere.
5.	No.
6.	CBC-TV Transmitter Site, P.O. Box 100, Cobourg, Ontario.


Mr. Matte: 1.	Did CBC construct a French language transmitter at/or near Toronto, Ontario and, if so (a) is the station channel 25 (UHF) (b) what is the broadcasting power of channel 25 (c) on what dates did construction commence and Finish on the project (d) what was the approximate cost of construction (e) on what date did broadcasting commence (f) what is the estimated radius that the broadcast signal will carry (g) is it possible for the signal of the transmitter to interfere with the broadcasting clarity of channel 29 Buffalo (UHF) and, if not, for what reason is that broadcasting signal interfered with?
2.	Does CBC possess data, or has it or anyone acting on its behalf furnished surveyed figures showing (a) what the English/French population ratio is in the Toronto channel 25 broadcasting area (b) what percentage of the population, whose mother tongue is French, speak (i) French (ii) English as their daily language?
3.	What are the reasons justifying the establishment of a French television station at the expense of the taxpayer in a predominently English-speaking area?
4.	Will the government discontinue other such projects in view of its announcement in the Throne Speech that certain bilingual costs be reduced?
5.	Will channel 25, Toronto cease transmitting and, if so, on what date?
6.	What is the mailing address of channel 25, Toronto?


John (Moody) Roberts: In so far as the Department of the Secretary of State is concerned: 1 to 3. To be answered elsewhere.
4.	No.
5 to 6. To be answered elsewhere.
In so far as the CBC is concerned: 1. Yes, on the CN Tower in Toronto, (a) Yes. (b) 110 kW from the transmitter, (c) Commenced August 1975, will be completed July 1977. (d) $1,600,000. (e) May 31, 1976 (from original transmitter), (f) The Grade "B" contour will extend to a 58-mile average radius, (g) CBC is not aware of any mechanism that would cause interference to channel 29 and has heard of no complaints regarding interference caused by the CBC station.
2. Yes. (a) Mother tongue: English, 3,131,000; French, 81,800 (b) According to language data in the 1971 Census, approximately 50 per cent of the people whose mother tongue is French use French "most frequently in the home". Census figures are not readily available showing the language used by the remainder or for "daily language" use, but it can be
(Mr. Roberts. 1
presumed that the priority of the remainder speak English "most frequently in the home".
3.	The 1968 Broadcasting Act states that "all Canadians are entitled to broadcasting service in English and French as public funds become available", and requires that the national broadcasting service "be extended to all parts of Canada as public funds become available".
4.	To be answered elsewhere.
5.	No.
6.	CBC, Box 500, Terminal "A", Toronto, Ontario.


Mr. Oberle: 1.	How many trips outside of Canada were made by Mr. W. Teron in (a) 1975 (b) 1976 (c) 1977 to date in his capacity as (i) Chairman of the Board of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation (ii) Secretary of Urban Affairs and, in each case, what was its purpose and the cost to the taxpayer?
2.	How many trips outside of Canada were made by Mrs. H. Carmanico in (a) 1975 (b) 1976 (c) 1977 to date in her capacity as secretary to Mr. W. Teron and, in each case, what was its purpose and the cost to the taxpayer?


André Ouellet: am informed by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs as follows: 1. (a), (b) and (c) Mr. W. Teron has not made any trips outside Canada in his capacity as Chairman of the Board to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in the years 1975, 1976 and 1977 to date. 1. (a), (b) (ii) Nil. 1. (c) (ii) One. Purposes: To accompany the Minister on a trip to Europe, the purposes of which were: 1. To meet ministers and key officials responsible for housing and urban affairs in each country visited. 2. To have a frank exchange of views on the housing and urban problems of each country visited. 3. To identify and discuss areas of common concern that could be pursued bilaterally or through key international organizations. 4. To discuss matters relating to Habitat follow-up. Cost: $2,177.
2. Mrs. H. Carmanico has not made any trips outside Canada in her capacity as Secretary to Mr. W. Teron in the years 1975, 1976 and 1977 to date.


Mr. Marshall: What are the names of the members of the (a) Executive Committee (b) Regional Committee, Newfoundland, of the National Advisory Council on Marine Training (NACMT)?


Otto Emil Lang: Timmons, Nova Scotia; W. B. Thompson, New Brunswick; P. P. Chausse, Quebec; R. B. Butler, Newfoundland, J. F. Newberry, British Columbia. Department of Labour: J. E. Mac-Callum, Prince Edward Island. Department of Fisheries: G. Saint Cyr, New Brunswick. Fisheries-Management: J. W. Mahon, Fisheries Assoc., Newfoundland & Labrador; P. Bangay, Fisheries Council of Canada; F. Gale, Fishing Vessel Owners Assoc. Fisheries-Labour: R. Cashin, NFLD Fishermen Food & Allied Workers Union; L. K. Abbott, CBRT & GW; P. Cote, L'Assoc. des Pecheurs Unis du Quebec; J. Corbett, Ontario Council of Commercial Fishermen. Shipping-Management: J. J. Burke,, Canadian Chamber of Shipping; H. R. Lake, Newfoundland Shipowners Assoc.; L. M. Bouvier, Dominion Marine Assoc.; R. J. Tingley, East Coast Marine and Ferry Service. Shipping-Labour: R. Gralewicz, Seafarers International Union; R. F. Cook, Canadian Merchant Service Guild; W. Doherty, Public Service Alliance of Canada. Advisors, Shipping-Management: Adm. R. W. Tim-brell, Dominion Marine Assoc.; J. Hartford, Dominion Marine Assoc.; R. Gunston, Canadian Shipowners Assoc.; H. W. Plant, Coast Guard Colleges, Director. Regional Chairmen: Newfoundland: C. R. Barret, College of Fisheries, Navigation, Marine Engineering, and Electronics; Maritime: H. F. Muggah, Past Chairman (post now vacant), Council of Marine Premiers; Laurentian: R. Gaudreau, St. Lawrence Shipowners Assoc.; Central: E. W. Gordius, Ministry of Colleges and Universities; Western: R. Barry, Canadian Merchant Service Guild.
National Advisory Council on Marine Training Newfoundland Regional Committee members. Dr. R. Barrett, Chairman President College of Fisheries, Navigation, Marine Engineering and Electronics. Mr. B. Kenny, Secretary. Mr. J. Anderson, Regional Manager Ships & Safety, Canadian Coast Guard, Ministry of Transport. Mr. M. Barnes, Chief Industrial Development Branch, Fisheries and Environment Canada. Mr. R. Butler, Vice-President, College of Fisheries, Navigation, Marine Engineering and Electronics. Mr. P. Field, A/Manager, Manpower Training, Department of Manpower and Immigration. Mr. R. Lake, Director, Lake and Lake Limited. Mr. R. Langdon, Assistant Deputy Minister Department of Manpower and Industrial Relations. Mr. J. Mahon, Director Bonavista Cold Storage Company Limited. Mr. D. McKinnon (or Mr. W. Short), NFLD Fishermen Food & Allied Workers Union. Mr. L. Shirley, Director, Field Services Department of Fisheries. Mr. K. Singleton, Manpower Needs Economist Department of Manpower and Immigration.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Was the name of Maureen O'Nell, Walter Rudnicki, Joe MacDonald, Keith Carruthers, Marvin Lipman, Farrell Toombs, Sue Findlay, Peter Chesson, Terry Sulyma, Alison Black, Missy (Mary) Powell, Daphne Kelgard, Dave Crenna, Tom Phillbrook, Robert Rabinovitch, Hugh Armstrong, Pat Armstrong, David Hunter, Ken McKay, David MacGregor and Sharon Vance attached to a letter dated June 15, 1971 from the Solicitor General at that time, the hon. member for Dollard and, if so, for what reason?
Order Paper Questions
2.	Did the letter refer to "the concept of Extra Parliamentary Opposition" and that concerning such persons "their activities be watched with more than normal care"?
3.	Which of the persons mentioned in Part 1 are (a) in the government's employ and, in each case (i) in which department (ii) at what salary (iii) what is his/her job designation (b) no longer in the government's employ and, in each case (i) on what date did he/she leave (ii) was he/she dismissed and, if so, for what reason (iii) did he/she leave voluntarily?


Francis Fox: The matter to which the hon. member refers involves an exchange of private and classified correspondence between one Queen's Privy Councillor and several of his colleagues. As the hon. member will be aware, absolute privilege attaches to such correspondence when production is sought in legal proceedings. This is so by reason of subsection 41(2) of the Federal Court Act. Not to allow such privilege, except with the terms of archival production, would immediately render open all correspondence between Queen's Privy Councillors of this and previous governments. It has long been recognized that such a development is not in the public interest. In thus following both the law and tradition the Ministry of the Solicitor General is not prepared to comment further on either the nature or substance of the correspondence referred to.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, if questions Nos. 6 and 1,338 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately. Once again, the reason is the lengthy nature of the answer in each case.


Mr. Cossitt:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It has to do with question No. 6 which the parliamentary secretary has requested be tabled rather than answered in the usual way so that it would appear in Hansard. This question has been on the order paper for at least seven or eight months; I am not sure of the exact time.
The question concerns the admission by the government that in a specific year it bought $89,000 worth of what were called supplies for the residence of the Prime Minister at 24 Sussex Drive. In my question I asked if we could have a list of those supplies valued at over $100, because I realize that no one wants to read small incidentals. The parliamentary secretary has said that the answer is lengthy. I do not doubt that it is, because in the past the Prime Minister has purchased a great many things. I expect the answer to be lengthy. But if $89,000 was spent on supplies only, I think the Canadian people have a right to know what they were. The answer should be inserted in Hansard in the usual way. If the answer is tabled, it becomes public only if someone takes the trouble to obtain a copy from the Privy Council office, which usually is not very likely.
80020-51 'h

August 9, 1977
Order Paper Questions
1 think the excuse that the answer is long is invalid in this case, because I think the Canadian people have a right to know what the $89,000 was for. Would the parliamentary secretary consider having this question answered in the usual way, or would he consider having it inserted as an appendix to Hansards


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, answering such a question by tabling it is the usual way. If hon. members examine the record of proceedings in this session to see how orders for returns have been handled, 1 think they will find there has not in any way been any abuse of that method of answering questions. I invite hon. members to examine the record in this regard. In each case the reason for answering in that fashion has been the long and complicated nature of the answer.
In no way is there an attempt to hide or conceal information or to make that information relatively unavailable. As Your Honour knows, and as the hon. member for Leeds knows, such lengthy answers are tabled in the House. They are public documents, and at the proper time the House can debate such matters along with the estimates.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Would the Prime Minister agree to having this question answered in the usual way, rather than having it tabled?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would agree to that, without saying whether it is the usual way. If the hon. member would like the answer in Hansard, I would like it there, and I hope it will be on the front page of every newspaper in the land.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It has been requested that questions Nos. 6 and 1,388 be deemed to have been made orders for returns. That agreement is not forthcoming with respect to question No. 6. Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 1,388 be deemed to be made an order for return, with the return being tabled forthwith?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.


Mr. MacKay: 1.	(a) What official trips outside Canada were made by officials of Statistics Canada since April 1, 1972 (b) in each case, what was the name, rank and salary range of the official (c) in each case, what were the departure and return dates
(d)	in each case, what cities were visited and what was the purpose of each trip
(e)	in each case, what was the cost to the federal treasury (f) did any of the officials involved claim any annual leave with pay for days immediately preceding and/or immediately following such trips outside Canada and, if so, in each case, (i) what were the names of the officials (ii) what were the official trips involved (date of departure from Canada and destination (iii) how many days of annual leave with pay were claimed (iv) was the official involved accompanied by any relative and, if so, what was the relationship?
2.	(a) What are the names, ranks and salary ranges of officials of Statistics Canada who since April 1, 1968 obtained educational leave (b) in each case, what were the dates of authorization, durations of such leaves, purposes of such

leaves, the subject matters and the levels of study, the cost to the federal treasury?
3.	(a) What are the names, ranks and salary ranges of officials of Statistics Canada who were chosen for the Career Assignment Program (CAP) since the inception of this programme (b) in each case, what were the dates of authorization and what is the present employment status (name of agency, salary range, rank) of each person involved?
4.	How many employees of Statistics Canada filed statements concerning potential conflict of interest, during the months of June and July, 1974?
Return tabled.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Just a moment ago the Prime Minister agreed that this answer should be inserted in Hansard. Would Your Honour clarify this, for the benefit of the House and for my own benefit? Are we now proceeding to put this answer into Hansard?


Mr. Speaker:: A request has been made that the question be answered in the usual way. A request has been made by the parliamentary secretary that it be treated as an order for return. At the moment, agreement to do that is not forthcoming. Therefore, I refer hon. members to Standing Order 39(5). In the final analysis, the Chair must exercise some opinion with respect to the length of the answer and with respect to whether it is feasible to print it and make it part of Hansard. I have not seen the reply and I am not able to exercise any opinion in that regard. Therefore, perhaps I will be given time to examine it and at a later date decide whether to proceed in this way or not. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



FINANCE


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That this House approves the Canned Tomato Surtax Order made by order in council P.C. 1977-335 dated 10th February, 1977, until the 30th day of June, 1978.
He said: Mr. Speaker, there have been some discussions with the representatives of the parties and with the hon. member for Moncton, and I understand there is general agreement that it would be in the national interest to pass this motion at this time.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
August 9, 1977


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That, in accordance with section 19 of an act respecting the status of the official languages of Canada, chapter 0-2, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, this House approves the appointment of Maxwell F. Yalden, Esquire, as Commissioner of Official Languages of Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Jones:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
SUSPENSION OF SITTING
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the understanding reached earlier, and in view of the fact that both items standing under government notices of motions have now been adopted by the House, I should like to move the adjournment of the House until-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Adjournment?


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps it might be simpler if I were to suggest to hon. members that we take a 25-minute break and resume at 3.45 this afternoon.
At 3.21 p.m. the sitting was suspended.



SITTING RESUMED The House resumed at 3.45 p.m.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to ask unanimous consent for the second reading motion to be amended so that it will provide for consideration of the bill to be conducted in committee of the whole.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Standing Orders envisage that motions for the referral of a bill on second reading are to a standing committee of the House rather than to committee
Air Traffic Controllers
of the whole. Is it in order, in the motion, to call for the bill to be referred to committee of the whole House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise on a point of order. I understood from conversations conducted within the last halfhour that a statement would be made at 3.45 about question No. 6 concerning which there is some dispute. I hope the parliamentary secretary will say something about it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is absolutely right. During the recess I had the opportunity to examine the reply to question No. 6. In my opinion, it is feasible to print it. Would the parliamentary secretary prefer to include that question in the list of questions answered today, or deal with it as a document to be tabled and then printed as if tabled? It seems to me that it would be more expeditious to deal with it as an ordinarily answered question.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to include it in the list I read earlier, if that is acceptable procedurally.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Question No. 6 will therefore be included in the list of questions answered earlier this day.


John Carr Munro: that Bill C-63, to provide for the continuation of air traffic control services, be read the second time and referred to committee of the whole House.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it gives me no great pleasure to introduce this bill today. To ask parliament to approve a bill to end a legal strike is something which this government and which I, as Minister of Labour, do not welcome. Collective bargaining is part of our democratic way of life. It is the best system that has been devised for the voluntary regulation of the demands of employers and workers. It is not a perfect system, but in most situations it works, and it works well. Under collective bargaining, employers can anticipate with great certainty their labour costs and they can anticipate prolonged periods of labour peace. On the other hand, organized workers have been able to establish a fair return for their labour and they have improved their working conditions, largely as a result of their efforts at the bargaining table. Unorganized workers, to a considerable extent, have received improved wages and conditions that are influenced by improvements negotiated in the organized sector.
There has been considerable public comment of late about the incidence of strikes in this country. Canada's reputation in this regard has lately been greatly distorted, but the situation recently has improved greatly: strikes and lock-outs have not been resorted to frequently. Canada's record is not a record of numerous strikes and lock-outs, but of strikes and lock-outs which continue for a long period. Losses due to strikes and lock-outs in Canada this year are showing a sharp improvement over last year and recent years. I believe the anti-inflation program can be given much of the credit for this improvement.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Hear, hear!

August 9, 1977
Air Traffic Controllers


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Even the minister laughs.


John Carr Munro: The hon. member will not laugh when she hears the figures. In the first four months of this year man-day losses went down 63 per cent from the similar period in 1976. In percentage terms, strikes cost Canada 0.55 man-days for every 10,000 days worked during all of 1976-a higher percentage than in any year since 1919.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: This is very interesting, but let us deal with the bill.


John Carr Munro: For the first four months of this year, the loss in man-days was only 0.18 for every 10,000 days worked. In federal industries and in the federal public service man-day losses have been insignificant.
This government has recognized the importance of improving labour relations in this country. Last October, in the Speech from the Throne, improved labour relations was one of the three or four matters which we said deserved priority attention of parliament. The others included national unity and human rights. In the debate on the Speech from the Throne I summarized a 14-point program for improving our labour relations system. Since that time I have met with representatives of labour and industry to enlist their co-operation in putting some of these programs into effect. As the basis of many of these programs is our determination to find a better way to diminish the adversarial approach by employers and trade unions at the bargaining table and create a better environment in which collective bargaining can occur. This can be done if we move away from the confrontation that characterizes so many of our negotiations. We also want to improve working conditions, including health and safety, for all Canadian workers.
Mr. Speaker, in the situation which has caused you to call all members back to the House we have a strike by the Canadian Air Traffic Controllers Association against the government. CATCA called this strike because it saw no other way to resolve its differences with the government negotiators at the bargaining table.
We have to ask ourselves who is bearing the brunt of this action. We have to recognize the right to strike. With ad hoc legislation of this kind it is always a value judgment of any government of the day to weigh whether it should permit a strike to continue for a prolonged period of time or whether, in the circumstances, the interests of parties not party to the negotiations and not at the bargaining table should assume paramountcy in terms of responsibility of the government and parliament of the day. We believe that in terms of the judgment we are exercising, the interests of those not at the table are paramount and we should consider the interests of those Canadians injuriously affected by a prolongation of this strike.
We know there are many innocent third parties to this dispute. It falls on members of the travelling public who are caught by surprise and who will have great difficulty in

changing their vacations and completing their travel plans while this strike continues. One estimate shows that 35,000 to 40,000 Canadians are travelling by air each day at this time of the year. This is a serious inconvenience when you consider not only these Canadians but the tens of thousands of others they were intending to meet at the end of their flight.
Second, the burden falls on others who are not at the bargaining table. It falls on the airlines, which last year experienced difficult business conditions and have been operating at a loss. Some estimates show the airlines could lose as much as $5 million to $6 million a day while the strike continues. This situation could have serious repercussions for all air carriers. Other airline employees are also affected. The ground crews which service the aircraft, the baggage handlers, and sales and reservation clerks, the airline crews-these workers are all covered by collective agreements and they are affected.
It is hard to think of a business or a town or city in Canada which is not affected by this work stoppage. Every hour of every day that this strike continues is causing severe inconvenience to the travelling public and interrupting business and industry with their hundreds and thousands of employees which depend on the delivery of goods by air.
It is not the purpose of this legislation to take away the right to strike from CATCA. But it is the purpose of this bill to end this strike as soon as possible. CATCA was given the right to strike from the day it was certified as an employee association more than ten years ago under the Public Service Staff Relations Acts. The government did not pre-empt the right to strike. This bill does not take away that right; rather, it is a value judgment for the reasons I have outlined. As one of the unions in the public service, CATCA has enjoyed the right to strike since 1967. But it must use the right wisely and responsibly. Like few other unions in the public sector or the private sector, it holds a juggernaut position in its industry. It is in a position to impose sanctions of the most severe kind on the whole country. When the air traffic controllers served notice last week that they would institute a series of rotating strikes, and later a total strike, they knew they were exerting a monopoly power which could bring a vital national industry to its knees.
I might very briefly refer to the history of this dispute. The essence of the dispute is the difference between the union and the employer over the money clause. The parties were assisted in their attempts to reach a settlement by a three-man conciliation board, one nominated by the union, one by the employer, and a chairman agreed on by the parties. All three members of the conciliation board concurred in recommending an 8 per cent increase in total compensation. This unanimous recommendation was made after giving due consideration to AIB guidelines.
It has been an accepted procedure in our attempts to reach a settlement in a dispute to go along with a conciliation board report. There is added justification when the board report on the major item at issue is unanimous, as this one in the air traffic controllers' dispute was. Hon. members will recall that
August 9, 1977

we proceeded to a settlement on the basis of Commissioner Perry's report in the west coast grain industry dispute, and on the basis of the report of Judge Gold, acting as a commissioner in the St. Lawrence River longshoring dispute.
Two major obstacles to a settlement relate to rates of pay before conversion and rates of pay resulting from conversion with respect to reclassification of jobs. The content of the revised classification standard has been essentially agreed to, although there is disagreement as to the slotting of some jobs within the new standard.
Dealing with the rates of pay before conversion, it is clear from the record that what Treasury Board negotiators agreed to was the maximum permissible level under the guidelines in terms of 8 per cent total compensation. On the rates of pay applicable after conversion, that is, the cost of conversion, CATCA says the cost is to be excluded from the application of the AIB guidelines. The employer says it must be included in the guidelines allowable. This is consistent with AIB guidelines. In essence, CATCA demanded an increase of more than 12.6 per cent, when the guidelines would allow a maximum of 8 per cent.
If the employer were to capitulate to the CATCA demand in the face of a strike threat, or now an existing strike, the government would be condoning a settlement in excess of the AIB guidelines. Such a solution is clearly unacceptable. The government could then be accused, with justification, of asking for restraint from business and labour in the private sector and not practising restraint in negotiations with its own employees.
The government could allow the strike, now that it has been called, to run its course. That is one alternative. This might be seen by some as being compatible with free collective bargaining. But should the strike last for a considerable period, or even for a few more days, the public would be held for ransom and the airlines subjected to punishing damage. The government, then, has introduced this bill to end a dispute which can only, unfortunately, go from bad to worse, by requiring the air traffic controllers to return to work immediately.
It is with great reluctance that we have called upon Your Honour to bring back the House to deal with this emergency bill, but it is the view of the government that it is in the national interest that parliament should give this measure its unanimous approval.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say first of all, through you, to all members of the House and to the government that this party is prepared to support the intent of the legislation and address itself to the most vital issue before us today, which is the need for the resumption of air traffic in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Air Traffic Controllers


John Allen Fraser: I say this because we are acutely aware of the damage, inconvenience and unfair effects of a strike like this upon innocent members of the public. But we are also aware that this is a strike which ought never to have taken place. Indeed, it would never have taken place if the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) had conducted the negotiations on some other basis than bullying, confrontation and sheer stubbornness.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Allen Fraser: It is all very well for hon. members and for people in the media and in other places to decide that because a strike has now occurred, all the blame lies with the union. I do not even think the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) would go that far. But that suggestion lies under the surface in this chamber and in other places. The fact is, the blame does not all lie with the union.
For many years the government has constantly talked about the right to strike, yet has consistently refused to act in accordance with our insistence that some mechanism be provided to do two things-to deal with those areas which involve essential services and where the government knows it will bring in legislation to end a strike in any event, and other cases where a strike might not begin as an "essential service" strike but the ultimate effect of which upon the economy might be such as to justify its conclusion, in the public interest.
The Minister of Labour says, "Don't take away the right to strike; don't have compulsory arbitration", and so on. There is nothing more compulsory than that which is being done here today. The Minister of Labour gave us all the reasons why this lawful strike should not be taking place. Then he says, "This does not mean we do not think the right to strike should exist in this particular area". He cannot have it both ways. The Minister of Labour is trying to say, "Don't, whatever you do, think we would restrain the right to strike under any circumstances at all except those circumstances under which we think it should not be exercised".
If we are to find a way by which in certain areas the country is not, to quote the minister's words, to be held up to ransom, we must find a way to deal with situations such as this. If Your Honour would read the speeches I have made on various occasions on behalf of my party when strikes have been settled by legislation, you would find I have repeatedly urged the government to devise a mechanism which would solve this difficulty. What happened to the Woods report? The minister will no doubt say that the Woods report was handed down a long time ago. It certainly was. But it did deal with this problem, and whatever the defects in its recommendations may have been, it certainly recognized the nature of the difficulty we face.
The minister began by seeking the general sympathy of the nation by describing the inconvenience, familiar to everyone, which a lot of people are suffering. Then he tried to persuade us, by strange logic, that it did not matter because the collective bargaining system was working in cases of this kind. It is too laughable for words. Nothing will be done, Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
August 9, 1977
Air Traffic Controllers
Speaker, until the Minister of Labour and others on the government side admit that in certain cases the right to strike, though it may be de jure, is not de facto. Hon. members opposite know this to be a true statement of the position. It was said during the railway strike some years ago by the negotiators for the railway unions that the right to strike was a myth, that it existed only provided it was not used or was ineffective.
What has happened in this case? Under the Public Service Staff Relations Act, CATCA elected to take the conciliation strike route which was laid out by the government in legislation years ago. What has the Minister of Transport done? He has said to CATCA, "I intend to make up my mind as to what you should get, and if you don't agree with me I shall legislate what 1 think you should get and legislate you back to work if you go on strike". Where is the arbitrator in all this, the other side of the public service staff relations procedure? Mr. Speaker, if a union does not wish to take the strike route, it chooses the arbitration route and accepts binding arbitration.
What the government has done is this: it set up legislation and told the union it could take its choice. The strike route was chosen. Then the government told them it was not acceptable and declined even to substitute an arbitrator. The arbitrator is the Minister of Transport, with his notion of what the settlement ought to be. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what would you do if this were not a public service union? What would you do if it were a union which came under the federal government, under the Canada Labour Code, and got into difficulties. Suppose it were the CNR or a public owned railway such as the CNR which came to parliament and said, "Our fellows will not settle on anything reasonable. We have our own views as to what the settlement should be, and we want the House of Commons to legislate them back to work on terms agreeable to us". Would that be fair? Would this House accept such a proposal? No. Yet this is what has happened today.
We agree that the strike should not have taken place, but we say a good deal of the blame for it lies right over there in the seat of the Minister of Transport.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Allen Fraser: Lest hon. members think I am being too hard on the hon. gentleman-


Otto Emil Lang: You do not even get one fact right.


John Allen Fraser: The fact that I have got right is that there is no way of getting to the Minister of Transport. Logic does not do it; facts will not do it. The minister said to CATCA, "We have a disagreement here as to what the level of compensation should be". So what did he suggest to them? "If you put your 12.6 per cent up in the agreement, we will put our 7.4 per cent up in the same agreement and put it before the Anti-Inflation Board and let them take their choice." Mr. Speaker, the board is not there to act as an arbitrator, but as the determinator of its own rules and guidelines. The minister said, " If the AIB agrees to 12.6 per cent, I will accept it." This is the kind of talk which was going on before the strike.

There is another matter which has to be considered. If the Minister of Transport intended to take the step of seeking the legislation which the Minister of Labour has brought down, why was the bill not brought down last week? Why was it delayed? The point is this: we have said for years that this kind of situation has to be faced openly and frankly by members of this House. I do not have to tell anyone that the public will not put up with it any longer. That is why the legislation has come in, and the Minister of Labour is aware of that.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: He is not interfering with the right to strike.


John Allen Fraser: Not at all. He is just eliminating it, and he is not even substituting arbitration. How much longer do we have to contend with the Minister of Labour making the same speech? It is not difficult for him to make his speech, because it has a familiar ring to it. We have all heard it before. It is all down in Hansard.


John Carr Munro: Not that often.


John Allen Fraser: We will see about that. Just before the election in 1972-


John Carr Munro: That was five years ago.


John Allen Fraser: That is right. It occurred in 1973, once again. Following that there was the grain handlers' strike and the legislation which was introduced. In 1975 there was the longshoremens' legislation. Then there was the Halifax settlement, others-


James McPhail Gillies: Once a year.


John Allen Fraser: Yet the Minister of Labour sits in his place and says, "Not that often".


John Carr Munro: Once a year.


John Allen Fraser: It is always the same thing.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Set a record.


John Allen Fraser: The hon. minister does not have to get new speechwriters; he can merely pick up an old speech. But it does not sound any better today than it did in the past. The Minister of Labour said there were fewer strikes in Canada today, based on statistics. This is a fact most of us are aware of and are pleased about. But those statistics do not relate to this kind of difficulty. The difficulty has to be faced squarely. It has been almost ludicrous to watch the government party over the last number of days completely divide on what its position really is.


An hon. Member:: Horizontal.


John Allen Fraser: I am referring to its position in respect of the entire labour relations problem. The Minister of Transport got out in full flight-which he has done before at public expense-over the weekend, putting forth his utterances as to
August 9, 1977

how the world should unfold. The right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made short work of those utterances today. If one can allude to a rug or a flying carpet being under the hon. Minister of Transport, it was pulled out from under him.


An hon. Member:: We hope so.


John Allen Fraser: The Prime Minister made it quite clear that he was not going along with anything the Minister of Transport said or was reported as having said. There were things he did not remember saying, but someone finally got them down straight and he remembered saying them. As recently as yesterday the Minister of Labour made it clear that he did not want anyone to think he agreed with the Minister of Transport.


Walter David Baker: Very convenient.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I read that in the paper this morning.


Mr. Paproski:: Even Horner could have done a better job.


John Allen Fraser: I am not suggesting that everything about labour relations in Europe is necessarily better or applicable in this country. I would be the last person to suggest-and the Minister of Labour is aware of this-that you can take situations which happen in other countries and transplant them into our milieu. But in a number of countries, air traffic controllers are operating basically within the same technical range of problems, with the same basic sophistication of equipment and the same responsibility. However, their record of continuance of service is amazingly better than in this country. I am referring to nations such as the United States, Great Britain, West Germany, France, Sweden, Holland, Belgium and others.
Is it beyond the measure of this House to suggest we find out why it works elsewhere, and not here? Is it beyond the measure of this House to put aside the rhetoric of the right to strike and decide to figure out proper settlements, fair settlements, settlements which will confirm an even number of highly qualified people to serve the public, without always getting into a confrontation and strike action? What will happen at the end of December of this year? The whole thing will start again.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: At the same time as a mail strike.


John Allen Fraser: We may well have another strike, and we will receive the same speech from the Minister of Labour.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Use pony express.


John Allen Fraser: The bill before us has been changed in one substantive area, which is that clause 6 has been deleted because of discussions between myself, on behalf of this party, and the Minister of Labour. The Minister of Transport put those clauses in and he would have had us say to this particular union, "If you break the law we will increase the penalties against you. We will amend the Public Service Staff Relations Act to apply against your union and take away the provision
Air Traffic Controllers
whereby you have to go before the Public Service Staff Relations Board for consent to prosecute".


Walter David Baker: That was Otto's idea.


John Allen Fraser: What kind of discrimination is that? Has the Minister of Transport an ongoing war with CATCA? Is he suggesting that one sector of the public service ought to be treated differently from others? Good sense prevailed, and the clause is not there now.


Walter David Baker: Otto Lang lost another one.


John Allen Fraser: 1 compliment the Minister of Labour for that. There is a clause we cannot support in its present form. I am referring to clause 5(4) which indicates that the schedule of remuneration as determined by the Minister of Transport will be the schedule of remuneration unless notice is given and the Public Service Staff Relations Board provides an arbitrator to vary any one of those particular payments or rates of income. That is, provided it does not exceed, in the aggregate, what the Minister of Transport thinks the Anti-Inflation Board rules are.
In the last 18 months there have been ten cases of agreements reached between the government and public service unions. In eight of those ten cases, for different reasons the Anti-Inflation Board accepted a level of compensation higher than that which the government had been insisting upon in negotiations. It is not something which has never happened before, as the Minister of Transport indicates. This form of legislation, where the Minister of Transport will say, "This will be your settlement, and that is the end of it", is completely wrong. If it is necessary to legislate back-to-work legislation, that is completely the wrong way of doing it.


An hon. Member:: Right on.


John Allen Fraser: We have said repeatedly that the correct procedure is to order people back to work and then put the issue before arbitration in order for the matter of compensation and terms to be argued.


John Carr Munro: It is not Otto; it is the unanimous reports of conciliators.


John Allen Fraser: I hear the Minister of Labour referring to unanimous reports of conciliators. He referred to a report on the west coast where there was one conciliator. It was unanimous, but the employers did not agree with it. The minister should refer to the Gold report concerning the three-port strike on the river. We approved of that, but we said then that it was a dangerous precedent. It is a dangerous precedent today because if working people in this country are going to accept a settlement, then we cannot impose it upon them; it must go to a tribunal independent of this chamber.
There is another reason, Mr. Speaker. Hon. members are not prepared and trained, and do not have the necessary
80020 -52

August 9, 1977
Air Traffic Controllers
knowledge, to deal with the complexities of actually negotiating a settlement. That point has been accepted by all hon. members. Yet this piece of legislation flies in the teeth of that belief. The proper thing to do under these circumstances is to amend the legislation so that CATCA is ordered back to work on the basis of the new schedule I as set out by the minister, which I am informed they will accept, with the right to go to arbitration to resolve the other issues. They will then accept the arbitrator's decision. That is the proper and fair way to handle the matter. We will be moving a motion to that effect this afternoon.
I want to emphasize that this party supports the objective of the legislation. The matter before the Elouse is, first and foremost, the resumption of air traffic in this country. This party is prepared, subject to the amendments 1 have suggested-which need not take a great deal of time-to support this legislation; and whether or not we are successful in our amendments, we will support the legislation in the interest of resuming air traffic in Canada.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the government, these masters of mendacity, have done it again. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) opened the debate, and in my notes I have a series of observations to the effect that this is bad legislation connected to an unnecessary strike produced by an incompetent government. I will add another little phrase, "not only an incompetent, but a dishonest government".
I listened with very great interest to the minister's opening remarks and I was particularly touched by his moving description of the relative improvement in strike situations in Canada. I think he said that we had a 67 per cent improvement-


John Allen Fraser: Sixty-three per cent.


John Edward Broadbent: Yes, a 63 per cent improvement in terms of reduced strikes. Obviously, the minister did not make any direct connection with the controls program, with the fact that it did not make much sense for workers to go on strike, if they contravened the law of Canada. Being law-abiding citizens, most workers do not do that sort of thing. I would have thought there was some connection between that improvement and the controls program, which some people have, not inappropriately, described as fascism with a human face. If the minister is really concerned about the record of labour in Canada this year, he would have been more concerned with another statistic which the government has produced, to the effect that some two billion man-hours have been lost because of unemployment. That is the record of the government so far in 1977.
Let me come to the point about mendacity. The minister got to his feet and said that it moved him to tears almost to bring in such legislation, because workers in this great, free society do have the right to strike. I do agree that at some point, even when there is a right to strike, a government which is responsible has to move in and say that in the public good this right has to be sacrificed. 1 do not think there is a contradiction
there. In a free society you often have conflicts in rights, liberties and obligations and you have to choose. But it is a phony argument to give the right to strike to a group of workers and then to tell them, before they even act upon the right to strike, that the government will bring in legislation. That, to me, is hypocritical. You cannot have that argument. I agree with the Conservative party on this: logically, you cannot have it both ways. If you give the right to strike to a particular sector, then the workers must exercise that right, if it is to mean anything at all. That is my first point.
More significantly, Mr. Speaker, the minister said that a conciliation board report was made. He said that the conciliation board made a unanimous recommendation which the government was acting on. Implicitly, the minister said, "Therefore, how can any reasonable person not accept this conciliation board report presented by representatives of labour as well as 'the bad guys'"? I wondered what the minister was talking about, so I checked. As the minister knows very well, the reclassification issue, which is the essence of this strike, was beyond the terms of reference of the conciliation board. The minister knows full well that when the conciliation board recommended solutions to the government and the union, it said in its report that the reclassification issue was something that the government had to work out with the union.
Did the minister tell the House that the conciliation board had looked at the 8 per cent package and had made a unanimous recommendation? Did he say that they had examined the issue which this strike is all about? He did not tell us that at all. He deliberately tried to leave the impression with the House and with the people of Canada that the union involved was going against a conciliation board report that was unanimous. In that respect I say he misled the House and he was trying to mislead the people of Canada.
I want to come to what I think the strike is all about. I say at the outset that if you look at the half-dozen pieces of back-to-work legislation which have been brought before the House of Commons, you will see that my party has supported more than half of them. We have not taken the position, under all the circumstances, that the right to strike is sacred and can never be sacrificed at all. That is not the case. Sometimes, as I said at the outset, the public interest will require a shift and will require that some rights be traded-off against others. But what we object to, and why we are opposed to this bill-and not only state our opposition, as have the Conservatives, but will vote against it unless there is some change-is that the government produced this strike It was not CATCA. It was not a group of working people in Canada who produced this strike. The government of Canada and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) are responsible.
The reason I reached this conclusion is that there is one point of substance that distinguishes the position of the government from that of the union. The point of substance concerns reclassification. As we all know from public statements made

August 9, 1977

by Treasury Board officials, by ministers, by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) himself, and from private conversations I have had in the past 24 hours with the ministers and with the Prime Minister, the issue revolves around two different approaches. The government has said that they will not go beyond the 8 per cent. Their analysis of CATCA's proposals, their reading of the ideas presented by the union, was that by including the reclassification proposal of CATCA, the guidelines of the AIB would be broken; therefore, they would not go beyond 8 per cent.
I say that the government can make at least a reasonable case for its interpretation; I agree with that. What the union has said is that if you look at the regulations which flow from the AIB, you can make a good case for saying that in addition to the 8 per cent there is roughly another 4.5 per cent to which the workers are entitled because of the reclassification that has been accepted by the government.
I want to get back to the cause of the strike. For once, I share the Prime Minister's view of the media. I say to those ladies and gentleman in the press gallery, "You have some obligation for once to convey the honest and accurate position of a group of workers in Canada to the people of Canada, so that they will understand that this government is responsible for the strike".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: What the union has said is, "Don't accept our position as a condition of agreement for keeping the planes flying. Simply submit our submission to the AIB for decision, and we will abide by it". They said, "We will not go out on strike if you give us a contract which says we will receive 8 per cent now, and beyond the 8 per cent the AIB make a decision. We think we are justified in getting that". The union can point to letters which go back over two years when the government indicated they favoured investigating reclassification, and they can point to all kinds of data to support their case. All they are saying is, "Don't accept our position; but you, the government, could have the honesty and decency to put the package to the AIB. We will abide by the results, and we will not go out on strike if you do that".
What did the government do? Hypocritically, I think, they tried to have it both ways. They said, "All right; we will submit the two approaches to the AIB, the 8 per cent with which we agree and the 12.5 per cent with which we do not agree, and we will accept the recommendations of AIB". As recently as yesterday-I quote verbatim what the Prime Minister said at the press conference with reference to CATCA- the Prime Minister said:
CATCA rejected the possibility of signing within the guidelines as we see them and as we think AIB will see them, with the possibility that if AIB says more would be possible, they would get more.
The Prime Minister is saying that the government would accept the 12 per cent if the AIB so ruled. I ask, why were they so hypocritical in their approach, or at least not serious in their bargaining with the CATCA people, when they said, "Submit the two approaches to AIB"? What the government
Air Traffic Controllers
is saying to the union is that the AIB should become the arbitration board, which it is not. It is a misuse of the AIB to follow that approach.
Second, from the union's point of view they were saying to the workers in Canada, "Why don't you submit this bargaining item to the AIB and hope that they will choose the richer package?" They are saying that if the two are submitted, the AIB may come down and choose the richer. Surely at this point in our history, when Canadians are so concerned about inflation and unemployment, it was reasonable for the union to say that it did not make sense for them to submit a richer and a poorer package because, quite plausibly, it is more likely the AIB would accept the poorer package. So the union, quite correctly, rejected this approach. They said, "Let us not, because the AIB is not an arbitration board, have them solve the dispute between us and the government; and let us not, on behalf of our members, take the chance that they will opt for the poorer package when we think we are entitled to the richer package".
I think that is a responsible approach. But beyond that-this is the message I want to give, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the people of Canada-this union was not insisting that the government accept the richer package. All the union said was, "If you submit that particular package to the AIB, we will accept their decision." I repeat that Treasury Board had indicated they would accept the richer package if the AIB ruled on it. If that had been done, there would have been no strike, parliament would not be sitting now, and thousands of Canadians from coast to coast who have been inconvenienced would not have suffered the consequences of the strike.
As recently as yesterday I consulted the union to clarify this approach in order to make sure that that is what they had in mind. I read the reports during the weekend. They spoke to our party and to other parties in the House of Commons. It became clear that that was the issue. Following that, I spoke with the Prime Minister twice and said to him, "The union has said that the country would be back to normal within six hours, its members back to work, and the planes could be flying if you modify your approach. You said the richer package is acceptable if the AIB rules on it. Why don't you submit it to the AIB and let them decide?" If the government had done that, CATCA says that planes would have been flying within six hours. But the government said no because, I suspect, a guy named Otto Lang locked them, again, into a stupid position, an arbitrary position.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: He locked them into an unfair position, one that totally vitiated the whole rationale of reasonable bargaining procedures. It is for that reason my party will have nothing to do with this law. We think it is unfair and discriminating, and that it does not even follow past government respecting the AIB.
Let me add a footnote to that. I have a whole list, with which I will not bore the House, of previous contracts the government submitted to the AIB which went beyond the
80020-52'/2

August 9, 1977
Air Traffic Controllers
arithmetical guidelines, and the government took the position that the AIB would accept some and reject others. That is exactly what happened. I could read into the record a list of contracts with the government's own employees, in some of which arithmetical guidelines have been acceded to and others ruled employees back to work. If the government had persisted with its own procedures with the AIB, and if it were consistent, it would have done for CATCA what it did for discriminating, unfair practices. Therefore, unless the government makes a change that we will be proposing in committee, we will be voting against this bill.
We realize that the public interest is a very real thing. We realize that Air Canada is losing millions of dollars, and that other companies are losing money. We realize that the public is in jeopardy. Therefore, public interest does weigh on our minds as well. But it is very important, when we are sacrificing rights, that we do so in the knowledge of what is going on, particularly in the knowledge of who is to blame. I say it is wrong in this instance to blame a group of Canadian men and women who are working from coast to coast for the kind of action that this government put on the country.
So we will be proposing, at committee stage of the bill, an amendment-which I will not read out now-which will have the effect of creating an arbitrator, which has been the past practice, I might add, of the back-to-work legislation proposed by the government, whose function will be to decide whether the richer package proposed by CATCA is, or is not, within the guidelines, and if it is within, that they would be entitled to receive the financial benefits of that package, subject of course to AIB approval.
I appeal in a sombre and serious note to the Minister of Labour and say to him, "If the government wants to be consistent with its own previous back-to-work legislation"-I am now going by memory-"which included the appointment of an arbitrator who would not have", as he has in this bill, "a ceiling beyond which he cannot go, it should accept my amendment". On first analysis there is some reason for the inclusion of the ceiling under the controls program, but I submit that a crucial part of the negotiations hinge on the interpretation of the controls program and therefore that it is wrong to put in that ceiling. The AIB will ensure the guidelines are enforced.
I appeal to the Minister of Labour to consider accepting this amendment, which would entail having an arbitrator look at the government's proposal and at what CATCA says is legitimate, and then decide one way or the other. If the CATCA proposal is deemed by an independent arbitrator to be consistent with the guidelines, the government should live up to its earlier statements and give the workers what they would get from that richer package. That is the kind of amendment we will propose, and I submit that that is fully consistent with the government's own past back-to-work legislation. It is fully consistent with its own philosophy, and if implemented it
[Mr. Broadbent.l
would bring some degree of justice to workers who in this circumstance have been very unfairly treated.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-Labour Conditions-Pensions for retired railway employees-Government action; the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard)-Environmental Affairs-Pollution of Great Lakes-Possibility of changing timetable for corrective action by industry; the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall)-Veterans Affairs-Request for Increase in disability pension-Government position.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Munro (Hamilton East): That Bill C-63, to provide for the continuation of air traffic control services, be read the second time and referred to the Committee of the Whole House.
Mr. Charles-Eugene Dionne (Kamouraska):: Mr. Speaker, once again the members of the House of Commons have been recalled to pass back-to-work legislation for hundreds of workers who have seen fit to strike as a result of a misunderstanding with the authorities of air transport services. It is not the first time that such a thing has happened. A few years ago, we were recalled in similar circumstances in connection with the CN employees and longshoremen. It should be normal as a result of such cases for the government to pass more flexible legislation to avoid such conflicts. The labour legislation must be designed to maintain some balance between the just demands of workers and the requirement of the common good.
In public services, the economic powers proceeding from the right to strike should be replaced by a proper mechanism to adjust wages according to the cost of living index.
I understand that it becomes rather difficult in a control period but we are now at least approaching a decontrol period. After controlling, they are now trying to decontrol. Obviously,
August 9, 1977

under such circumstances, it becomes more difficult to adjust the wages of a team of air services employees.
We should stop thinking in terms of compulsory contributions or conciliation and consider instead a fairer distribution of the enterprise's profits and the workers' wages. With all the inquiry commissions that have been created, with all the civil servants getting various wages, and some of them are quite high, with all those people conducting on-going studies on the ways to improve the employees' working conditions in Canada, it seems to me that it should be possible to find a just solution. Obviously, this solution will not be found without efforts, but the present situation teaches us that we must take the appropriate means if we really want to avoid anarchy.
There are important factors to be considered when establishing an employee's working conditions. We must not forget that the employee is a human being, not a machine, and that he is looking for security and stability. In general terms, he wants his working place to be well organized and well managed. It is normal that he should be treated with justice. The employee also wants to be informed on his employer's business situation so as to know he may get a fair income. Those are basic realities. In no circumstances should an employee endanger his life to earn a living. Workers are the first naturally entitled to know clearly and fully their specific working conditions. They should also have the possibility to refuse, without any salary loss, to do a work they consider dangerous for their health and security till a decision is made by an authorized committee.
Workers' health and security must be fully secured, regardless of any ideology which in any case could not disturb with impunity the scientific data more and more verifiable by both parties. It is important to emphasize that man, not profit, should be the central point of any social project if we want to have the privilege of being part of the establishment of the new economic order which is more and more referred to by the most thoughtful people.
Basically this implies a new moral order or a new scale of values. Workers, through their organizations are and remain the main factors of change as far as their whole collective development and progress are concerned. All workers should understand that unionism is not an end in itself but a means of ensuring the promotion and the progress of workers in general. Considering that this means is limited they must seek and accept the methods which can help them meet the objectives of unionism.
In this age of automation, the worker is a man or a woman who is concerned about the future and anxious to take full advantage of technological progress. The worker's concern stems from the fact that he is aware that our society is not organized to distribute fairly this new wealth produced by science, technology and machine with a minimum of human participation. The worker lives in a society which is unable to adapt itself properly to progress.
On July 5, 1972, during a debate on the longshoremen's strike, 1 told the House that we were living in a system so unbalanced that citizens have concluded that certain grievances can be settled only by striking. However, we must
Air Traffic Controllers
logically recognize that everything that has been accomplished in the world is the result of work. No one can deny this. How is it that thousands of workers decide that their problems can be solved by a work stoppage? A strike is simply illogical. It is a phenomenon related to various generalized illnesses and which becomes a hypothetical means of pressure since the decision to strike must be submitted to a vote and since decisions are often made by only a percentage of the workers involved.
In general, strikes are aimed against those who pay instead of those who deprive. I am surprised to see that in the many strikes that occur in Canada, the workers have a tendency to strike against those who pay them instead of organizing a true general strike, as they should, against the financial system which is depriving everyone. This would be somewhat more logical in my opinion.
You need to have very little imagination or to refuse to see the disastrous results of a financial system divorced from current economic realities not to conclude that strikes are most often the result of demands for salary readjustment or increases. Why? It is very easy to find an answer. Successive wage increases cannot catch up with the increase in the cost of living, and metaphorically speaking, we could say that wages go up by the stairs while consumer prices go up by the elevator.
The evolution of automation, which should be beneficial, has become the nightmare of thousands of workers in the present system.
The various employee associations seem to want the industry or the employer to absorb all the expenses that result from mechanized installation, as well as wage readjustments and all the demands brought about by a sick financial system.
I have often underlined the delays caused by ever more strikes and I added that sometimes it was a necessary evil which we should avoid spreading.
One of the well known leader of the American labour movement, Mr. George Meany, once pointed out that in unduly protracted conflicts employees bear a financial burden disproportionate to the advantages they could gain from a confrontation and it is actually a fact.
Given the present situation and the lack of provisions in a legislation which is not adopted to the circumstances, we wonder if some solution other than a settlement imposed by Parliament could not be found under the present circumstances.
Unfortunately, we come to the conclusion that the answer is no. There is no alternative to settling that problem other than ordering a return to work through government legislation. It is to be hoped that this legislation will be adopted and that strikers will realize their responsibilities.
The strikers should go back to work without waiting for the adoption of lengthy procedures which do not solve the problems. We already have too many examples of settlements against the workers. We need but mention the case of the employees of G. Lapalme Inc. working for the Post Office

August 9, 1977
Air Traffic Controllers
department. We have suggested repeatedly, and we are not the only ones to have done so, many authorities in the field of labour have as well, the possibility of setting up labour tribunals, real ones. Of the proposals we made in this House, let me quote this one, section 3 which reads as follows:
(3) to make an adequate evaluation of the viability of the undertaking or service, taking into consideration the risks, the cash reserves required to ensure its operations, tax deductions and such formalities as result from tax regulations;
Many things must be taken into account.
A labour court made up of government, business and workers' representatives to consider regularly questions of relations between workers and management, which would not wait six months after the expiration of contracts to begin negotiations. At the time of contract renewal, on-going negotiations should take place and every interested party should be made aware of the proposals, because worthy investigations would have been made by representatives of all parties concerned. At that time, I have good reason to believe that the workers, who are as intelligent as anybody else of any other class of people, would understand that, due to circumstances, this offer would be acceptable. I am wondering whether those responsible for air services did not hesitate too much. I have here an article written by Michel Roy of Le Devoir who is certainly aware of a number of things, because he writes, and 1 quote:
CATCA proposed to the government to conclude the agreement and submit the whole thing to the Anti-Inflation Board, feeling that it would have to make the distinction in its analyses between a wage increase benefiting all controllers and a wage increase resulting from a reclassification. The union representatives are even prepared to give the undertaking and abide by the decision of the board when it is made.
I believe this unfortunate conflict could have been avoided.
The government, for its part, refused to refer a wage settlement to the board-
But why did we set up that famous board? For a year and a half we discussed in committee the possibility of setting up a board. It seems to me to be inoperative at this time.
And that is why all commercial aviation in this country has been paralyzed for the past 48 hours, with daily losses to air carriers being estimated at more than $5 million without counting opportunities lost by industries that depend on air transport or the hard-to-assess inconveniences of all kinds that thousands of users must undergo.
I think that if there had been a little more goodwill from those in charge that conflict could have been avoided.
I conclude by mentioning the suggestion we made and we continue to make because we have excellent reason to believe it could be right-the formation of a labour court with the responsibilities and the power to decide something. At that time, as I say, I have excellent reason to believe that we would avoid conflicts such as the one we are now faced with.
However, we are not short of examples on which the government could meditate. I have here an article from the newspaper Le Droit of August 31, 1973, under the following heading, and 1 quote:
Strikers Storm Parliament.
It seems to me that this should be reason enough for government members to make up their minds and put forward an adequate labour legislation that would meet the needs of
[Mr. Dionne (Kamouraska).l
the majority of the people. I know full well it is easier to criticize than to govern. But we are really looking for something in the government's proposals that would give a way out. If we had the labour court that would be needed in various regions, with representatives from all interested parties, it would investigate and suggest practical solutions to the parties before a labour agreement had come to an end, and this should be a settlement. I submit the government should do this.


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my comments I want to outline the four major unresolved areas, areas outstanding when negotiations broke off, in order that the government's position will be known and understood. The first concerns money. In changing the system by which air traffic controllers' jobs are classified, there are, of course, assumed automatic increases in pay. It is the government's position that the total compensation received as a result of job reclassification, as well as the negotiated increase in the basic negotiations, is subject to the maximum allowable compensation increase, as set out in the AIB arithmetic guidelines, of 8 per cent. CATCA, on the other hand, is demanding that pay increases which come as a result of the reclassification should be treated separately from those which are negotiated under the collective agreement. Adoption of their version would have meant, in the first year alone, an additional 4.6 per cent compensation increase beyond the arithmetic 8 per cent guidelines.
The government proposed a conversion cost of less than one-half of 1 per cent which, of course, was within the over-all guideline limit of 8 per cent. CATCA, however, rejected that.
I shall return to the point of classification pay in a few minutes. As the leader of the NDP indicated, when you boil it down, that is one of the basic issues in this matter.
The second issue is vacations. CATCA wanted to provide its members with five weeks vacation after 20 years of service. At present, only CATCA and one other union have a contract which provides five weeks vacation after 25 years of service. All other federal public service collective agreements provide for five weeks vacation after 27 years of service or more. The third issue deals with management rights. CATCA is demanding at present that a minimum of two controllers be on duty at all airports at certain times. CATCA also wanted a change of work hours for non-operating controllers. To accede to these two latter demands would increase the number of controllers over-all and increase the cost of operations. More important, it is management's view and management's right to say that it is not necessary from an operational standpoint.
The fourth issue is classification. CATCA was demanding that some 100 jobs be put in a higher classification than the job responsibilities merit.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: There was also the pension issue, was there not?
August 9, 1977


Robert Knight Andras: I am trying to deal with the major outstanding ones, not one where there is a possibility of resolution.
CATCA also wanted a change of work hours for nonoperating controllers. Of course, that-as I have already indicated-would be an additional cost. Realistically-this was pointed out by a previous speaker-the most significant and controversial of these issues is the total increase in compensation payable under the anti-inflation guidelines.
The government is absolutely convinced that 8 per cent is the absolute maximum increase allowable under the AntiInflation Act, and that should include the basic increase and the conversion cost of reclassification for CATCA. The government is not prepared deliberately to sign an agreement which includes and supports or implies support for an increase larger than permissible under the Anti-Inflation Act and its regulations, leaving the onus on the AIB to roll back that excess. The anti-inflation guidelines do provide several conditions under which compensation increases for a group may be exempt from the maximum arithmetic increase permitted under the guidelines, the six plus two in this particular case. The most important of those conditions for exemptions are as follows: first, the historical relationship with another group; second, where there has been persistent and serious recruiting difficulties, as was the case with the prison guards; third, permission to achieve a minimum wage of $3.75 an hour, or $600 per year, whichever is the highest. The fourth would deal with a commitment prior to October 14, 1975, to provide compensation increases to a group.
Obviously, none of the first three conditions apply in the current air traffic controllers' dispute. Nor does the fourth- that is, prior commitment-although 1 think in some peoples minds they considered that possibility. The fourth condition, that of prior commitment, was designed to apply to collective agreements signed before October 14, 1975, which provided increases in the period following that date. Also, it was designed to apply to commitments made, but where contracts had not been formally signed to increase a group's compensation after October 14, 1975.
The Anti-Inflation Board has made it absolutely clear in its regulations and in its pattern of settlements and its decisions that to qualify as an allowable exemption such priority cannot be a simple expression of intent to increase compensation. That commitment must be thoroughly identifiable and capable of quantification in terms of cost.
There is a pattern to this that is absolutely clear. When it is boiled down, as the leader of the NDP has said, the major issue between the Canadian Air Traffic Control Association, Treasury Board and the government is the status of the cost of converting air traffic controllers to the new classification plan. Both time and the terms of reference of the work on that new classification plan disqualified such costs from exemption under the anti-inflation guidelines.
It is very important that I set before hon. members the sequence of events relating to the work of the new classifica-
Air Traffic Controllers
tion plan for the air traffic control group. In early 1975, the Ministry of Transport decided to undertake an internal study of the air traffic control classification standard. In June, 1975, CATCA responded positively to an invitation to take part in that project. The terms of reference of that study were to examine the classification standard for the group, with the objective of determining its strengths and its weaknesses. Following that first phase, a second study was foreseen to look at the causes of problems, to design alternatives and to recommend specific courses of action.
On October 1, 1975, the Ministry of Transport sent a copy of the phase one report to the president of CATCA. In the letter which accompanied this report, the ministry indicated that it was studying the report to determine what steps should be taken to remedy some of the problems. It indicated that "one possibility"-I repeat, "one possibility"-under active consideration could be a full-scale revision to the classification standard. The letter indicated that it would seek CATCA's participation in a second phase of the study. Clearly, this report does not indicate any particular course of action. On January 13, 1976, the ministry wrote to the president of CATCA informing him that the conduct of the second phase of the internal study had been approved, and confirmed earlier participation of an executive member of CATCA. That is after the AIB regulations came into effect.
The date, terms of reference and directions are particularly significant in terms of the current disagreement. The terms of reference were to develop a new classification standard for the air traffic control occupational group which would to the greatest extent possible satisfy the following requirements: resolve the problem issues, provide a basis for ensuring equitable salary, and be acceptable to the employer. The committee was also to re-examine the point-rating method of re-evaluation. I want to stress that this was an internal study, because the leader of the NDP, quite rightly, focused on this area of possible prior commitment in some of his comments. When a final proposal was developed, it was to be subject to approval by Treasury Board which, of course, is responsible under the Financial Administration Act.
Consequently, in terms of the Anti-Inflation Board compensation bulletin I, and that board's ruling on what constitutes a commitment made prior to October 14, 1975, Treasury Board is convinced that nothing in the actions taken prior to October 14, 1975, constitutes a prior commitment that would exempt the cost of introducing a new classification plan from the application of the anti-inflation guidelines.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, in June, 1976, CATCA signed its first collective agreement after the anti-inflation program was in effect. There was no demand for a new classification plan when they signed that agreement, and no claim for exemption of resultant costs from anti-inflation guidelines. CATCA clearly does not have a case of prior commitment in terms of a classification program. If they had had a belief in that prior commitment, they certainly would not have turned down the government's offer to include CATCA's position in a signed agreement to be sent to the AIB. With the permission of the

August 9, 1977
Air Traffic Controllers
House, I am quite prepared to table the letters to support the government's contention in that argument. I am prepared to table the two letters referred to, as well as the terms of reference of phase two of the study. I am in the hands of hon. members.
I am satisfied that a case has been established that in the most crucial aspect of this dispute, that is, the classification area, there was no prior commitment. Therefore, there is no justification to include it within the exemptions to the guidelines, which would have been the only alternative the government would have supported.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. minister, but I should seek the consent of the House to table the documents. Is there consent for the minister to table the documents?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Speaker, would the minister permit a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) wishes to ask a question of the minister. Does the minister accept a question?


Robert Knight Andras: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


David Orlikow: If it was as clear as the minister suggested, that implementation of the classification and the rates of pay required under that classification would breach the arithmetic guidelines as established by the anti-inflation legislation and the board, why was the government not prepared to submit that agreement to the Anti-Inflation Board? And if it is as clear as the minister says, that it would breach the guidelines of the Anti-Inflation Board, would they not scale down the rates as they have in respect of so many other agreements?


Robert Knight Andras: That gives rise to the question of the method of submitting it. I have said we are not going to sign an agreement when we clearly believe that it implies support for an increase above the maximum AIB guidelines. We did say we totally disagreed with CATCA's position, and we clearly set forth our position that 8 per cent was the maximum. But in the final moments of the negotiation we said they could test that 12.6 which included 4.6 due to the classification pay conversion which we were satisfied would not be accepted by the AIB. There was an opportunity for them to test it.


John Edward Broadbent: Would the minister permit a further question? I apologize for having been out of the House for a few minutes, as I had to be, but I believe I caught the gist of the hon. gentleman's argument, which was that there was no prior commitment on the question of reclassification. I have a series of letters, going back some 2Vi years, between the Ministry of Transport and the union about making it clear that the
[Mr. Andras.1
government and the union were interested in discussing the reclassification issue.
I am asking the minister whether he disputes this, and if he does not, whether he would not agree there is nothing in the anti-inflation law, and nothing in the regulations issued in pursuance of that law, which says that for workers to get benefits as a result of reclassification there has to be a written prior agreement in principle. The minister nods. He is now telling us there is such a regulation. I have looked for such a regulation but have not found it. To save time, could he tell the House where we can find this regulation which says there has to be prior agreement, in principle, on reclassification?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I used the expression "pattern of settlement" or "pattern of decision" in relation to the AntiInflation Board. They have not accepted anything but a clear and quantifiably accountable commitment.


John Edward Broadbent: In how many cases?


Robert Knight Andras: I cannot give the hon. member that information off the top of my head, but I do not know of any cases where there has not been a clearly established prior commitment. I think the letters I have tabled may be the same as those to which the hon. member has referred, and they come nowhere close to the question of a quantifiable increase due to reclassification, or even imply that such a decision had finally been taken. The point which the hon. member has raised is an important one.


John Edward Broadbent: My information is that there is only one case. There may well be many more where there has been a prior commitment. If that is the situation, it is going very far if one generalizes from a single incident. Apart from that, there is another question I should like to ask the minister. Just because the board decided that in its opinion a written prior commitment was essential in cases upon which a favourable ruling could be made, is the board precluded, in terms of the law or the regulations or even of its own practices, from deciding that in this particular case-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I believe the hon. member is abusing the rules. In asking these questions and intervening in this way, he is intruding upon the time available to other members who wish to take part in the debate on second reading of the bill.


John Edward Broadbent: We shall do it in committee, then.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In due course, in committee, the hon. member will have all the time he needs.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my intervention in this debate may I say I agree with my leader and with the position taken by my party, that while the right to strike and the collective bargaining process are a necessary and worth-while part of the structure of our society, there are occasions on which in certain circumstances the public right may exceed the smaller right, in this instance
August 9, 1977

the right to withhold services. That smaller right must sometimes be sacrificed.
Surely, though, on such occasions the people whose particular right is being sacrificed for the greater good of the public must be dealt with reasonably, responsibly and in good faith. It is my opinion that in this instance, thanks to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) and the people of Treasury Board, the whole process has been handled in a manner which is irresponsible and which amounts, in my opinion, to nothing more than double-dealing.
This strike was unnecessary in the first place. 1 repeat what my leader said: The government, and in particular the Minister of Transport, caused this strike-and nobody else-and I hope the media will make sure that the people of Canada know who caused the strike, who brought it about. Not only was the strike unnecessary, but it could have been ended as recently as yesterday. I have no hesitation in complimenting my leader upon his activities yesterday. In a positive, responsible manner he met with members of the union and discussed the situation with members of the government, including the Prime Minister, on two occasions with respect to means for bringing the dispute to an end. The planes could have been flying last night. This sitting of parliament was totally unnecessary and would have been even less necessary had the government been willing to make one relatively minor change of heart.
I agree the strike must be brought to an end; there is no argument on that score from any corner of the House. But we in the NDP disagree with the terms and conditions laid down in the bill. I say this bearing in mind particularly the precedents set in back-to-work legislation in the past nine years. Some half dozen bills of this nature, at least, have been passed in my experience during that time. On each occasion there has been a genuine attempt by all concerned in the House to make sure that the rights of the individual workers which were to be sacrificed for the benefit of the public as a whole were borne in mind in the shape of legislation which is clear, responsible and straightforward.
The government must legislate to end the strike, but only in a manner which is fair and consistent. Mr. Speaker, this bill is not consistent with the practices we have followed in the past, let alone with the feelings of members on the opposition side. This is the first time we have departed from the principles I have mentioned, and it is not a good precedent. Surely, parliament should not be dictating the pay package when dealing with its own employees.
In light of the precedents and in light of the practices of the government, let alone proposals by members opposite, the appointment of an arbitrator to decide on what the pay package shall be is surely the least that needs to be done. We understand air traffic controllers would be willing to accept and abide by the appointment of an arbitrator. On other occasions parliament legislated pay packages when it was dealing with employees in the private sector. At no time has parliament legislated a pay package for some of its own
Air Traffic Controllers
employees. Invariably the provision was included in the legislation that it would be decided by an independent arbitrator.
This particular group of employees comes under the aegis of the Public Service Staff Relations Act, which is under the jurisdiction of the government House leader. As I understand it, this bill should have been brought in by him, because the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) brings in legislation for people affected by the Canada Labour Code. Perhaps the government House leader did not want to touch this with a ten-foot pole. Perhaps the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) was not anxious to introduce it either, and thus the Minister of Labour was stuck with a bad case.
There has been agreement that the crucial item which brought about the breakdown ending in a strike situation was the refusal of the government to do something logical and fair which would have ended, once and for all, any disagreement between the government and the Canadian Air Traffic Control Association as to what was proper under Anti-Inflation Board laws and regulations. The government's refusal to put together a single package which the employees felt had an excellent opportunity of being approved by the Anti-Inflation Board, with the exceptions, conditions and regulations under which they operate, is what caused this strike.
As the President of the Treasury Board mentioned, the issue of reclassification started over 21/2 years ago. The Minister of Transport and the air traffic controllers agreed that there needed to be a reclassification because there has not been one since 1966. Improvements in technology, training, competence and techniques in that particular occupation have been such that reclassification is warranted and justified. In the entire history of labour relations, reclassification automatically results in pay adjustments which will affect the total wage package under contract.
The President of the Treasury Board cannot kid me and the workers of this country that because there was no signed agreement prior to October 14, 1974, there is no provision for approval by the A1B for wage adjustments after reclassification. Over the long history of management-worker negotiations, whenever there has been reclassification in an occupation there has been an upward wage adjustment. It is automatic. Anyone would know that, except the President of Treasury Board, the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Labour. That is one of the reasons people associated with the air traffic controllers' union were confident that AIB, in looking at the package, would take that into consideration when deciding whether the employees' package was within the guidelines.
Air traffic controllers were asking for a package to be sent, even without a signed contract. The President of the Treasury Board referred to a signed contract. There could have been agreement to send the package over to the AIB, wait for a ruling and then sit down and sign a contract based on the ruling. That is all the air traffic controllers wanted. They said repeatedly, before and during this strike, that whatever the AIB ruled, they would accept and abide by. If the government is correct, that 8 per cent was all that could be awarded, the

August 9, 1977
Air Traffic Controllers
AIB would have confirmed that, the air traffic controllers would have agreed and accepted their decision, and there would have been no strike.
If the government is incorrect, and the AIB set a 10 per cent, 10.7 per cent or a 12.44 per cent increase, the air traffic controllers would have accepted that. Treasury Board let it be known that it would accept any kind of decision by the AIB which applied to a money package including rates of pay after reclassification. Thus, there was no problem concerning reaching a settlement. Instead of that, the government got involved in double-dealing. They agreed to send the employees' package, but they would be sending their own package as well.
Since the mandate of the Anti-Inflation Board is to control wages and hold down inflation, I would be surprised if the AIB had taken the higher package after looking at the 7.5 per cent, 8 per cent and 12 per cent packages. If it is faced with a choice, it will pick the lower one. With that deliberate design by the government of sending two packages to the AIB, it was aware that the Anti-Inflation Board would choose the lowest package and there would be no decision as to whether the approximate 4 per cent would be ruled on by the AIB. Thus, it would be out in limbo somewhere.
On two or three occasions the conciliation board indicated that it was not in their mandate to make any recommendations on reclassifications and pensions, but in their reports they indicated that these two issues were pivotal and must be negotiated by the government and the air traffic controllers. That is as far as the conciliation board would go, because of their mandate. In fact, to make any recommendation regarding reclassification was specifically excluded from their mandate by the Public Service Staff Relations Board.
Why did the government indicate that it would send two packages over to the AIB? If I am wrong, I stand to be corrected, but I do not believe there is another instance where this has happened. In fact, in every instance where the government reached agreement with employees, or where there was a settlement by arbitration, only one package was sent to the AIB for their review. However, in this particular instance two packages were to be sent. If that is not designed to double-deal and not bargain in good faith, I do not know what is. This strike was caused by that fact, by the President of the Treasury Board, the Minister of Transport and this government-and by no one else. Even as late as yesterday that is all that would have been needed.
The Prime Minister could have sent a letter over to the Anti-Inflation Board along with the employees' pay package, including the reclassification, and asked for a ruling. I predict that the controllers would have been back to work and the planes flying yesterday if he had done that. It is this irresponsible and stubborn position taken by the government, which is unprecedented, which has caused the strike and which has not allowed it to end sooner.
I have a list of some 24 agreements reached between the government and different groups of its employees, either by

collective bargaining and voluntary agreement, or by arbitration. I would be very surprised if there was not one single instance in these 24 in which the employees wanted one amount and the government offered some other amount. There is not a single instance in these 24 agreements that we have been informed about, reached between February 25 and July 14 of this year, of two packages being sent over to the AIB for review. In every instance, according to the government's own news release, the monetary aspects of the collective agreements were subject to review by the Anti-Inflation Board. This was the case in all of the 24 that I have on my desk, and no doubt there are many others. The agreements involved groups of employees of one hundred or two hundred workers to as many as 14,000, and the increases ranged anywhere from (Ah per cent to a total of 17 per cent over two years.
There is a wide variety of awards in all of these collective agreements, but the government sent only one package over to the AIB, not two. It did not send a government package and an employees' package; it just sent the one package which was subject to review by the Anti-Inflation Board. Surely for the sake of consistency, if nothing else, even though agreement had not been reached on the package it would have been fairer, as well as bargaining in good faith, for the government to say to its employees, "We will send the 8 per cent plus whatever is involved in the reclassification over to the Anti-Inflation Board and we will both accept what the Anti-Inflation Board rules and then sign a contract". But no, there was stubbornness, double dealing, a refusal to be consistent, let alone lack of fairness and bargaining in good faith.
The list is lengthy and I would likely use up an entire 40 minutes reading over all 24 awards, all of which were subject to review by the Anti-Inflation Board. Some of them were approved by the Anti-Inflation Board; other awards were rolled back. Under the Anti-Inflation Board guidelines this provision is built in.
In the case of the controllers, Treasury Board is attempting to prejudge whatever the Anti-Inflation Board might consider to be a settlement within the guidelines. That is surely a new stance on the part of Treasury Board. When negotiating in the past it has submitted agreements to the AIB in excess of the guidelines and has sought approval of the AIB. In some cases the approval was granted, in others it was withheld. In one case the cabinet overruled the AIB and approved a settlement.
In a two year contract between October, 1975, and October, 1977, with the Canadian Postmasters Association, Treasury Board negotiated a settlement of 14.81 per cent in the first year and 9.63 per cent in the second year. The guidelines called for 12 per cent in the first year and 10.8 per cent in the second year. The AIB recommendation approved the entire 14.81 per cent. The negotiated settlement for the first year of the contract was 2.81 per cent in excess of the guidelines for 1975; for the second year the AIB approved the agreement reached of 9.63 per cent.
With the Professional Institute of Public Servants, in a one year contract from July, 1975, to July, 1976, Treasury Board negotiated a settlement of 12.82 per cent. The guidelines
August 9, 1977

provided for 12.21 per cent and the AIB rolled back the settlement to 12.21 percent.
The Public Service Alliance of Canada, negotiating with Treasury Board on behalf of the railway mail clerks, in a two year contract running from January, 1975, negotiated a settlement of 15.6 per cent. The guidelines called for 14 per cent but the Anti-Inflation Board approved the settlement of 15.6 per cent, which is 1.6 per cent above the guidelines. For the year 1977 the railway mail clerks received three increases of 5.8 per cent, 7.3 per cent and 5.1 per cent, totalling 18.2 per cent. This was 3 per cent above the guidelines. The board approved the first two increases taking effect in June, 1977.
In the case of the penitentiary service, in a contract commencing in October, 1976, a settlement of 12.44 per cent was negotiated. The AIB guidelines allowed 8 per cent, yet the AIB recommended and approved the 12.44 per cent. All that the air traffic controllers are asking is that the package they were asking for be submitted to the AIB, and the controllers will abide by the AIB's recommendation.
I also want to deal a little further with why we oppose this bill. We do not oppose the idea of ending the strike and legislating the controllers back to work, but we do oppose using this legislation to depart from the precedents and practices of previous back to work legislation by making no provision for an independent arbitrator to make a decision on the package which would be binding on both sides. Surely we should not sit here and legislate a pay package for the government's employees; that is an unheard of, untenable and indefensible position for this parliament to take, let alone for the government, the President of the Treasury Board, and the Minister of Labour to take.
I am surprised the Minister of Labour has the nerve to present such a bill as this. I recall hearing speeches of his in the House on legislation that did provide for an independent arbitrator in back to work legislation; on those occasions he prided himself in not having parliament legislate a pay package for government employees. Why was this not done in this case? Why the exception? What else is going on which we do not know about? Or is this just another plain case of stubbornness on the part of the Department of Transport? As I have said before in this House, the minister is a walking disaster looking for a place to happen. Everything he has touched since coming to this parliament as a cabinet minister has hurt people. Everything he has tried has caused disputes, fights, arguments, and some measure of disunity or alienation somewhere in the country.
It seems to me that in this instance it was time for the Minister of Labour to stiffen his back and to get this matter settled in a proper, honourable, positive and honest manner. If the Minister of Labour had told his two colleagues, the Minister of Transport and the President of the Treasury Board, to get the package over to the AIB, get their decision and abide by it whatever the ruling, things would be different; but no, the government wants to make the AIB's ruling for them. That is what it wants parliament to do. It would be tempting for the members of the AIB to resign since their
Air Traffic Controllers
functions are being usurped by government legislation which judges awards made under the Anti-Inflation Board legislation and regulations. Surely that is not the position for this parliament to take, let alone the government, and it is the fundamental reason why we cannot vote for this legislation on second reading.
We earnestly hope that the Minister of Labour will persuade his colleagues to accept an amendment, and it does not particularly matter whether it comes from a member of one of the opposition parties or whether it is moved by a government member so long as it does something about an independent arbitrator who would decide on what would be a fair and proper package which both sides can accept, and which will then be subjected to the review of the AIB.
Why should members of the House get the Minister of Transport and the President of the Treasury Board off the hook and out of a mess of their own creation? Why should we be responsible for bailing them out? I hope that, if nothing else, this debate will show to the public how inept and doubledealing these ministers have been and that that has been the basic cause of the strike. I hope that the official opposition will join us. I have listened to their spokesman on this and he did an excellent job of tearing the bill apart-almost as good a job as my leader did-but then he said he will vote for the bill; I do not know why. It is typical of Tories who run on both sides of the street at the same time.
In order to let the government know even more forcefully, it would be the responsibility of members of parliament, particularly on the opposition side, to vote against this legislation on second reading because the government has the majority. We should not be party to bailing out the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Transport because of their stubbornness and ineptness. Why should we be a party to that? If legislation accomplishes that, and it will, and brings an end to the strike, if it returns the matter of the pay package to proper collective bargaining or to the arbitration process, we will have done a good job. But why should we be party to legislation that does not do that? It will do part of it, it will get the controllers back to work, but it will not do the other essential part of making sure that the legislation is fair and that it deals honestly and in good faith with the air traffic controllers.
I urge hon. members to consider what we have to say on this, and I urge them to remember that the precedent being set here could well come back to haunt a subsequent parliament, or even a subsequent session of this parliament, because it is a precedent which we believe is unnecessary and dangerous.
This precedent could allow a subsequent government to use this as an excuse to do the same thing again, and we do not think that is the kind of precedent that should be on the law books of this country. I urge the House to get the government to accept a basic and important change in the legislation for which it will receive greater acceptance, not only from all sides of the House but from the government's own employees. The

August 9, 1977
Air Traffic Controllers
public will feel better about it as well, even though with the planes flying there is still the dispute hanging over our heads, the failure to agree. The agreement that will be now legislated by parliament will be an agreement affecting public service employees. That is not a comfortable position for any of us and it is not something in which we should be involved, so I urge the government to make the changes in the legislation for which we are asking. It will then improve labour relations with the public service and it will be a feather in the cap of all hon. members of the House.


Leonard C. Jones: Mr. Speaker, just think that we left this House last Friday night when negotiations could and should have been taking place between the employer, the Government of Canada, and the employee, the Canadian Air Traffic Controllers Association! Within a very few hours, as a result of the actions of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) and as a result of his abdication of responsibility to the people of this country and to his employees, we were called back by telephone, by telegram and, in my case, even the RCMP were out trying to find out where I was, all at the taxpayers' expense. All that costs a lot of money. Some of us came by jet, some of us came by DC-9, and some of us drove, but, by golly, they got us here. In any event, the bill is one for the taxpayers to pay.
It seems to me that there is an abdication of responsibility by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) and his colleagues. Why is that? It was their responsibility to negotiate a contract. As late as yesterday they had the chance to negotiate. I think every member of the House is prepared to discuss and vote for the clauses in the bill which provide for the resumption of air traffic controllers' services in this country, but the other provisions are terrible. But I think that we should not have to legislate even those provisions to resume air controllers' services when there was a chance to negotiate. This makes me think of one famous bank. I am not particularly proud of banks in this country, but one of them had a report one year which recommended less talks. There was a chance to talk on this agreement, but the government abdicated its responsibility-
Late yesterday CATCA issued a press release which I should like to read into the record. It reads as follows:
In a final effort to reach a negotiated settlement and end the existing air traffic control strike CATCA has made a new offer of settlement to the government. In that offer we have again stated our willingness to accept the Anti-Inflation Board's decision on the question of whether or not wage increases resulting from classification changes are within their regulations.
We have proposed that only CATCA's proposal of an 8% across the board increase, and an additional average increase of 4.6% resulting from classification changes be incorporated in the new agreement and submitted to the AIB for approval. Pending receipt of the AIB approval an interim salary adjustment of 7.43% would be paid to the controllers.
In order to facilitate acceptance by the government of this solution we have agreed to the government's position on all other outstanding bargaining issues. A reply to our proposal was requested as soon as possible, and we again undertook to have the normal air traffic control system in Canada in operation within six hours of a settlement.
If it was not fair of the association to make that final offer, then I do not know what you could call it, but they were stepped upon by their employer, the government.
I have had some dealings with unions throughout the years and I have found that it is never necessary for any union to resort to a strike if the employer is fair and reasonable. In this case the employees went the last mile.
Yesterday afternoon, even after they had started their strike, they went the last mile. But no way; the government was not prepared to negotiate. The government wanted this parliament to assume its responsibility for it. The government abdicated its responsibility not only to the people of Canada, to the airlines and to the employees who are employed by the airlines, but also to the travelling public.
It is not a very nice thing to come from a labour constituency and be asked to legislate people back to work. That is something that happened in the slave trade. People were forced to work. The air traffic controllers wanted to work yesterday, but the government would not accept their proposal. It was a fair proposal. The controllers were prepared to let the AIB settle the matter, but the government knew what the AIB would say. I suggest that the government misinterpreted the whole purpose of the AIB. It is not supposed to replace arbitration boards or arbitrators or any other form of the process of collective bargaining.
The government made itself a dictator to decide how it was going to be done, and it almost declared how the AIB should interpret the guidelines. I suggest that the minister reconsider the wisdom of his ways. We want these people back to work, and I think they would be prepared to go back to work. They indicated that yesterday. Let us pass legislation which would provide for the resumption of air traffic control services, which would provide for an arbitrator or an arbitration board and which would get this over with now, once and for all. However, it should be done in a proper manner, not in the manner outlined by this bill.
I think it is wrong to ask this parliament to reconvene on short notice to pass legislation of this kind. If the government was going to pass legislation of this kind, it could have told us Friday night or even Thursday night. The legislation could have been brought before us at that time. But no, the government puts the taxpayers of this country to more and more expense. I am told that the airlines estimate they are losing $3 million or $4 million a day. Who pays the deficit of one of the airlines, Air Canada? The taxpayers pay that deficit.
Goodness gracious, the money lost in the last two days could have paid any salary increase the air traffic controllers are seeking. This whole thing is an example of mismanagement on the part of the government. It is another example of the abdication of the government's responsibilities. That is what mismanagement is all about.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, we have been asked to pass back-to-work legislation a number of times.
[Mr. Benjamin.1
August 9, 1977

That usually happens after a considerable period of disruption in areas where the public is vitally affected. Elowever, to my knowledge this is the first time we have been asked to pass legislation or informed of the legislation before the negotiations were completed. After a long period of negotiations the union gave notice that it was in a position to go on strike on Monday night and that there would be work stoppages of the rotation type. Those stoppages would no doubt have caused considerable disruption, but certainly not the end of air transportation in Canada. If the union had operated rotating strikes as had been done in the past, the disruption would have been of relatively short duration in particular areas around the country. Undoubtedly some concern would have been caused, but there would not necessarily have been a stand-still in air transportation in our country.
Last Friday the government did not indicate that it had legislation prepared. I gather it did not have it prepared until today because it was indicated to my caucus that there was a particular bill with certain clauses affecting this situation, and that when the bill was introduced it would be a different bill eliminating some very bad aspects. The bill would have involved penalties.
Very shortly after we adjourned on Friday the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) went on television and said that it was his intention to introduce legislation immediately to end the strike which was to take place a number of days hence. I am sure that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) will agree with me that having Saturday, Sunday and Monday to settle a strike with mediators of the calibre of Mr. Kelly, or some others I know of-and certainly most of them are not involved with the Treasury Board-provided a reasonable opportunity to settle that strike.
At that time not only the points which have been mentioned were in contention but there were a number of other points which were in contention on Friday. They were in contention on Saturday, and I gather that it was not until later, on Sunday and Monday, that a number of those points were dropped by the union. They involved important issues about which I am sure the union was concerned. They involved pensions, leave, and familiarization matters. These and other matters which were still in dispute were dropped by the union in return for just referring the issue of wages to the A IB. The union suggested that it could live with that and abide by the decision of the AIB. It seems to me that that was the best time for the Minister of Labour to get involved and to bring in his best mediators to have a look at the situation and to try to correct the bungling which took place, mainly because of the Minister of Transport.
Anyone with a Prussian-like mind can probably develop a disaster out of a reasonably negotiable situation, but after the Minister of Transport made the statements he made I can understand the leadership of that union saying that the only alternative was to shut down and to do it then. I can understand the union not wanting to accommodate the government for the next two or three days. Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?
Air Traffic Controllers


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock tonight.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, before lunch-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Which day?


William Arnold Peters: Well, if you are a rural Canadian you call it lunch; if not, you call it supper. Before we rose at six o'clock 1 was suggesting that the previous negotiations led to the strike, because the Minister of Transport had willed this to happen.
In the two or three days leading up to the strike the union had made a number of concessions which were not met with concessions on the other side, and this is one of our problems. The Minister of Labour is responsible for some labour negotiations in the federal field; similarly, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) also has jurisdiction over some of those negotiations. Unfortunately, Treasury Board does not engage in negotiations as other employers do; hence any settlements to which it is party differ from the kind of settlements arrived at in other labour disputes.
In the present instance parliament is being asked to legislate air traffic controllers back to work. When parliament has legislated workers back to work in the past, it has always been reasonably generous to those it legislated back to work. Usually it agreed to the appointment of an arbitration board consisting of a union representative and a management representative. If parliament does this in the present instance I presume Treasury Board, or a representative of the Department of Transport, will represent management. In addition, parliament agreed to appoint an impartial arbitrator, who agreed to consider the matter in dispute and bring in a decision on which a settlement could be based. Usually such a decision has been reasonable, acceptable and justifiable, and to my knowledge it has been done this way in the past.
Parliament is negotiating a contract, Mr. Speaker. Parliament, by passing this legislation, will determine the wage structure of the controllers and some of their conditions of work. It is rewriting their contract of employment retroactively, I presume, to January 1 of this year. Therefore parliament is negotiating their contract. Unfortunately we do not have the facts on which we can negotiate such a contract. We are not expert enough to negotiate it, and there is nobody sitting on the other side of the table, as it were. 1 do not think the government and the opposition should be asked to make a settlement on behalf of a third party, but this is exactly what they are doing.
I am concerned about this question because it seems likely that the Post Office employees will strike, and parliament will also be asked to settle that strike with legislation. That course

August 9, 1977
Air Traffic Controllers
is undesirable. Surely that is not the way to settle such strikes. Surely parliament should not be asked to negotiate the terms of a contract for a third party. For that reason I suggest it would have been better to consider this matter in committee. Each of the parties concerned could have been invited to present their side of the dispute to the committee. We could have asked the union to present its side of the story, Treasury Board to present its side, and could have invited members of the public to participate as well. I would have included the public, because its interest is involved, too. But the Minister of Labour did not want to do it this way. He did not want to involve a committee in the negotiations. He thinks such negotiations do not work well, which is why he did not adopt that course.
What are some of the things this bill will do? It speaks of familiarization training, and would establish a wage structure. But we in this House are discussing the classifications of controllers, knowing nothing of such classifications. The President of the Treasury Board suggested that the controllers were entitled to not more than 8 per cent, whether or not they were reclassified.
Normally the question of reclassification does not involve an exclusive advantage to either party in the negotiation. Classifications are usually worked out on the basis of acceptable compromise and are usually founded on increments both sides consider reasonable. Classifications are usually designed to encourage people to assume more responsibility, progressively. You apply for another position, in another classification category, and advance into that category.


Robert Knight Andras: But classification is not bargainable.


William Arnold Peters: The increments are so designed as to encourage people to assume greater responsibility in the new classification. Therefore it is not always to the employee's advantage to move into another category. If he moves into another category with a pay increase, quite often that is not sufficient for the added responsibility. Therefore it is not wise to move.
In my experience in the mining industry, for a long time there were no job classifications. There were a number of set rates. As across the board increases took place, the rates got closer and closer together. It finally reached the point where a qualified miner got approximately ten cents an hour more than his helper. There was no advantage to a helper becoming a runner. For the extra ten cents, he had considerable added responsibility, needed to know more, and was responsible to his partner.
When the classification program was put into effect in my industry, it was mainly for the advantage of the employer. The categories were wide enough apart so that there was an advantage to apply for a higher position. The increment made it worth while. It became advantageous to apply. Quite often classifications are as much to the advantage of the employer as they are to the employee.

In the present case if the whole package had been forwarded to the Anti-Inflation Board they may have looked at the advantage to the employer and the advantage to the employee. They might have found that the 4.6 per cent in the reclassification program would have been equally advantageous to the employer and the employee. Therefore it would not have been an advantageous part of the wage package. They might have granted this on the basis that certain jobs were not being filled because the classification program was not up to date.
There will always be situations where the public is hurt extensively, even to the degree where action by parliament is necessary. However, that ought to be the exception, not the rule. It should not be as the Minister of Transport said, spelling out a number of industries that are not to have the benefit of collective bargaining. If that is so, the public had better be prepared. They will have to be overly generous with those categories that will no longer have to justify their wage increases.
There will have to be paternalism. There will have to be advantages such as there were for many years in some industries. We cannot get into the position that the hospital workers and others in similar categories get into because they were not treated generously or even justly. There were terrific repercussions when they finally got the opportunity to do something on their own.
If we are not going to provide a full bargaining position for workers under federal jurisdiction, we must substitute that with generosity. There must be fairness in our negotiations. That could easily be done in this case. The President of the Treasury Board could say that he agrees the strike must end in a fair and reasonable way, that he will establish an arbitration board and abide by their decision. I am sure the union would do the same.
If this had been done originally, the strike would not have taken place. The fact that it is taking place indicates that the Minister of Transport is saying something else. He is saying to les gens de Fair, "I will give you a pat on the back by using as rough a technique as I can on those who disagree with you." This has been the result.
There has been a great deal of vindictiveness with regard to indicating the government's position. It was willing to follow the legislative road rather than negotiating before the strike took place. The Minister of Labour will agree, I am sure, that in the three days preceding the strike there was a great possibility of further negotiation. It is my guess that the mediators were not asked to negotiate because they might have settled the problem and eliminated the possibility of this confrontation.
There will be a similar confrontation in the fall. We will be faced with the same problem unless the government treats the unions in a fair and equitable way. Rather than making it mandatory that we legislate them back to work if they go on strike, it should provide arbitration which, if impartial, will undoubtedly be accepted by the unions. We should be thinking about that road in our negotiations rather than passing legislation which is the unacceptable exception and which should be
August 9, 1977

treated with the contempt that it deserves in relation to public negotiations.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I was not going to say anything in this debate.


Some hon. Members:: hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: In all seriousness, I did not intend to participate in this debate. However, having heard the arguments, I felt that members of parliament were participating with the sword of Damocles hanging over their heads. We were told that there are 55,000 Canadian people sitting in airports waiting to be transported and, somehow or other, we must take this legislation that has been presented and whip it through all stages in the space of 24 hours. That is an insult to any intelligent member of parliament.


Mr. Jarvis:: You are insulted easily.


John R. Rodriguez: I know the Tories do not get insulted easily. They get up and say that they disagree with the government, but they will vote for the legislation. They should be ashamed of themselves.
I intend to say a few words even though it will take a little longer to get to report stage. In any event the bill will move through report stage so quickly it will make your head spin.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: Just watch the show.
I said to myself that we should take our time and look at the legislation properly, so I want to say a few words about the whole process.


An hon. Member:: Get it over with, then.


John R. Rodriguez: First, let me say I am really impressed by the speed with which the government has moved. I am impressed by the speed with which it has moved in the face of the impending strike of the air traffic controllers. You know, Mr. Speaker, I wish it had moved with equal speed last June when the controllers went on a wildcat strike, when they broke the law, when they broke their contract and for ten days held the air travellers of Canada to ransom. But we heard not a peep out of the Tories then, and there was no move by the government. This puts their integrity into question. I suspect the government was playing on the racism which it thinks is present in the minds of the Canadian population. It did not move quickly then to save Canadian air travellers from the inconvenience caused by that strike. This is why I do not think it is incumbent upon me to expedite this legislation and help the government out of the mess in which it finds itself.
We are talking about a legal strike, a strike which has closed down the airports and kept the planes out of the skies, except, of course, for the military aircraft which brought us all here. I would remind hon. members, though, that the air traffic controllers had called for a rotating strike. Under that
Air Traffic Controllers
arrangement passengers would at least have been moved; it would not have been necessary to bus them to New York, Buffalo or anywhere else. I accuse the government of precip-tating the air traffic controllers strike. And, having done that, it makes the workers the scapegoats for its mistakes, it does this consistently. That is one point I wish to make and it is directed to the whole question of the government's integrity.


An hon. Member:: Oh, come on!


John R. Rodriguez: If you don't watch your step we shall be here much longer than tonight. My second point is this: I have been here since 1972 and this bill is very different from the others with which members of the school of 1972 have had to deal in terms of sending strikers back to work. For example, I recall the bill ending the rail strike. The measure before us amounts to the imposition of a collective agreement upon a group of workers and it is the first time this has been done since I have been around here. I understand it is the first time that this has ever happened, the first time members of parliament have participated in collective bargaining with government employees. The precedent is a very strong one.
I cannot help recalling the debate which took place here in 1973 when parliament sent the railway workers back to work. I want to refer specifically to a comment made at that time by the then minister of transport, Jean Marchand. In the course of that debate he made an emotional speech during which he said:
How is the level of wages established? Is it in accordance with a certain rule of justice? No. It is according to the strength of each party.
He went on to ask:
How are we as members of the House to say what the settlement should be? We cannot say that. The only reason we are here is because there is a national emergency and the only thing we can deal with is that emergency, not the dispute between the parties.
These sentiments are important because they were repeated later in the debate by the present Minister of Labour. He said then-he has changed his mind since:
If we start negotiating on the floor of this House and make our own subjective judgments instead of leaving it to the other process, the worker may decide he can get a better deal from the parliamentarians . . . why then should he go through the conciliation process?
This is the precedent we have all come to accept as members of parliament, namely, that we cannot participate in the actual negotiating which takes place between the worker and the employer. That is not our responsibility, and in this case the government has reneged on its duty and placed it upon members of parliament who never participated in the face to face negotiations with the workers involved. This being the case, I do not think that I, or anyone in my party, should be concerned with this finagling with the collective bargaining process, especially bearing in mind the precedent the government is setting in this particular bill.
I also heard some shameful statements from government spokesmen. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) said the government could not send to the AIB anything which was obviously in excess of the guidelines. Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
August 9, 1977
Air Traffic Controllers
Speaker, I recall quite well an earlier dispute in which I took an interest. 1 recall the agreement which was made between the Post Office and the postal workers after the last strike. The increase offered was clearly in excess of the guidelines in every way. It went to the AIB and the A1B rolled it back. So what did Bryce Mackasey, that great friend of the worker do? He took it to the cabinet and the cabinet overruled the AIB. Therefore it seems to me the government has the power to do what is fair and right in a particular situation affecting its employees.
In this instance the government is asking parliament to take it off the hook and save its skin. Well, if the people of Canada do not get the story properly through the media, it is not my fault or the fault of my colleagues in this party. I have described exactly what the government is doing. It is shirking its responsibility. Which brings me to the other question in my mind-what is the explanation for this, what is the reason behind it?
It is no secret whatsoever that the cabinet is top heavy with right wingers. Things have a tendency to sneak up. It is not surprising the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) should be able to find a home there-in fact he is to the left of most of them. Perhaps I am unduly suspicious, but sometimes I think there is a Machiavellian move under way. The Minister of Transport was interviewed on Sunday morning on a CBC program-I know he is going around saying he was misquoted, but these words are taken from the transcript of the program. He is quoted as having said:
... in cases like this (the air controllers' strike) we are going to have to very seriously consider whether or not that right to strike is at all appropriate.
The government is sensing a mood left by the National Citizens' Coalition. One only has to take a look at the ad placed in the Globe and Mail this morning indicating that there ought to be a removal of the right to strike in the public sector. One has to give the Minister of Transport credit for sensing the public mood.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That was one of their boys.


John R. Rodriguez: Yes, he is the honorary president of the National Citizens' Coalition. Because he is sensing that mood, we are finding this right wing shift of the cabinet and the government in trying to absorb all the Tories' natural allies and supporters.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Right on. The Tories have had it.


John R. Rodriguez: In effect, that is where he is headed. There was another article in this morning's Globe and Mail under the name of Geoffrey Stevens.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Who is he?


John R. Rodriguez: I suspect he is the mouthpiece for some insider in the bureaucracy or in the cabinet.


An hon. Member:: The NDP Party.


John R. Rodriguez: He is promoting that same sort of philosophy through the media and across the country.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The NDP has no mouthpiece.


John R. Rodriguez: Yes, we have Lubor Zink.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The NDP has no mouthpiece, only a mouth.


John R. Rodriguez: It seems to me that is what is afoot. They are trying to remove the right to strike from the public sector. They want us to return to the past.
The right to strike is a basic right of the worker. It is the only thing he has. The challenge is to embark on a collective bargaining process, and the challenge is to stick with the issue throughout the process to a successful conclusion. To have the right to strike removed takes away the right to collective bargaining, which is the basic right of workers no matter where they live or work.
When I was teaching school I was told that school teachers were essential workers. One year in North York in Toronto the garbage collectors went on strike. They were not supposed to be essential workers, but with every passing day they became more essential. It was interesting to see the transformation in the newspapers and the media. They were talking about the removal of their right to strike.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Remove the garbage from the media.


John R. Rodriguez: The government has suddenly discovered it has a problem on its hands with respect to collective bargaining and the air traffic controllers. I am an unbiased person when it comes to judging the Liberal government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: The hon. member for Parry Sound-Mus-koka (Mr. Darling) is aware of the fact that I am serious about that. I am an objective person when it comes to the government's performance. We are heading toward a serious situation right now, and I am referring to the postal workers. We are faced with the same evasive tactics-


An hon. Member:: Order.


John R. Rodriguez: I am sure that in the middle of the fall this year we will be here debating legislation putting the next group of workers back to work, which will be the Canadian Union of Postal Workers.
Where is the good faith bargaining when we have a government which is committed to taking the easy way out by using parliament to legislate workers back to their jobs before they are in a strike position? It seems to me that has been circumvented completely.
As I have pointed out and as other speakers have pointed out, the question of parliament putting into effect a collective agreement for the workers is contrary to the precedents of this House. It is something which has never been done before.
August 9, 1977

Knowing how this government can take a precedent and write it all the way to kingdom come, 1 am afraid this is just a first. Shortly down the road it will be the postal workers, the letter carriers' union, and then the entire public sector will be devoid of any meaningful collective bargaining. I object to that. 1 object to what that is doing to the workers and the collective bargaining process.
At this particular time the government is talking about tripartism, sitting down to work things out, discussing and coming to agreements. But without any sort of meaningful collective bargaining, the government slipped a bill into this House which will superimpose a collective agreement on a group of workers. Thus, I do not hesitate when I say that my party opposes the action of the government in relation to this particular situation with the air traffic controllers. We will give evidence of the position we have taken by voting against it when the bill finally comes to a vote.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. During the taking of the vote Mr. Condon rose in his place and was recognized and recorded as Mr. Collenette. The record will be appropriately corrected to show Mr. Condon as having voted.
And the result of the vote having been announced:


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare the motion carried.


[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. House in committee of the whole on Bill C-63, to provide for the continuation of air traffic control services. Shall clause 2 carry?
On clause 2-Definitions.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Mr. Chairman, I just want to draw your attention to the fact that there is a disagreement between the English and the French versions of clause 2. We should place

August 9, 1977
Air Traffic Controllers
the words "collective agreement" elsewhere, as well as "employee and employee organization". All I want to say is that the English version does not correspond to the French version.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. 1 would point out to the hon. member that as usual the definitions in bills are placed in alphabetical order, both in the French version and in the English version; the French definition does not necessarily come in the same order as the English version, but it can be found further down.
[English)


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 3-Notice to be given.
Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I note a difference in the French version, in clause 3(2). The words "les fonctions de son emploi" are missing, so 1 suggest that clause 3 be amended by striking out line 10 at page 2 of the French version and substiiuting the following therefor:
dre, selon le cas, les fonctions de son emploi.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It is my interpretation that the amendment proposed by the minister is more in the terminology than otherwise. 1 think it should be considered more as a printing correction than an amendment. The sense is exactly the same. That may be an easier way of solving the problem. Is there unanimous consent to make the correction and accept the interpretation of the minister?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 as amended agreed to.
On clause 4-Return to work not to be denied and employees not to be disciplined.
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Chairman, the central point that we made in the second reading stage of the debate in outlining our opposition to this iniquitous piece of legislation-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: I wish the Liberal backbenchers would get back to their serious work which is writing newsletters to their constituents.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: I am sorry, 1 am probably giving them more credit than they are due. I know it is difficult for Liberal backbenchers to take the civil liberties of Canadians seriously, but some of us are actually trying to practice what we preach.
I said earlier that we oppose this legislation because there is one central part of the package that is objectionable. It is objectionable on the grounds that there was a proposition that

according to two legitimate interpretations of the anti-inflation law which is in force in Canada now, it would be possible to conclude that the contract proposal put forward by CATCA, which included a wage increase related to reclassification, was a legitimate one and, second, that such a proposal would not be consistent with the law-


Walter David Baker: What clause are you dealing with?


John Edward Broadbent: Clause 5.


Walter David Baker: We are on clause 4


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall clause 4 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On Clause 5-Term of collective agreement extended.
John Allen Fraser: Mr. Chairman, I shall be brief. Consistent with the position I took this afternoon, clause 5(4) indicates that while there is provision for aspects of the schedule as presented in this bill to be altered before an arbitrator, there is a limitation placed on what that arbitrator can do. The arbitrator is confined to making such internal changes in the schedule as he may see fit, but not to allow the aggregate amount allowed under that schedule to be changed.
My point is that we believe it is appropriate that the argument that these prevail, and there was plenty of discussion on that this afternoon and tonight, to the effect that there is an arguable case for a larger amount to be claimed, that the amount over the schedule which is still to be argued ought to be put before an arbitrator because it is against the principles that have been enunciated and confirmed on both sides of the House that this House should determine the final terms of settlement of back to work legislation. As a consequence I move, seconded by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton:
That subsection 5(4) at page 3 be amended by striking out lines 28 to 32 thereof and substituting therefor the following:
"Of pay and any such variation is binding on the parties to the collective
agreement to which this Act applies."


Gérald Laniel: Perhaps while the Chair considers the acceptability of the amendment the committee could hear the Leader of the New Democratic Party with regard to another proposed amendment to which the hon. member referred earlier in his remarks.


John Allen Fraser: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I ask the courtesy of the House so that I can clarify one point. The object of the amendment I have put forward is to enable the arbitrator to increase the total amount payable under the schedule and change the specific items under the schedule. Nonetheless, our interpretation of the bill, as it would then stand, is that the result would still be subject to the ruling of the Anti-Inflation Board.
August 9, 1977


Gérald Laniel: I do not disagree with the hon. member's point of view but I must be guided by the rules and precedents of the House. I have to be guided by one citation in particular-the hon. member will find it in both May and Beauchesne in different words. But it reads in Beauchesne's citation, 246(3) as follows:
The guiding principle in determining the effect of an amendment upon the financial initiative of the Crown is that the communication to which the royal demand or recommendation is attached must be treated as laying down once for all (unless withdrawn and replaced) not only the amount of a charge but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications.
I am seeking to determine whether the wording of the amendment might have an effect which is contrary to this citation.


John Allen Fraser: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On the notice paper the recommendation reads:
His Excellency the Governor General recommends to the House of Commons the appropriation of public revenue under the circumstances, in the manner and amounts and for the purposes set out in a measure entitled "An Act to provide for the continuation of air traffic control services".
That is a very general order and, besides, there is nothing specific in the legislation to determine the exact amount of money required. This is not in any ordinary sense a money bill. The thrust of the legislation is to require a return to work of employees within a bargaining unit who are legally on strike. The bill sets out certain terms in accordance with which remuneration would be worked out. If, in dealing with legislation of this sort, no amendment can be made by members of the House of Commons, I can only say we have been brought back here from all parts of the country at great public expense to little purpose. The government is telling us, in effect: do not suggest that there should be any amendment to the bill.
The citation the Chair has just read suggests that the House is completely unable to effect any amendment to this legislation, the intent of which is to return to work, under certain conditions, people who are legally on strike. The thrust of clause 5(4) is to establish a means of working out by arbitration adjustments in a certain schedule. The principle we want recognized is that there ought to be no limits to the aggregate amount in that schedule, and in the absence of anything specific in the order or in the legislation I would ask you, Mr. Chairman, to find that the citation which you have read from Beauchesne is not applicable in this case.


Gérald Laniel: I do not disagree with the purpose the hon. member is seeking to achieve but 1 have to be guided by the terms of the recommendation and it is impossible for the Chair to dissociate the recommendation from the bill. Clause 5(4) sets a limitation upon the arbitrator. It would allow him to make changes as long as the aggregate compensation provided for by the schedule was not altered in total. The hon. member's amendment seems, in my view, to open the door to the expenditure of more money. If the hon. member is able to convince me otherwise, I am willing to accept the amendment. Indeed, if there is any doubt in my mind I am ready, with some reservations, to let the committee decide.
Air Traffic Controllers


John Allen Fraser: Let me draw this to your attention, Mr. Chairman, with respect. In 1973, when the House considered a bill to provide for the return to work of railway workers, amendments which changed the basis of the payments were found acceptable. The difference, of course, was that the dispute on that occasion concerned a private corporation. Nevertheless, the principle is the same. The process of debating this matter and considering the legislation becomes very ineffectual indeed should Your Honour follow the course which you may feel is necessary on the narrow basis of the precedent just read to the House.


Walter David Baker: I do not intend to deal at any length with the argument advanced by my hon. friend as to the breadth of the Royal recommendation which, framed as it is, really places an iron band around the legislation. If Your Honour rules in the way which you seem inclined to do at the moment we shall find it almost impossible to make an amendment, and having regard to our tradition perhaps you ought to consider carefully whether it is acceptable to limit our deliberations upon a statute in such a way because of the nature of the Royal recommendation.
There is another point I wish to make. It has to do with Your Honour's concern that the amendments might increase the amount of money directly payable under the bill. In my view, that is not the case. The amendment would not increase the amount of money directly payable under the bill. It allows steps to be taken which are already provided for by statute and in the estimates whereby the government would negotiate with the union, if necessary see that an arbitrator is appointed and, in the end, arrange for a hearing by the AIB.
The settlement being enacted by the bill sets the floor, but the amendment would allow other steps to take place. If any increase were permitted, it would be paid from the contingency fund established for that program and that purpose. The amendment does not sanction expenditures as such. It removes a discriminatory clause which would deny to one particular group the opportunities for arbitration and the opportunities for appeal which are already sanctioned by statute and the estimates which would apply to any other public service union not affected by the direct legislation.
The provision to encompass that with which Your Honour is concerned is already there but with this legislation in the form in which it is, unlike any other union in the public service, this union cannot take advantage of it. For those reasons I hope Your Honour could direct his mind away from finding the amendment an improper one.


Gérald Laniel: I wish to thank the hon. member for Gren-viile-Carleton who has made some very interesting points. The first one concerning the Royal recommendation is something the Chair should consider in this type of situation. At the same time, the second point referred to the existing statute which permits negotiation and the provision of moneys for these negotiations upon settlement of labour disputes. If I accept the

August 9, 1977
Air Traffic Controllers
amendment in its present form, after these arguments, I wish to warn the committee not to consider the acceptance of this amendment as an open door to any kind of other amendments, especially on the first point basing ourselves on the wide scope of a Royal recommendation. Therefore I am accepting the amendment, and I will put it to the committee.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Chairman, may I rise on a point of order?


Gérald Laniel: Does the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby wish to speak on the amendment? I have to put the amendment. Does he wish to speak on the procedural debate?


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Chairman, 1 rise on a point of order and in so doing I want to indicate to the spokesman for the conservative party that we have every intention of supporting what we regard as a very sensible and just amendment. I am rising simply to indicate that we have prepared an amendment which might more adequately come to grips with the same problem. It happens to come earlier in the bill, and I should like to put it before the committee. Then the Chairman can rule whichever way he wants in regard to having the vote on one rather than the other. Our amendment comes earlier in the same clause. I should like to move it now, and then it will be up to the Chair to decide whether we should vote on the one which comes first in terms of time or on the one that comes first in terms of sequence of the bill.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. The hon. member should allow the chair to put the amendment moved by the hon. member for Vancouver South in front of the committee. The way is open for him to present another amendment. Normally his amendment would be voted upon first if it is listed before or if it refers to a previous paragraph of the same clause. However, I will have to look at his amendment and decide upon it at that time. Moving away from our normal procedure and knowing there is another amendment to be presented by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby, I hope the committee will bear with me as I invite the hon. member to present his amendment in order for me to decide which amendment will be considered first, and then I will ask the committee to make its decision on either one of the two.


John Edward Broadbent: That paragraph (a) of subclause (3) of clause 5 be amended by adding immediately thereafter, at the end of line 5 on page 3 of Bill C-63, the following words:
"provided, however, that the matter of increasing these rates of pay to amounts not greater than the minimum proposals made by the employee organization shall be referred to an independent arbitrator whose findings shall be binding with effect from January 1, 1977."
If I may speak to the amendment, I want to return to-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Gérald Laniel: 1 thought the hon. member's amendment, although it was in regard to the same clause, might have a different implication than the amendment presented by the hon. member for Vancouver South. Because of the fact that
both amendments try to achieve about the same thing, a decision will have to be made by the committee on the first amendment moved by the hon. member for Vancouver South.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gérald Laniel: Does the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby wish to rise on a point of order regarding this matter?


John Edward Broadbent: No, I do not wish to rise on a point of order. I assume we are continuing the debate.


Gérald Laniel: The hon. President of the Privy Council.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, might 1 suggest to the committee that under the provisions of Standing Order 6(5) we interrupt the proceedings to ask for an extension of the sitting of the House for the purpose of further consideration of this bill?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. In view of the request of the hon. minister, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 6(5)(a), to interrupt the proceedings of the committee of the whole in order to permit the House to make a decision on the motion proposed by the hon. minister.
Progress reported.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the request which has just been made by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen), 1 should like to move, pursuant to Standing Order 6(5):
That this House continue sitting beyond the ordinary time of daily adjournment this day for the purpose of continuing the consideration of Bill C-63, an act to provide for the continuation of air traffic control services.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. All hon. members are aware of Standing Order 6(5) which relates to such a motion to extend the hours of sitting for the purpose of considering a piece of legislation or an order that is under consideration. Upon putting the question, the Chair shall inform hon. members, as mentioned in paragraph (b) of the Standing Order, that those members who object to the motion shall rise in their place. If ten members or more rise, the motion shall be deemed to have been withdrawn. Otherwise, the motion shall have been adopted. The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) on a point of order.


Walter David Baker: I have listened very carefully, Mr. Speaker, and I thought I caught correctly the words of the motion put by the parliamentary secretary which were broad and all-encompassing, and could be deemed to carry with them committee stage and third reading to be completed this evening. I should like the assurance that, while this
[The Chairman.]
August 9, 1977

happens to be a worth-while objective, it is not the purport of this particular matter.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is correct.


Walter David Baker: I see the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) is nodding his head.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the hon. member, before raising the point of order, had given me the chance to put the question he would perhaps have had his answer. The motion does not relate to any such indication. I would therefore put it to the House at this time. It has been moved under Standing Order 6(5) by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Goodale), seconded by the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Landers):
That this House continue sitting beyond the ordinary time of daily adjournment this day for the purpose of continuing the consideration of Bill C-63, an act to provide for the continuation of air traffic control services.
All those opposed to the motion will please rise. I declare the motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I should like to propose a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 44. I move:
That notwithstanding any Standing Order Bill C-63 may be proceeded with at any number of stages this day.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Although the Chair identifies some disposition among the majority of the members to agree, I have some hesitation as to the time of moving the motion knowing that the House came out of committee for the purpose of agreeing to a motion by the minister to extend the hours of sitting beyond the normal hours to consider a certain piece of legislation. I have some hesitation about the minister taking advantage of the same opportunity to move a motion under Standing Order 44 and I am ready to accept some argument on that. I also wish to mention to the minister that this motion is debatable and could be debated for an hour.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: On that point, Mr. Speaker, I did consider the very point you have raised before deciding to take this course of action. The Standing Order is very clear. It says that "a Minister of the Crown may, at any time when Mr. Speaker is in the Chair, propose a motion". It does not surround the moment of proposing this motion with any conditions. The plain fact is that the Speaker is in the Chair and the Standing Order plainly says "at any time".


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must admit that the words "at any time" are fairly convincing. 1 will therefore put the motion to the House. Under this Standing Order the same rule would apply, namely, that ten members would have to stand for the motion to be withdrawn. The motion still remains, of course, debatable. The Pesident of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen), seconded by the President of Treasury Board (Mr. Andras), moves:
That notwithstanding any Standing Order Bill C-63 may be proceeded with at any number of stages this day.
Air Traffic Controllers
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Leonard C. Jones: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that this is not one of the motions contemplated by this Standing Order. There are other provisions in the Standing Orders having to do with three readings in the same day. I suggest that the minister of the Crown who moved the motion did not indicate in the motion or the preamble thereto that there was any special urgency for third reading tonight.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I think the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Jones) has the right to be heard at this time.


Leonard C. Jones: The very Standing Order under which the minister purports to make his motion provides that he is supposed to indicate something which he did not indicate, namely, that there was a serious and urgent matter here. If this motion is to have any effect, this should have been done. Furthermore, in order to have three readings in one day the legislation must deal with an extraordinary matter. Is it extraordinary? I suppose it is to re-write in a few hours an agreement reached by a bargaining unit. I think the minister's motion is strictly out of order on several grounds and it should not be entertained. I object to it very strongly.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I must bring to the attention of the hon. member that the motion is already in front of the House and that a decision has been rendered by the Chair, rightly or wrongly, which has not been tested in due time. If no other member wishes to speak to the motion 1 will put the question on the motion.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that we have a bill here which is before committee of the whole. As we go through the bill we find ministers bobbing up like jack rabbits out of hats pointing out that certain parts of the bill do not coincide, that the French version does not coincide with the English, and vice-versa. It seems to me we are proceeding with undue haste. Moving quickly to deal with all stages out of hand without making a decision after we finish committee stage of the bill seems to me rather precipitately giving power to the government to move all stages this evening. It seems to me that is not the way to deal with this serious matter of putting into force a collective agreement for a group of workers. If members of parliament let the government escape with this kind of sleight of hand under this particular Standing Order, I do not think we would be serving the purposes for which we have been elected and for which we are debating this bill here tonight.


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

August 9, 1977
Air Traffic Controllers


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: No members having risen, 1 declare the motion carried.
The House will now resume in committee of the whole for the consideration of the bill.
House again in committee of the whole, Mr. Laniel in the chair.


Gérald Laniel: When the committee interrupted its proceedings, it was studying Clause 5.

Shall the amendment moved by the hon. member for Vancouver South carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Chairman, I want to speak in support of the amendment before the committee. I hope that we can have a minimum of procedural hassles and deal with the substance of the issue which is embedded in the hon. member's amendment. The point at stake here is not whether X amendment or Y amendment passes or fails. One hopes that the substance that the opposition parties want to have in this measure carries in the House.
In supporting the amendment I want to indicate the reasons why we do so.
Mr. Chairman, I wonder if you can get some order on the government side in this rather important debate.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: This afternoon we heard a serious speech by the President of the Treasury Board in which he tried to come to grips with the argument that the point made in CATCA's proposal that reclassification, which is embedded in this bill and in the agreement, should not be a consideration for a further increase in salary. I would like to deal with that argument and deal in point form with the issues that the President of the Treasury Board raised, because in my view the argument raised by the President of the Treasury Board- and specifically the conclusion that he drew-is a false conclusion, and since that is central to the whole dispute between CATCA and the Treasury Board, it is central to the decision that we will reach here in discussing the legislation today, and it is the point to which the amendment that we are now considering hopes to provide a solution.

The issue is whether or not the reclassification of the members of CATCA should entitle them to a legitimate understanding that the AIB would accept their reclassification as warranting an extra 4 per cent or 5 per cent in income. 1 would like to put on the record the following considerations in support of their claim, which is all that is required for submission to the AIB, and it is that precisely which the government has denied.
During the period from June 6, 1975, to January 13, 1976, there were no fewer than six letters exchanged between the Department of Transport and CATCA concerning reclassification. Earlier this afternoon the minister selected two of these letters and had them tabled. I submit that if one wants to look at all six letters, what one will find in that exchange of correspondence between the union and the Department of Transport is an agreement that the issue of reclassification is of fundamental importance and should be a matter of continuing negotiation between the government and the union.
I want to make the case beyond that, but for our purpose I think it is sufficient to have a reading of those six letters to agree-the President of the Treasury Board would agree with that conclusion if he were here-that there was acceptance on both sides that reclassification, which has not been done in that industry since 1966, was a matter of serious concern leading to the present negotiation. That is the first point.
The second point is perhaps of even greater importance to the acceptance of the idea that reclassification is central to the dispute, and that is that the government, in the contract that it has been willing to sign with CATCA, has indicated not only a willingness to accept 10 per cent, 20 per cent or 40 per cent of the reclassification areas but has indicated it will accept 100 per cent. There has been agreement between the union and the government on 100 per cent of the cases involving reclassification which, I submit, has come about precisely because there was agreement going back some years before the controls system came into being on the need for such reclassification.
The third point I would add is that the government's own additional acceptance, repeated by Treasury Board officials, repeated by some ministers, if my memory serves me correctly, and indeed repeated at the press conference yesterday by the Prime Minister, of the idea that if both packages were submitted to the AIB-namely, the one that the government thinks is desirable, and the one that is about 5 per cent higher that CATCA thinks is desirable-and AIB accepted the higher one, the government would go along with it. I submit that it would go along with it precisely because it has accepted the idea of reclassification.
Reclassification is central to the dispute. It goes back, in terms of discussion, debate and correspondence between the union and the government, to a period preceding the establishment of the controls. But above and beyond that, I do not rest the case on that issue-the case in favour of sympathetic consideration of the principle that reclassification should be accepted as justifying a further increase. I would say it rests on the fact that nowhere in the law as it now exists in Canada is it
August 9, 1977

spelled out what procedures are necessary to make reclassification acceptable under the guidelines.
Secondly, in the guidelines themselves and in a whole series of bulletins which have been issued by the A1B, at no point is it spelled out how the AIB is to determine whether a reclassification argument is germane and acceptable. Nowhere is it spelled out in any of the regulations or instructions from the AIB that prior discussions between the union and the government have to conclude with a written commitment. Nowhere is it spelled out in the regulations that a written commitment on the part of the government or on the part of any two bodies, whether we are talking about the private sector or the public sector, is a necessary criterion for acceptance by the AIB and for the reclassification argument to hold. I think that is central to the argument.
I notice that the President of the Treasury Board is talking to some of his officials, and I hope that he will come back into the debate tonight and respond to that issue. Does he agree that it is not spelled out in the law? Does he agree that it is not spelled out in the regulations? He says we have a case law situation in which the AIB has made some rulings on reclassification. I say to the minister that I know of only one such ruling. There may be more, but one is hardly enough upon which to generalize.
In light of the absence of all these tests of written regulations and of written law, why is the government so reluctant to have the issue go before the AIB and to allow the AIB to settle it? That really is the nub of CATCA's position. That really is the point of the amendment of the Conservative party at this stage of the bill. That really has been the central case we have made during this debate.
I want to conclude by saying that if the point which is attempted to be dealt with in this amendment had been accepted by the government two weeks ago or three weeks ago there would be no striking going on in Canada now, airplanes would be flying and members of parliament would be back in their constituencies or elsewhere instead of attending this unnecessary session we are now going through. I urge that the government give serious consideration to accepting this amendment put forward by the Conservative party, and I say on behalf of my colleagues that we will certainly support it.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask some questions relating to clause 5 and a couple of subclauses within clause 5. I presume it would be in order to do so at this time.


Gérald Laniel: The questions would have to relate to the amendment or to the objective of the amendment which is before us. I think it would be simpler to dispose of the amendment. That would leave the opportunity for all kinds of questions regarding clause 5. Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Air Traffic Controllers


Gérald Laniel: The question is on the amendment of the hon. member for Vancouver South.
Amendment (Mr. Fraser) negatived: Yeas, 41; nays, 72.


Gérald Laniel: I declare the motion negatived. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby gave the Chair notice of another amendment, which I will put to the committee under the same condition as the first one.


John Edward Broadbent: That paragraph (a) sub-clause (3) of clause 5 be amended by adding immediately thereafter, at the end of line 5 on page 3 of Bill C-63, the following words:
"provided, however, that the matter of increasing these rates of pay to
amounts not greater than the minimum proposals made by the employee
organization shall be referred to an independent arbitrator whose findings
shall be binding with effect from January 1, 1977.".


Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Chairman, clause 5 really represents the part of this legislation to which we are most violently opposed, and the amendment moved by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby seeks to rectify what we think to be an iniquitous part of this legislation. As the leader of this party and my colleagues who spoke at second reading of the bill have said, we support the legislation to put the air traffic controllers back to work.
In the past 15 years I recall at least five occasions when back-to-work legislation has been introduced. The New Democratic Party supported that legislation because we recognized that it was in the national interest to bring strikes which were disrupting our entire economy to an end.
All members in this House from all parties have paid lip service through the years to the basic principles of labour legislation in a democracy: first, the right to bargain collectively regarding wages, hours and conditions of labour; and second, the right of a worker to withhold his or her services. However, we have recognized also that there have been situations in which either employers or employees collectively have abused the powers given to them in a free society, or created situations which became intolerable in terms of the public welfare. Therefore there are times when it is necessary to introduce legislation which will send workers back to their jobs. But in every piece of legislation for sending workers back to the job, which I can recall, we have not endeavoured to do what clause 5 of the present bill seeks to do.
Clause 5 actually seeks to impose a collective agreement by legislation. It would be bad enough if a private employer did it; but when the government, the employer, lays down terms upon which its own employees shall work and asks parliament to endorse those terms, that, I say, is the negation of industrial democracy in this country. The purpose of clause 5 is to put in legislative form the proposals, which the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) and the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) laid before the air traffic controllers. The ministers involved are the judge and jury passing judgement on the

August 9, 1977
Air Traffic Controllers
dispute, and the government asks the House to be the executioner.


John Allen Fraser: Right on.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: When parliament takes from people their basic right to free, collective bargaining and their right to withhold services, it has the responsibility to give them something in exchange. In every piece of legislation I have seen in the last 15 years ordering workers back to work, parliament has given, in exchange, an independent arbitrator or arbitration board.
In the case of the railway workers we said, in the legislation, that the offer made by the employer would be the floor below which the arbitrator could not go in making his recommendation.
What are we doing in the present case? The government is asking parliament to impose on the government's own employees terms and conditions the government has concocted, without regard to a reference to an impartial, independent body. This is the negation of everything the Liberal party has professed to stand for when, across this country, it has spoken of its faith in collective bargaining and the right of workers to withhold their services.
The point at issue in clause 5, to which my leader moved an amendment, is simple. As the President of the Treasury Board admitted this afternoon, the issue comes down to one thing, whether increased wages which may have to be paid on the basis of a reclassification to which both the government and the air traffic controllers agreed would come under the ceiling of the Anti-Inflation Board guidelines.
The minister said this afternoon that the government had worked out what the Anti-Inflation Board would be prepared to approve and had therefore put that in the legislation. I submit that the government has no more competence to foresee what the Anti-Inflation Board will decide than you or I have, Mr. Chairman. Who are they to presume what the Anti-Inflation Board will decide? Parliament set up the AntiInflation Board on the assumption it had the competence and experience to make these decisions. It is not up to the government to make these decisions, and then say what the AntiInflation Board would do.
Who can tell this House what the Anti-Inflation Board will do? The Board has changed some of the agreements the government entered into with its own employees. That shows you that the government assumed wrongly what the AntiInflation Board would decide. The Board announced that maximum increases of $2,400 a year would be paid to professional groups, but last year the average increase over the previous year for professional groups was $4,900, and in some categories, $7,200. Could anybody foresee that the Anti-Inflation Board would make that kind of decision? Could anyone foresee that it would allow the salary of the president of Kaiser Resources Limited to rise by $60,000, not $2,400? Was anyone to assume that the Anti-Inflation Board would make such a decision? Yet here is the government saying that in its wisdom, in its omniscience, it knows what the Anti-Inflation

Board will decide, and it is therefore writing into the legislation what the employees will get.
The Prime Minister, if the press reports him correctly, says that we have no right to pass the buck. Neither the government nor any other employer has the right to pass the buck to the Anti-Inflation Board. But the fact is that again and again the government has signed agreements which, when they went before the Anti-Inflation Board, were altered. That has happened with other employers, which is understandable.


John Allen Fraser: And which was expected.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Of course, that is precisely why the Anti-Inflation Board was set up. But I defy anyone to study the regulations, study the board's decisions, and prophesy with exactitude what the board will decide. In clause 5 the government is putting itself in the place of the Anti-Inflation Board.


John Allen Fraser: And the arbitrator.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We were told in October, 1975, that the government was to set up an anti-inflation board which would be free to make decisions, independent of the government. Now the government says that it will make that decision, and it decides what the Anti-Inflation Board would do in the case of a certain proposal. Perhaps the government does not trust the Anti-Inflation Board's judgment, which is some reflection on its appointees to the AntiInflation Board.
So long as the Anti-Inflation Board is in existence, the government has no right to assume what the Board will decide. It has no right to put itself in the place of the Board and say, "We know in advance what the Anti-Inflation Board will do; therefore, parliament must pass legislation to put into effect a collective bargaining agreement which has not been referred to that Board." The hon. member for Vancouver South and the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby both tried, by way of amendment, to persuade the government to change clause 5.
Without doubt, the workers will go back to work once this bill passes. A number of items in the agreement are not in dispute. But we and the Conservative party have said, in our two amendments, that the matter of wages should be referred to an impartial body and that the government should not force parliament to impose on the government's own employees a collective bargaining agreement devised by the Minister of Transport. This is a much more important principle than some members seem to realize.
In the broadcast "CBC Sunday Morning," the Minister of Transport said that we should be giving serious consideration to whether we should allow strikes in the public sector. If the Minister of Labour and the government have in mind removing the right to strike from public servants, what is going to take its place? From then on we are going to have public servants' wages, hours and conditions of labour determined by
August 9, 1977

the government and rubberstamped by parliament. That is what is going to happen.
If we pass this legislation as it now stands, we will be establishing a dangerous precedent. We will be saying that from now on not only has parliament the right to send workers back to the job and not only has parliament the right to say the dispute shall be submitted to arbitration, but we are saying that the government can use its majority in parliament arbitrarily and arrogantly to lay down the terms and conditions upon which workers will work.
1 submit that not since Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves on this North American continent have people had to work for a wage that was dictated by the employer. If the employer and the employee cannot agree, and there comes a time when the dispute has to be settled and it is to be brought to an end by parliament, the very least the workers of this country are entitled to is that the final disposition of their wages, hours and conditions will be settled by an independent body before which they can appear to plead their case. That right is being denied them under clause 5 of this piece of legislation.
I plead with this committee of the whole to pass this amendment and to do what should have been done in the first place, namely, say to the workers, "Go back to your job and we will let you take your case to an independent body." If the government is prepared to do that, we are prepared to support this legislation. If the government is not prepared to do that, this legislation is not worth the support of any person who believes in the basic principles of democracy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby has proposed an amendment to clause 5 which is the heart and guts of the collective agreement. 1 am supposed to be knowledgeable about the collective agreement on which I am going to be asked to vote.
Clause 5 raises several questions in my mind. For example, there is the technical language. What are the implications of the categories All to A18? Where do the VFR controllers, shift supervisors and unit chiefs fit into this schedule? What do the columns under the rates of All to A18 mean? There are nine columns and two sets of figures. What do they constitute?
This is a complicated situation on which hon. members are being asked to vote. This is not as it was in the past. It is not the kind of situation we had with regard to the railway workers. That is the purpose of the amendment by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby. In the past the contract or agreement was always sent to an independent arbitrator or body to look at the settlement. In this instance we are being asked to pass a collective agreement.
One has to assume that those who are negotiating the collective agreement have some knowledge with regard to the amounts being agreed on and the terminology. They ought to know, for example, what is meant by familiarization flights in Schedule IV. I have no idea what that means.
Air Traffic Controllers
We can see from the hour and the attitude of members that they are not the least bit interested in finding out what this means. The Minister of Labour is having a jocular time with his officials. Backbenchers on the government side are not interested in asking questions about this clause. All they are interested in is getting it over with and getting out of here. If that is the kind of collective bargaining in which members of parliament are going to participate, it is a crying shame.
The Minister of Labour likes to cast himself as the friend of labour. However, no friend of labour would set a precedent such as that contained in clause 5. He is a great one for talking about his 14 point program. He should add a fifteenth point. That ought to be that the government should never set precedents by establishing collective agreements through parliament.
Maybe the Minister of Labour ought to direct his attention to eliminating the strike program. There are a lot of other things he should do. This does not indicate that he has an attitude which is open to the trade union movement.
At this time the government is trying to cultivate its friendship with labour. At any rate that was the context of the debate which the minister and I had. He put forward the idea that labour ought to stay loose in the Canadian political scheme so that they can have some influence with the various political parties. It is obvious he has blown that facade. It is obvious that he does not speak for labour in cabinet. The Minister of Transport has taken on that job. He stated over radio and television that we should proceed in the direction of no strikes in essential services.
I want to know how much clause 5 will cost the taxpayers of Canada. How much is this agreement worth in dollars and cents, and what is the total cost of the fringe benefits?
Can the minister explain the meaning of the columns A11 to A18? What are "familiarization flights"? Where do VFR controllers and shift supervisors fit into the schedule? What is meant by "high density U.S.A. units"? Now that I am a bargainer, I want to know what overtime is predicted for air traffic controllers and what this is likely to cost. When 1 was negotiating with school boards we had to know the facts, and as a negotiator now I want to know these things. I think this is only fair ball. Can the minister explain the rates of pay set out in Schedule I? What do these nine columns of figures mean? Where does experience fit into that scheduling? I should also like an explanation-


Gérald Laniel: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: No.


John R. Rodriguez: Since this is his bill, I ask the minister for an explanation of this terminology. Indeed, 1 demand an explanation.


John Carr Munro: With respect to the terminology the hon. member is talking about in Schedule II, each and
8182

August 9, 1977
Air Traffic Controllers
every one of these are items agreed to between the parties themselves prior to this legislation being brought down. I would assume the hon. member would wish to see adopted the very terms to which the controllers have agreed and which, presumably, they wish to be adopted. All those areas in Schedule II are areas where beneficial and constructive collective bargaining went on.
With respect to Schedule I, I am getting an estimate of the over-all cost of the 8 per cent which will amount, roughly, to 8 per cent of the present cost of the salaries of all the controllers in Canada, including their fringe benefits. As far as the eight columns of figures are concerned, these are different steps within each classification, the principles of which have been acknowledged; the parties have been operating under them for some time. The contest came with respect to reclassification, the general upgrading of the various levels within each classification.
I repeat that Schedule II represents what the parties have agreed upon, and Schedule I is a reflection of the apportionment of the 8 per cent total compensation. If the apportionment as set out is not to the satisfaction of the parties, Clause 5 provides for an arbitrator who can be requested by the controllers to decide on a different allocation. I am now in a position to give the hon. member the figure for the total cost. It is $3.8 million in terms of the increase set out in the bill before us.


John R. Rodriguez: It may be that the minister's bureaucrats have worked this out with CATCA, but since I am now a party to the agreement as a member of parliament I should like to ask certain further questions; it is not enough for the minister to tell us that all this has been agreed to. I have been injected into this situation as a member of parliament, and since I want to vote intelligently upon the matter I need to know these things. Can the minister tell us where "experience" fits in in Schedule I? Can he tell us the number of employees associated with each of the categories mentioned?


Some hon. Members:: Question!


John Carr Munro: As to the number of employees affected in each of the columns of figures, I can supply that information without difficulty. We will get the information to the hon. member shortly.


John R. Rodriguez: I do not want to be obstreperous, Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


John R. Rodriguez: -but I should like to know, before we vote on this collective agreement, the number of employees involved in each of these categories. I want to know this as a negotiator. For the minister to say he does not have this information handy means he was expecting to push this bill through in a very short period. It is important we should get these figures, that we should be given a breakdown of these employees. Could the minister explain to me as a negotiator what is a

"high density U.S.A. unit"? Is that like a low density minister?


John Carr Munro: If the hon. member wants an explanation of the various terms used in Schedule II, I suggest he has only to start reading them. Perhaps that will enlighten him as to what they mean.


John R. Rodriguez: It is obvious the minister is not familiar with his own bill. The minister gave us the figures of the cost of Schedule I, the rates of pay. I believe he said the total cost would be $3.8 million.


Gérald Laniel: Order. It occurs to me the hon. member is going far beyond the amendment which is before the committee. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby has moved an amendment which is directly related to a settlement. The committee will be considering the schedules at some point. I think the hon. member should try to limit his contribution to the amendment in front of the committee at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: Perhaps we can deal with the amendment and then we can return to clause 5 and get into specific questions.
As the minister has not spoken since earlier today, I wonder what his reaction is to the amendment of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Chairman, the reason I did not respond is because I thought the President of the Treasury Board explained in some considerable detail precisely what took place in the negotiations which led to the conclusion before us. The total compensation of 8 per cent was based on a conciliation board report which was unanimous. That is not an unusual procedure when we are passing legislation with respect to back to work.
The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby took exception to my analysis on the basis that what I did not tell the House was that reclassification was beyond the purview of the conciliation board. That is true in the sense that under the Public Service Staff Relations Act classification is not subject to the collective bargaining process and arbitration, which is part of the law passed by parliament. Naturally it is beyond the conciliation board's purview.
The costing of the total compensation of 8 per cent and how it was arrived at was not done by the government itself, as has been suggested by other members of the New Democratic Party. There was the conciliation board, with labour, management and government representation. They were unanimous in recommending a total compensation of 8 per cent in this particular case. What was left in the conciliation board report was the availability of the parties to get together with respect to the apportionment of that 8 per cent.
As the President of the Treasury Board said, when speaking for the negotiators, there was no prior commitment with
August 9, 1977

respect to reclassification and the level which that would have cost, in terms of 12.6 per cent. There was a unanimous report of the conciliation board before the government came with this bill and the 8 per cent total compensation in this legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Chairman, that is not an analysis. I say to the minister that that is propaganda.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: I have in my hand a copy of the report of the conciliation board which the minister has been proudly reporting on, and which has been so loudly cheered by his yelping backbenchers. The minister keeps reiterating that this report pertains to the 8 per cent settlement. As I thought everyone understood by now, this whole issue concerns reclassification. I should like to quote from page 2 of the report-


An hon. Member:: Order.


John Edward Broadbent: Whenever you present the truth to a Liberal, he wants you to shut up.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: I say to the backbenchers, who were only listening to the minister, to listen to what the report indicates.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: We can stay here all night. We probably will.


Mr. Corbin:: That does not bother us.


John Edward Broadbent: Nothing bothers you, brother.


Walter David Baker: That is one of your problems, Corbin.


Eymard G. Corbin: Canadian people love you.


John Edward Broadbent: At page 2 the report reads as follows:
In the course of the proceedings of this conciliation board the parties engaged in considerable discussion with respect of these two issues. As these matters are beyond the jurisdiction of this board, we make no recommendation with respect to them. However, in view of the fact that these two issues were of paramount importance, we urge the parties to continue their efforts to resolve them.


Walter David Baker: There is your answer.


Mr. Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: So, what is new?


John Edward Broadbent: In terms of the substance of the minister's argument, this paper does not mean a damn thing and he should know it. It indicates that the two parties should get together, try to work out a solution and make unanimous recommendations on other matters.
Normally on labour matters the minister speaks seriously, and I mean that. If this amendment is passed by this House, it would provide what legislation introduced by the Liberal
Air Traffic Controllers
government during the last ten years always provided, namely, an arbitrator. Back to work legislation has always provided that, since I have been here from 1968. We have not sat down and indicated that all the "t's" have been crossed and all the "i's" have been dotted. Here we are imposing a specific settlement on workers and we are setting up an arbitrator who does not have a ceiling under which to operate. That has never been done before. We propose a specific ceiling which the arbitrator cannot go beyond. The entire point of the amendment is to have an impartial arbitrator who can interpret the legitimacy of CATCA's case.
The minister has stated that the President of the Treasury Board dealt with that argument this afternoon. I say to the minister in all seriousness that I listened to the President of the Treasury Board this afternoon and I-


John Carr Munro: You were not in the House.


John Edward Broadbent: I was present for the first couple of minutes, and 1 have since read Hansard.


An hon. Member:: Where did you get a copy of Hansard?


John Edward Broadbent: I have it before me now. I suggest that members of the Liberal party should take the time to read it.
1 do not want to waste the time of the House by speaking to the Minister of Labour when he is not listening. I should like to ask him if he is going to reply.


John Carr Munro: You have got to sit down before I can answer.


John Edward Broadbent: Well, will you listen?


John Carr Munro: I am listening.


John Edward Broadbent: Prior to this contract coming into being, there was no program pertaining to reclassification, which was the case made by the President of the Treasury Board this afternoon. He also cited two letters. In my reply tonight I indicated there were six letters, and not two letters. In the six letters it was abundantly clear that prior to the controls legislation being passed the government was negotiating with CATCA on the issue of reclassification. Thus, there was a clear understanding between the government and CATCA that reclassification was an issue. I also said that nowhere in A1B law or regulations are there instructions as to what is to be considered as legitimate criteria to apply to the reclassification point for consideration by AIB.
This is an open-ended situation. My point to the President of the Treasury Board, which I am now making to the Minister of Labour, was this: if it is so open-ended in terms both of the law and the regulations, and if they have been talking about changing the classification for over two and a half years, why is the government reluctant to put it to the AIB to decide? That is the question. This amendment would make that possible. It would be open to the arbitrator at least to consider
80020 -53V2

August 9, 1977
Air Traffic Controllers
making a ruling, and then within the framework of the law, which we accept, the AIB could still decide on the arbitrator's recommendation. Therefore I ask the Minister of Labour in all seriousness, what does he have against this amendment, which is fully consistent with past back to work legislation and fully consistent with the spirit and law of the anti-inflation controls program?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby indicated, when I told him that this legislation was based on the unanimous report of a conciliation board, that he thought it most unusual that there had not been legislation in this House which had followed that type of procedure, but rather that we had always appointed an arbitrator.


John Edward Broadbent: No.


John Carr Munro: Well, that is the way I took his remarks and that is the way my colleagues understood them.


John Edward Broadbent: That is not right.


John Carr Munro: He certainly mentioned that we usually go by way of an arbitrator. Many members around me heard him say that, but we will check the blues. At any rate, I just want to indicate what has been done before. As I said in my opening remarks, with respect to the grain handlers dispute some time ago a single commissioner was appointed, which in terms of procedure is analogous to a conciliation board. He came in with a report and we based our legislation in that dispute, ordering the men back to work, on his recommendations.


John Allen Fraser: No one commended you for that.


John Carr Munro: 1 may be wrong; I think the NDP voted for it but I do not think the Conservative party did. That was the Parry recommendations.
Judge Gold was appointed an independent conciliation commissioner in the longshoremen's dispute three years ago. He made recommendations and the legislation was based on those recommendations.
The last item is the legislation which 1 myself brought in to end the lockout at Halifax. I placed a proposal before the parties which the union had accepted and the company had not. So there has been a variation. We brought in the unanimous report of the conciliation board, and at times when there was no board we brought in the report of an independent commissioner.
I repeat, what we are now doing is bringing in legislation based on the unanimous recommendation of the conciliation board report-


John Allen Fraser: Which excluded the point at issue.


John Edward Broadbent: It deals with the reclassification issue.


John Carr Munro: No, it did not. The hon. member indicated in his remarks that everything was agreed upon up to 100 per cent. Does the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby agree that he did say up to 100 per cent?


John Edward Broadbent: In terms of the reclassification item.


John Carr Munro: That is not my information. There were in excess of 100 positions concerning which the parties were still trying to arrive at some agreement. That is certainly not subject to arbitration. He knows it and we know it. That is just one of the inaccuracies which we have perceived in what the hon. member talked about. So it is not 100 per cent.


John Edward Broadbent: It is 97.


John Carr Munro: Well, in excess of 100 positions were still subject to discussions between the parties.


John Edward Broadbent: May I deal with a couple of points which the minister brought up, Mr. Chairman. I think he misunderstood the point I made about an arbitrator being placed at the heart, in a sense, of back to work legislation, given, if you will excuse the word, a Liberal framework within which to work. I am saying that that is totally absent in this legislation. There is a ceiling and the ceiling is the government's own proposal. That is no framework.
The minister referred to the grain handlers dispute and said that the conciliation board was one which consisted of a single commissioner who touched on all the issues and proposed a total package.


John Allen Fraser: That was his argument then.


John Edward Broadbent: Yes, but that is not the argument that I am making. It is true that there was a comprehensive report but there were two important differences in the argument that I am making. First of all, the degree of comprehension is totally absent from the report of the conciliation board which pertained to CATCA; that conciliation board did not deal with the issue at the heart of the dispute, namely, reclassification. In that sense it is irrelevant. My second point is that, if I recall correctly, in the grain handlers dispute there was an arbitrator appointed to pass judgment on the details of the proposal or, if there was not that, on a settlement which was not at the level recommended by the employer. That is exactly what is being done in this case.


John Carr Munro: I did not say that Judge Gold who was appointed in the longshoremen's dispute was an arbitrator. I said he was a conciliation commissioner. Under the Canada Labour Code there is an option to appoint a conciliation commissioner. If the parties prefer a single person rather than a board, you can appoint a single commissioner. He was a conciliation commissioner, not an arbitrator.


John Edward Broadbent: But he dealt with all the issues.
*
August 9, 1977


John Carr Munro: Yes, he did in many cases. Some were dealt with satisfactorily to the employees and some to the employer, but he dealt with the issues as he saw fit. Where he did not deal with them, the previous provisions in the collective agreement were considered to stand. The commissioner may not deal with the issues in the manner in which the parties perceive should be the case.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Chairman, 1 intervene at this stage only to remind the minister that when Judge Gold's report was put to us we were not the employer. Secondly, as the minister well knows, 1 pointed out at the time that we would accept Judge Gold's report because under the circumstances there was probably nobody else who knew as much about the situation who could write a better report. Let me remind the minister of this, and I am now speaking in support of the NDP motion. As reported in Hansard for April 23, 1975, at page 5126, I said:
I can understand why in this particular instance the minister has chosen the Gold report as the basis of the legislation, but I say it is a dangerous precedent. There should be legislation to restore normalcy as far as work is concerned, but determination of the final terms of settlement should be left to somebody independent of this chamber.
That is the only proper way to approach this situation, and in the long run only on that basis will both sides of the dispute accept the terms of settlement.
If that is true when we are not the employer, surely it applies a thousand times over when it is the government that is the employer and it is the government that is introducing legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I have been trying to follow the argument and 1 am having some difficulty. 1 gathered from the minister that when the conciliation board met, they handled those problems in the dispute that were within the purview of collective bargaining, and that the classification program and the civil service statutes are some time outside collective bargaining. I understand that some time after the matter was negotiated, the President of the Treasury Board, or whoever was doing the negotiating, agreed to negotiate, in addition to matters that were before the conciliation board, the matter of classification.
Therefore, I wonder how the minister can refer to it as being a unanimous report on the dispute. Because of this, I would like to know from the minister why, when this matter was referred to the conciliation board, the classification matter was not included, when it had been the subject of negotiation for over two years. Why was it not considered part of the negotiation, and at what stage did it become part of the negotiation?


John Carr Munro: If the hon. member is looking for an answer to that question, the fact of the matter is that the conciliation board is part of the collective bargaining process. Reports are made to it, and parties can come to an agreement. In this case it was decided that this was the appropriate procedure. The government appointed a chairman who was acceptable to both parties. The question of reclassifi-
Air Traffic Controllers
cation under the Public Service Staff Relations Act is not part of the collective bargaining process and is not subject to arbitration, so naturally the board could not consider it.


William Arnold Peters: How did it become part of the bargaining process? It would seem to me that someone must have decided, somewhere along the line, that it was a matter for collective bargaining and was now part of the conciliation process. As I understand it, it is the only part that is in dispute-yet the conciliation board's report was unanimous.
It seems to me that what is in contention is this other matter. I am sure the minister has been aware for a long time of the many factors that are not normally part of the collective bargaining process. One of them that was nearly always excluded from the collective bargaining in which I was involved was safety, yet a safety committee would be set up which would make suggestions. But if it was not negotiable, it was not referred to a conciliation board. Health plans were also excluded, as were community activities and sports associations. The minister has not indicated to us why for two years we have been negotiating with CATCA matters concerning reclassification if they did not become part of the collective bargaining process.
Could this matter not be referred to the A1B, in any case? It might fit into a different category and not be considered a matter of wages. Under clause 5, the minister has indicated that there is an aggregate amount of about $3,800,000. An arbitrator can make a decision on a particular classification when the two parties grieve. I fail to see how we can write laws which say that the union is allowed to grieve on this matter of classification when the matter is not included under the Public Service Staff Relations Act. What is the turnover, and what are the changes in classification and the stability of personnel?
I gather there are about 2,200 people involved, and if we lost 200 people, although I am not good at mathematics, I imagine it would be about 4 per cent. Without changing the average, we would have the increment which would bring up the classification to 4.2 per cent. We seem to agree that classification is involved and that either the government or the employers' association can object to a classification and start a grievance procedure only to the extent of the aggregate which the minister now informs us is $3,800,000.
It seems to me that this strike took place simply because of the classification program. The matters before the conciliation board were agreed to unanimously. Therefore, that part of it is settled. Now we have this part which was not before the conciliation board, but the minister tells us it is not included in the civil service staff relations act and therefore cannot be considered as a wage factor in collective bargaining. I fail to see what the dispute has been about. Obviously, it must be handled in a way other than collective bargaining. Therefore, I doubt very much if the AIB can be seized with the problem of classification. Obviously, the government has negotiated over a period of time.
1 would like to ask the minister what the figures in the schedule mean, if they do not mean classification.

August 9, 1977
Air Traffic Controllers
It indicates to me that if you are an All, you have seven categories of wages. If you go to A12, it is very odd. They are not a continuation, so you cannot say they are continuing. The highest you can rise to in class A11 is $15,785, and you start in A12 considerably below that because you start at $13,551. That seems to me to be a classification. We are negotiating now the classification program which the minister says is illegal to put before a conciliation board in normal negotiations. In A13 there are 14 classifications, the highs and lows in seven categories.


An hon. Member:: What about A3?


William Arnold Peters: The hon. member has not looked at the bill. There is not any A3. The next one, A13, goes up, not down. These sections in the schedule would not offend you even if you took your shoes off. They would fit in very well. We are discussing a classification.


An hon. Member:: No, we are not.


William Arnold Peters: Well, I would like to know what these figures are. They certainly are classifications in terms of the office staff in any other category. It may not be what we are talking about.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Chairman, if I may just answer the hon. member, the rates he sees there and from which he is quoting are the classifications and rates which have already been agreed to and are operative now. They are old classifications.


William Arnold Peters: Of course, that is true. They are already agreed to. In other words, we have a classification program. We have this classification in the rate structure of all the public service I know of, and it is almost identical to this. If one knew what the A stood for, one would probably be able to say what category it is equal to in the Department of Transport or in the Department of Labour. The minister probably has civil servants in all these categories. They are classifications. A person can move within one classification to a higher rate; then he can go to another classification. I presume that A11, A12 and A13 are different types of jobs. One may be a controller on VFR. One may be a unit chief or supervisor. One may be a ground control officer or a visual controller at a very small airport operated by the Department of Transport.
I presume that every one of these is a classification, and I would like to know what the minister means when he says that classifications are beyond public service legislation. This was not even referred to a conciliation board.
The minister knows as well as I do that members of parliament do not have classifications. Office staffs may have, but members of parliament do not. They have a set salary, and it is equal for everyone. Additional amounts are added when a member becomes a minister, a parliamentary secretary, or a chairman of a committee, but there are still no classifications in these categories. There is not just one category of controller.

Different VFR controllers get different wages. There are a number of categories. In fact there are seven categories, and there are levels in each of those seven categories. It seems to me that we are not being very honest about what a classification is. I am sure that classifications were put before the conciliation board, and I am sure that increments were considered in those classifications. I presume that the minister has been talking about reclassification in which, for some reason or another, a change is made in certain categories which has to do with changing conditions for people in these categories.


An hon. Member:: It's all right, Arnold.


William Arnold Peters: It might be all right for some of my colleagues, but I do not understand what the minister is talking about. I see the classifications here, but I do not see that they are prohibited by public service legislation. If changes are made I am curious to know why those changes cannot be referred to a conciliation board just as the classifications we have now. 1 do not know why the changes could not be referred if the categories could be referred.


Leonard C. Jones: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister one question. Here we are writing the collective bargaining agreement, and reference is made in two clauses to an agreement. Does the minister not think that if a bill like this comes before parliament all members of parliament should be privy and have a copy of the collective agreement itself? What the minister has provided here are amendments to an agreement which should have been tabled at the very beginning, at the time of the introduction of this bill.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Chairman, I can answer the hon. member by indicating that Schedule II contains all the items to which the parties have agreed. In a sense we have been able to resolve the wage issue. This would have been a very significant part of the collective agreement.


Leonard C. Jones: The point I am trying to make is that this whole thing is a jigsaw puzzle, and we have just some of the pieces. If we had been given the whole agreement, we could have put this jigsaw puzzle together very easily today.


The Assistant Deputy Chairman:: Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Charles Robert Turner: The question is on the amendment of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby.
(And the result of the vote having been announced:)


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. The seating plan in my desk is somewhat out of date. The hon. member who is sitting in the seat which is in the fourth row, second from the end, entered the House and took his place after members on my side of the House had risen for the vote.
August 9, 1977

He stood, to have his vote recorded, which he should not have done.


Charles Robert Turner: Order, please. It has been brought to the attention of the Chair that an hon. member came into the Chamber after the question was put. If there is no objection, we shall have to disregard or ignore that vote. I see there is no objection; therefore it will be recorded that 69 members voted against the amendment.
Amendment (Mr. Broadbent) negatived: Yeas 48; nays, 70.


Charles Robert Turner: The question is on clause 5.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, earlier we learned that it will cost $3.8 million to implement Schedule I. What is the estimated projected cost of the overtime items contained in Schedule II? I am referring specifically to item 15.02(a) of Schedule II. Perhaps the Minister of Labour could provide the figure. I should like to know the answer, and I should like to ask several more questions.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Chairman, I believe the hon. member for Nickel Belt wishes to know the cost of overtime, or the cost of compensation set out in item 15.02(a) of Schedule II. According to my figures, the cost will be $236,519.


Mr. Gilbert:: In United States or Canadian funds? [Translation]


Mr. Joyal:: Mr. Chairman, with the consent of the House, I would like to move an amendment to subclause (5) of clause 5.
I am particularly aware of the inconveniences that are being caused at this time to the public and users of air transport by the air controllers strike, so it is not my intention to unduly prolong my contribution or delay the discussion of the bill that is now before the House. However, in spite of the weight of the inconveniences that business and the travelling public have to cope with I would like to deal with two aspects that this conflict brings out and conclude with the tabling of an amendment to subclause (5) of clause 5 of Bill C-63.
The first comment I would like to make has to do with the right to strike in the public sector. When the legislator authorized the right to strike in the public sector in 1967 he measured all the inconveniences that could result from that right. If he saw fit to include it in the law of the land it is because he favours the notion of collective agreement bargaining that, although generous and liberal, is nonetheless strict in its reasoning and application. By leaving the responsibility to determine working conditions to the parties the legislator wanted at the same time to make sure that conditions in which bargaining takes place should not benefit one party to the detriment of the other but, quite the contrary, that the law should act as some sort of referee in the test of strength that is always present at the bargaining table.
I do not have to emphasize that the foundation of collective agreement negotiation is the willingness of the parties based on
Air Traffic Controllers
their mutual good faith, and if one has a weapon or means of blackmail we can no longer properly talk of free and close discussion on the stakes of the agreement but rather simply the drawing up of a protocol of surrender with one of the parties dictating to the other the terms of the end of the debate. Those conditions take a special shape in the public sector; unlike in the private sector negotiation in the public sector imposes a particular ethic on the parties and neither of them can ignore that it holds the public at its mercy. That is where we stand today, Mr. Chairman; on June 28, 1976, CATCA and CALPA dictated the protocol of surrender, and today the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) imposes the terms of the return to work.
I really have no sympathy for the way CATCA leaders are fulfilling their responsibilities to the Canadian people and some of their members. They have shown in the past that they would rather give vent to their prejudices and bigotry than try to understand the nature of this country. Their conception of Canadian duality is narrow, false and biased. Thus, some people may be inclined to believe that I am looking forward to Parliament checking a union that denies many of its members their vested right to speak their own language which has been officially recognized by the law of the land and is entitled to the same rights, privileges and status as the other official language.
Such is not the case. It is very reluctantly that I will support this bill, realizing that once again the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) has committed himself on behalf of Parliament before the bill was introduced and its provisions were made public. It is to be deplored that the Minister of Transport has threatened to pass a special legislation before the legal strike was called. Regardless of the circumstances, it seems to me that the Minister of Transport could not threaten a union with the decisions of Parliament before the strike was called and before Parliament was convened and legislated. How can an individual or a group be threatened with the deprivation of a right granted under the law before it is even exercised? Any jurist with the least experience, and the Minister of Transport is an outstanding jurist, would endorse my reservation and my concern. The air controllers' strike on August 7, 1977 is entirely legal. We can surely argue about the reasons which prompt CATCA to resort to it, but the strike remains within the context of the legislation and as such it abides by the rule of law, the primacy of law.
Therefore, if the Canadian legislator has recognized the right to strike legally under certain circumstances, the government cannot threaten a union to end a strike or warn them to that effect in the course of negotiations without disowning the present philosophy of staff relations which is moreover legitimated and recognized by the law. It is therefore with much reservation that I view this bill, regardless of the opinions I might have on the union concerned. But one may wonder about the eagerness and the celerity with which Parliament is asked to end that strike though young and legal, whereas in June 1976, on the very eve of the Olympic Games, a strike

August 9, 1977
Air Traffic Controllers
declared illegal by Mr. Justice Addy of the Federal Court was allowed to last ten days before a draft agreement was signed under which the rights of Parliament had once again been negotiated.
Mr. Chairman, I was among those who last year urged Department of Transport and Treasury Board officials to bring legislation before Parliament which was sitting then, in order to ensure that the law of the land was enforced and that the law enforcement agencies were respected. Now, one year later, we are still living the consequences of this period and, in this perspective, everything that was undertaken to settle that conflict seems even more out of proportion and from many aspects useless. It is sufficient to read what the Hon. Jean Marchand, who is in the gallery tonight, stated on July 12, 1977, on the publication of the report of the Commission on Bilingual Air Traffic Services to be convinced that if we want to put back some order in the relations between CATCA and the Department of Transport, we must come back to a fair situation and not question the labour relations philosophy which marks the Canadian federal public service as one of the most progressive in the world.
Mr. Marchand wrote on July 12 last:
"The interim report shows that the argument of air safety invoked by CATCA and CALPA against bilingualism in Quebec for air communications was false and even ridiculous. This was a bugaboo that could not have scared people with the barest knowledge of the problem, especially not the government."
And he added:
"(c) From everything that has been said, it also appears that the federal Department of Transport really is the best agency to regulate air traffic, like it regulates maritime and rail traffic. It has the knowledge, the staff and the means to protect the public and the employees in the field of air traffic." Mr. Marchand also stated: "It therefore seems to me that an inquiry commission, whatever the honesty and the qualifications of the judges, is redundant and can only serve to put an end to the phychosis artificially and illegally created by CALPA and CATCA."
Therefore, if we want to normalize the relations between the Canadian Air Traffic Control Association and the federal Department of Transport, if we want to give back to the authorities concerned the responsibility towards Parliament and the Canadian public, if we want to re-establish the authority of Parliament and the Minister of Transport, we must annul the protocol of agreement of June 28, 1976, between the Minister of Transport, CATCA and CALPA, recall orders in council 1576, 1583, and 1588 and give to the federal Department of Transport sole responsibility for implementing bilingualism in air communications in Canada.
This is why, Mr. Chairman, I would like to table the text of the following amendment to subclause (5) of clause 5 of Bill C-63, seconded by my colleagues the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Duclos) and the hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane), I therefore move that Bill C-63, An Act to provide

for the continuation of air traffic control services, be amended by adding immediately following clause 5, subclause 5, the following, as subclause 6:
6.(1) Orders CP-1976-1583 and 1976-1588, minutes of the meetings of the committee of the Privy Council, approved by His Excellency the Governor General, on June 23rd and 28th, 1976, and the protocol agreement between on the one hand, the Minister of Transport and, on the other hand, the Canadian Air Traffic Control Association (CATCA) and the Canadian Air Line Pilots' Association (CALPA), signed on June 28th, 1976, are abrogated and annulled.
(2) The Minister of Transport alone is responsible for the implementation of bilingualism in air communications.


Charles Robert Turner: Order, please. The Chair has reservations about the amendment being in order. I feel it is in no way pertinent to the bill now before the committee. [English]
I wish to refer to May's nineteenth edition page 521, inadmissible amendments. I quote from paragraph 1:
An amendment is out of order if it is irrelevant to the subject matter or beyond the scope of the bill-
I think this amendment breaches both grounds and it does go beyond the scope of the bill. Therefore it is not receivable.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple more questions I want to ask the minister. Can an employee under this agreement use non-utilized time off for familiarization flight?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Chairman, I will endeavour to ascertain the answer to that question. In the meantime I can give an answer to the previous question of the hon. member. He talked about the total compensation and the allocation of moneys between the various people who fell into the different levels and different categories, the different classifications.
Going through Schedule I, I wish to revise my figure. I gave an erroneous figure earlier. The total cost has been costed out at $3,372,000. The number of people in the different categories are as follows: A 1.00, 75; A 1.01, 94; A 1.02, 257; A 1.03, 212; A1.04, 289; A1.05, 589; A1.06, 309; A1.07, 85; and A 1.08, 33, for a total number of controllers of 2,213. Yes, experience is taken into account in providing the annual increment at all levels up to a maximum of six.


John R. Rodriguez: While the minister is getting the answer to that question, I wonder if he could give the rationale for the non-payment of an employee's familiarization flight taken in conjunction with his days of rest.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Chairman, I will endeavour to ascertain that information and send it to the hon. member.


John R. Rodriguez: On the retirement or debt, which is Schedule II, is this new or was there a similar clause in the previous collective agreement, and what is the projected cost of this clause?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Chairman, in answer to the first question of the hon. member, familiarization flights are taken during an employee's normal hours allotted so that
August 9, 1977

he does not need overtime for that. With regard to the last question, neither I nor my officials caught it. I would appreciate him repeating it.


John R. Rodriguez: I would like to know the rationale. The minister said earlier there would be a non-payment of an employee's familiarization flight taken in conjunction with his days of rest. What is the rationale for that?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Chairman, I will endeavour to get an answer to the hon. member's question. We had some difficulty in understanding what the hon. member was getting at.


John R. Rodriguez: The agreement specifically prohibits payment to employees for familiarization flights on their days of rest. Why can an employee not be paid when he takes his familiarization flight on his days of rest? There must be a reason for putting that into the collective agreement.


John Carr Munro: If the hon. member would refer to Schedule IV he would find that it is based on a letter of intent between the parties. It was previously provided that familiarization flights would not be taken on days of rest. Now, this is to be changed so that days of rest can be taken in conjunction with familiarization flights, which means that many of the controllers will be in a position to utilize some of their free time for familiarization flights.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Schedules I to IV inclusive agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
John Carr Munro: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare the motion carried.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the motion passed earlier I would suggest that the House agree to being available for Royal Assent when the other place has dealt with this bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to the order made earlier this day under Standing Order 44, the sitting of the House is suspended until the call of the Chair.


SITTING SUSPENDED
[Stage Direction]
At 00.24 a.m. the sitting was suspended.
8190
[Stage Direction]
August 9, 1977
Message from the Senate SITTING RESUMED

[Stage Direction]
The Elouse resumed at 3.27 a.m.

['Agreed.\nAt 3:44 a.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.', 'Monday, October 17, 1977']
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received the following communication:
Government House Ottawa
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable R. G. B. Dickson, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to a bill.
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 to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate have passed Bill C-63, An Act to provide for the continuation of air traffic control services, without amendment.

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:
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-63, An Act to provide for the continuation of air traffic control services-Chapter 57.


Mr. Speaker:: Accordingly and in conformity with the order made July 25, 1977, this House stands adjourned until October 17, 1977, at two o'clock in the afternoon.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I intended to move another adjournment motion with the same date, but I presume the adjournment which you have described contains all the conditions and qualifications which might make it possible for us to return, if necessary, before October 17, if the public interest requires.


Mr. Speaker:: The adjournment motion which was made on July 25 contained provisions to resume for August 4 and 5 also provision to resume if in the event, after consultation with the government, the Speaker should perceive that the public good requires the resumption of the House before that time. It is to be assumed that upon adjournment now until October 17 at two o'clock in the afternoon, all of these conditions prevail.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.
At 3:44 a.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.

Monday, October 17, 1977