1977-12-14

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a motion under Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. As an important initiative to overcome our massive deficit of $11.5 billion a year in manufactured products will be to show these products to far more potential customers in the United States and in the world market. 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Hastings (Mr. Ellis):
That, as a preliminary to "Operation world markets", which should be held next spring, the government should, this winter, bring the important buyers from the principal markets in the United States, to see Canadian manufactured products in giant trade shows in Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg and Vancouver, and our heavy machinery in the factories where it is made across the country, as a means of making United States buyers, and later the principal buyers in the world market, more aware of what this country has to offer, and, as a result, greatly increase the sale of Canadian manufactured products-the ones that produce jobs.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of a motion under Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM ALLEGED DISREGARD OF CONTROLS POLICY BY INSURANCE COMPANIES-REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to move a motion under Standing Order 43 regarding a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of today's report by Statistics Canada that property-casualty insurance companies have almost doubled their profits in the first nine months of 1977, from $261.3 million in the comparable period in 1976 to $412.5 million in 1977, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn):
That this disregard of the Anti-Inflation Board guidelines by the property-casualty insurance companies of Canada during the government s controls policy, be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs for investigation and report back to the House.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of a motion under Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[ Translation]


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Gilles Caouette (T6miscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43 to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Considering that last October the unemployment rate went up to 13.5 per cent in the Outaouais region against 11.4 per cent in Quebec as a whole and considering that the Societe d'amenagement de l'Outaouais has established that the industrial growth in that region is below that of other regions such as northwest Quebec, Saguenay-Lac Saint-Jean and even Gaspesia, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Belle-chasse (Mr. Lambert):
That this House urge the Department of Regional Economic Expansion to declare the Quebec part of the Ottawa region a designated area, as requested by representative bodies in that region.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
1850

December 14, 1977
Trident Aircraft
[English]	AGRICULTURE


TRANSPORT
Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move a motion under Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the reported negotiations between the Minister of Transport and the CNR-CP rail regarding the rail rights of abandoned rail lines and because there is an obvious conflict between the provincial governments and the federal government as to whom the rights of way of abandoned rail lines should revert to, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen):
That the Minister of Transport request that the House leader bring forth private members Bill C-222 on railway line abandonment so that it may be amended if necessary, passed on second reading and sent to committee so that this subject may be discussed openly in committee with input from the provinces and the principals concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion under Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that Trident Aircraft Limited has been forced to close its doors in spite of funding from the BC DC amounting to Sl'/i million from private investors, in view of the fact that this support was put into place on the basis of an assurance of federal support of $5 million and in view of the fact that Industry, Trade and Commerce has ignored all letters, phone calls and telex advising them that BC has fulfilled its commitment and calling on the government to fulfil its obligation, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen):
That the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce answer his phone and put his money where his mouth is if there is enough money to fill that cavity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


REQUEST MINISTER EXPLAIN FAILURE TO TAKE ACTION TO STOP DECLINE IN FARM INCOME-MOTION UNDER S.O.43
Mr. John Wise (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Given the fact that farm income has declined for the second consecutive year and in view of the fact that at the Outlook Conference just concluded, a further reduction in farm income is predicted for 1978 which would result in a decrease from 1975 to 1978 of over $1,243 million, in the face of an increase in farm input cost of over $1 billion from 1976 to the 1978 projection, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence):
That in the complete absence of any legislation or other corrective measures, the Minister of Agriculture appear before the Standing Committee on Agriculture to explain why on October 14, 1975 the government seemed to have recognized the problem, and I quote, "to ensure an adequate supply of food, farmers must be assured of a rate of return commensurate with the large investment of labour and capital essential to agriculture production" when in reality nothing has been done and the record clearly illustrates a continuation of an unfortunate and disastrous situation.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) has had in his hands for several weeks a report detailing the inadequate enforcement of air safety regulations in northwestern Ontario and has not yet reported to the House whether he will hold an inquiry on the matter, and in view of the allegations of political interference in enforcing safety standards, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez):
That this House instruct the Minister of Transport to institute a full public inquiry, which would be free from political influence, into the matter of airline safety in northwestern Ontario.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
December 14, 1977



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have some questions for the Minister of Finance relating to economic action. May I ask the minister where the bill is introducing employment tax credits.


Hon. Jean Chr6tien (Minister of Finance):: We are busy drafting it, Mr. Speaker.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, they have been preparing that bill for several months now. What we want is a government that will take some action, not give the country excuses.


Some hon. Members:: Hear hear!


INQUIRY AS TO MEASURES TO PROTECT FARM INCOME
Charles Joseph Clark: Since they do not have anything to offer in that area, may I ask the minister what specific measures the government will introduce before Christmas to stop the billion dollar slide in net farm income in Canada.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the economic policies of the government were set forth in the speech of October 20. We have established the goals for the Canadian economy. We expect that the performance next year will be better than this year. That was confirmed on Monday by American advisers who stated that next year they expect that only Japan will out-perform Canada.


Charles Joseph Clark: The goal of net farm income was set two and a half years ago and this government has done nothing about it except let the income of Canadian farmers slide.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POSSIBLE INTRODUCTION OF MEASURE TO REVERSE FLIGHT OF CAPITAL-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Charles Joseph Clark: Since the government is making no effort in that area either, will the Minister of Finance tell the House of Commons what specific measures the government intends to introduce to reverse the flight of $735 million from Canada in the last year?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, there is always an outflow of capital from Canada to foreign countries and an inflow of foreign capital into Canada. There is nothing unusual in that. I was in New York last week and I
Oral Questions
was pleased to note that American investors have tremendous confidence in Canada.


MEASURES TO BE PLACED BEFORE FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, even this minister knows that the flight of capital has been abnormally high which indicates that in this field, too, the government has no economic action to propose. May I ask the Minister of Finance what specific short term measures he intends to place before the federal-provincial meeting of ministers of finance in January?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I think I will have my propositions presented to the ministers of finance first.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


ALLEGATION OF POOR FORECASTING-POSSIBILITY OF ACTION AGAINST ADVISERS
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my questions, too, are directed to the Minister of Finance. In view of the very unsatisfactory forecasting which has been done by the present minister and previous ministers of finance, underestimating the degree of unemployment and inflation and over-estimating the rates of real growth, will the hon. gentleman tell the House whether he has carried out any shake-up among his advisers to ensure a better performance in future?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The difficulty of making accurate forecasts is one which every nation in the world faces. Last year, for example, the OECD, the IMF and the World Bank predicted a growth rate of 5 per cent in the developed nations but the actual rate for 1977 will be about 2 per cent. In a very disturbed world such as we are living in today, there are problems connected with forecasting but I have confidence in those who are working very diligently today for the federal government in the Department of Finance and in the Bank of Canada and I do not intend to change them.


REDUCTION OF SUPPLY BOTTLENECKS AND PRICE RIGIDITIES- REQUEST FOR PROGRESS REPORT
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: In the statement by the hon. gentleman's predecessor "Attack on Inflation" presented to the House on October 14, 1975, the following appeared:
The federal government intends to focus with some urgency on identifying ways in which supply bottlenecks and price rigidities in its own area of responsibility can be reduced.
Bearing in mind that today is December 14, 1977, will the minister tell us what progress the government has made in this direction?

December 14, 1977
Oral Questions


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the policy of the federal government in that area has been properly established in the House, but the hon. member has nevf [DOT] offered in his comments any suggestion acceptable to the government.


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD STUDY OF PROGRAM AND ACTIVITIES-DATE OF PUBLICATION OF REPORT
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Dealing again with the inflation program and the activities of the AIB, would the hon. gentleman tell us whether it is correct that a special inquiry or at least a report has been requisitioned with respect to the program and the activities of the board? If so, who is making the report and when might we expect the results?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, 1 hope that when the session resumes in January, we will be in a position to bring in amendments to the Anti-Inflation Board and then I shall be able to answer fully all the questions now being asked by the hon. member.


INDUSTRY
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that yesterday afternoon the Minister of Labour interviewed on television after a meeting with steel workers from the Sudbury basin said the government was considering a temporary stockpile as a short term solution to the crisis faced by workers in the Sudbury community, and since we shall be faced with these lay-offs at the end of December and the end of January with the bulk of them coming at the opening of the federal-provincial conference on economic strategy, can the right hon. gentleman inform us how soon we may expect a decision with respect to stockpiling of nickel on a short term basis so that the uncertainty in the community might be alleviated?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Perhaps I might answer the hon. member's question. What occurred yesterday was that the steel workers came forward with a proposal to save 600 jobs on a permanent basis if there could be stockpiling for one month. After questioning the steel workers with reference to this proposition the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and I said we would analyze it further and look into the proposal which is now being refined by the steel

workers with a view to possibly placing it before our cabinet colleagues for consideration.


STOCKPILING NICKEL-REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION OF FRENCH EXPERIENCE
John R. Rodriguez: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the Minister of Labour is now the ventriloquist, I will continue with a supplementary question to him. According to a report by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, France is engaged in two separate stockpiling schemes, one financed by the government to serve as a strategic raw materials reserve consisting mainly of nickel and copper, the other backed by a group of French banks to assist Societe Metallurgique de Nickel through poor market conditions by purchasing some of its New Caledonia nickel production. I ask the minister whether he is prepared to have his officials investigate the French experience in this matter with a view to proposing this to the cabinet as a possible solution on a short-term basis for the nickel industry in the Sudbury basin?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: This is Punch and Judy.


An hon. Member:: This is the other ventriloquist.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, if members present wish to receive an answer, then perhaps-


Mr. Paproski:: Come on, answer.


Alastair William Gillespie: The hon. member raised the question of the French experience with stockpiling. As I understood his preamble to the question, it was to the effect that the French government was trying to shore up Societe Metallurgique de Nickel, a French company which perhaps was in some difficulty. He did not indicate to me that the action of the French government was taken to support French workers in France; rather it was aimed at supporting a company which was operating off shore from France, in New Caledonia. That seems to me quite a different situation from the one we are discussing in this country.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Nickel Belt on a final supplementary.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I asked the ventriloquist a question and I got the answer from the other half of the team. My supplementary question is again directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the fact that the report of his own department indicated that the purpose of stockpiling nickel was twofold-one, to protect the jobs and security of the economy of the nickel industry, and two, to stockpile strategic minerals-I ask the minister whether he is prepared, instead of standing up and being so insensitive to the people of the Sudbury basin-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
December 14, 1977


John R. Rodriguez: -to have his department investigate the French experience so as to get all the facts about the actions of the French government with respect to stockpiling and report same to the cabinet which will have to make a support decision?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not believe the wild allegations and the stridency of the hon. member will help the situation one little bit. If he wants to play politics with the people of Sudbury, that is his business. We are interested in trying to help the people of Sudbury.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alastair William Gillespie: We do not think that the wild allegations and exaggerations regarding the impact on the city of Sudbury will help the city of Sudbury. We are quite prepared to look at any constructive suggestions which come forward, including the possibility that there may be something in the French experience from which we can borrow to assist in this very difficult situation.


John R. Rodriguez: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has addressed a question to the Minister of Labour and two questions to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.


John R. Rodriguez: I had two supplementaries.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Gilles Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. As no new manufacturing industry of consequence, that is with more than 20 employees, has settled in the Quebec part of the Ottawa region since 1973 because that area is no longer designated by DREE, and as regional organizations such as the CRO, the SAO, the municipalities and the OPDQ are in favour of its designation, might I ask the minister whether he intends to make a statement in the near future to the effect that the Outaouais region in Quebec has been designated by DREE?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the hon. member that I have personally met the authorities of the Outaouais region with my colleagues in this House, the hon. members for Gatineau, Hull and Pontiac. We have met those people and discussed the matter with them. Those three hon. members have described the situation to me on several occasions and my department has also looked into the over-all situation in the
Oral Questions
Outaouais region. We have considered the possibility of intervening and are now considering it; I trust that within coming weeks, or possibly months, we will be in a position to announce a decision.


Gilles Caouette: Mr. Speaker, as the minister seems to be in the process of studying the problem now, could he tell us what credits or specific assistance might be provided, and how they compare with the millions that could be invested in the area?


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to indicate now how much money would be allotted by my department to the development of the Outaouais region, but I am quite pleased to see that the Outaouais region as well as the hon. member support the interventions of DREE and recognize that those interventions are very justifiable.


FINANCE
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The outflow of Canadian investment capital has not been matched by an inflow of foreign capital. In fact, during the third quarter foreigners actually reduced the value of their holdings in Canada by $20 million. Will the minister be presenting any legislation, or what action will he be taking so that Canada will once again be an attractive country in which to invest money?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the hon. member is suggesting that we should control the flow of money which comes into or goes out of Canada. I am not advocating such a policy.


A. Daniel McKenzie: I hope the minister is not going to wait until the cupboard is bare. The United States government and the governments of individual states are openly soliciting and assisting Canadian businesses to move to the United States. What is the minister going to do to counter this irreversible trend?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I think Canada will remain a very favourable place in which to invest. Many people want to invest in Canada. The hon. member does not seem to have great faith in Canada, but he should read what was written in the newspapers on Monday about the Canadian economic picture for next year as it was predicted by the Conference Board in New York which said that Canada would outperform the United States and every other country except Japan.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: What about the Conference Board of Canada?

December 14, 1977
Oral Questions AIR TRANSPORT


POSSIBILITY OF REVIEWING DECISION ON ADVANCED BOOKING OF DOMESTIC CHARTERS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport. In view of the almost universal condemnation by every level of the media, the Consumers Association of Canada and various sectors of the country, would the minister advise the House when the cabinet intends to review the almost incomprehensible recommendation of the air committee of the CTC with regard to ABC charters within Canada?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, a good deal of criticism has been directed at erroneous interpretations of what the CTC did, but I have been reviewing the decision, and I believe that at a fairly early date I will be placing before my colleagues recommendations with regard to this decision and with regard to charter policy. At this time I am happy to say to the House that I am quite sure that my recommendations will be in favour of greater flexibility.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: In order to assist the minister, perhaps he should reread the remarks I made at the time of the debate here with regard to the Air Canada reorganization bill, bearing in mind the requirements of Canadians who travel in Canada at a cost which is commensurate with what they should pay relative to or compared with what they are being asked to pay to travel abroad.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, that is one of the major misconceptions with respect to air travel. I am glad I heard the hon. member's remarks and I do not have to reread them.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Transport and it concerns domestic travel. Can he tell the House why it has taken the minister and his department so long to come to a decision with respect to the expansion of Mount Hope airport?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it is because we have been so careful to have the fullest consultation with people in and around Hamilton, and members of parliament, as well as other levels of government. As yet we do not have a final answer from all of those sources of consultation; but I expect to have that answer very soon and then be in a position to announce what will be done for air facilities in Hamilton.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, may I remind the minister that this matter has been ongoing since 1972. Can he give us

some assurance as to when he will arrive at a decision, and that he will make a statement in that regard before the Christmas holidays?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I will not give the hon. member that assurance because I am not sure when we will receive a final response from the various levels of government. In reference to 1972, I did not hear the hon. member complain when we set up a consultative process in order to go to the community to hear its views in the past year and a half. I hope the hon. member agrees that has been a most worth-while exercise.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Quit pussyfooting; quit foot-dragging.


Otto Emil Lang: The results have been excellent. It is a pattern we will follow in the future, because this government wants to be assured that it has the views of the people in hand before arriving at a decision.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Gillies:: Just like Pickering and Mirabel.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a short question for the Prime Minister, whose attention span is very limited by his own admission. I do not want him to doze off. On November 29 in a public speech the Minister of Agriculture said that he was "sick and tired of the U.S. ambassador running around talking about free trade". Also the minister stated that the United States was the most protectionist country in the world.


Some hon. Members:: Question!


John Carnell Crosbie: Just take it easy. My question is this: was the minister speaking on behalf of the government and giving the position of the government when he made this public complaint about the United States ambassador? Has the government made any protest, verbally or in writing, of any description to the U.S. government in connection with the actions or statements of the U.S. ambassador, Mr. Thomas Enders, in Canada?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first question is yes; the answer to the second question is no.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is: is it the view of the Prime Minister and the government that the U.S. ambassador should not go across Canada talking about
- &


. A
December 14, 1977

free trade? Is that the government's position? If so, why does the government not have the courage to follow it up with a protest? Apparently the Prime Minister has indicated that is the government's position.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the ambassador can talk like a gentleman representing his country in Canada, if he wishes. We have no objection to that. We objected to the former ambassador making points against the government through the media and privately. That Mr. Enders does it in this way is perfectly compatible with his function. Surely, the hon. member would agree that any minister of this government, and indeed any member of this Chamber, can answer the ambassador in public in the same way.


Charles Joseph Clark: Saying that the government was sick and tired.


POLICY ON INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC BOYCOTTS-DATE WHEN RESULTS PUBLICIZED AND REPORT TABLED
Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. On October 21, 1976 the government set forth a policy regarding international economic boycotts. Can the Prime Minister tell us when we will receive the results of this policy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will inquire.


William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, on January 21, 1977 there was a directive on international economic boycotts issued by the deputy minister of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce which indicated that a public report would be made semi-annually. At the same time, will the Prime Minister inquire as to why this report was not made and when it will be tabled?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, yes.


FINANCE
Mr. Jim Fleming (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The after tax profits of Canada's nine largest banks again increased substantially in the year ending October 31, 1977. With that in mind, is there any consideration of lowering lending rates to encourage investment and boost the economy, and more particularly, also to urge the Canadian chartered banks, as they anticipate a new Bank Act, to establish a preference or protected part of their lending resources for viable small and medium size Canadian businesses?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I take good note of the representations of the hon. member; I shall convey them to the governor of the Bank of Canada and take them into account in my discussions with the bankers.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Solicitor General. May I premise it in this way: everyone in the House believes we have to take proper steps in reference to the security of the nation. Has the Solicitor General had a discussion with the former solicitor general, the present Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, with regard to the instructions given for the activity known as "Cathedral", the opening of mail in reference to terrorists? What was the discussion? Were those instructions given to the officers in question prior to receiving legal advice from officers of the Crown?


Hon. Francis Fox (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, indeed I have had some conversations with my predecessor concerning some of the instructions to the security service. His instructions to the security service were very much the same as those given by various solicitors general in the past: the security service had to operate within the law. During the course of his tenure as solicitor general, a request was made for authorization to issue a warrant authorizing the security service to open mail in one specific case. The authorization was signed on the understanding that it was to be referred to the Department of Justice for opinions from law officers of the Crown to see whether section 43 of the Post Office Act did or did not override section 16(2) of the Official Secrets Act. The answer my predecessor received from the law officers of the Crown was that section 43 of the Post Office Act in fact did override section 16(2) of the Official Secrets Act, and that no warrant could be issued by the Solicitor General authorizing the opening of mail while it was in transit and within the hands of the Post Office.


POSSIBILITY OF AMENDING LAW TO PERMIT FORCE TO OPEN MAIL
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I did not receive an answer to my question whether instructions were given regarding the Cathedral activity prior to receiving advice from legal officers of the Crown. My second question in reference to that is: is the Solicitor General considering amending the law, as it now stands, to give security officers of Canada the necessary authority so they may act within the law instead of outside of the law?

December 14, 1977
Oral Questions


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the first part of the hon. member's question, the standing instructions have always been that the security service, as any other police force, must carry out its mandate within the framework of the law. With regard to the second part of the question, of course we are always willing to consider amendments to the law, if they are necessary to assure the security of this country.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the Solicitor General will not answer my simple question.


Mr. Olivier:: What is your question?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Well, I have put my question twice, and I will put it thrice.


Some hon. Members:: Louder.


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: We cannot hear you.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Did the former solicitor general receive the advice of officers of the Crown before giving those instructions which apparently were illegal?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear from my initial answer that the authorization was given in a specific case by the solicitor general, my immediate predecessor, on the condition that before execution the opinion of law officers of the Crown be obtained.
As a matter of fact, the answer to this question was tabled in the House last December at the time I tabled the annual report under the Official Secrets Act. It indicates quite clearly that an authorization was sought for the opening of mail, and that the authorization was not executed because there was an opinion given by law officers of the Crown that it was not within the power of the solicitor general to authorize any such openings. I will take the hon. member's suggestion, that there ought to be changes in this area, under advisement. I hope, if changes are presented, the hon. member will want to be the spokesman of his party in supporting those changes.


DATE OF PAYMENT UNDER STABILIZATION PLAN-REASON FOR DELAY
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. As the minister is aware, net farm income fell by 20 per cent last year and it fell by 11 per cent this year. I would like to ask the minister when payment will be made to farmers from the Western Grain Stabilization Plan since all statistics are now in? Will that payment take place very shortly or is it the intention of the minister to wait until the election is called?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite wrong in saying that all statistics are in. Indeed, the year in question is 1977 and, to my knowledge, 1977 is still running, grain is still being sold and costs are still being incurred. The stabilization payment is based on figures after 1977 is complete and they can be calculated.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The minister knows the statistics are based on the crop year. If he had been at the Outlook Conference he would know the statistics are in and were given to us here on Monday and Tuesday. I would like to ask him why the delay.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, after spending seven years opposing the stabilization bill I would have thought the hon. member would at least know that it is written on the basis of the calendar year.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. Several days ago the right hon. Prime Minister said, after having stated that ministers could not be responsible for the activities of security forces, when asked where was the citizens' protection:
We have the protection of the courts. If you want to break into somebody's house, you get a warrant. A court decides if you have reasonable and probable cause to do it. If you break in without a warrant, a citizen lays a charge and the police are found guilty. So this is control on the criminal side ...
I want to ask the Solicitor General if he agrees with this novel theory of protection and, also, how does a citizen lay a charge and get the protection of the courts if he does not even know who did the break-in?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite clear what the question is. I think the hon. member wants to know what type of procedures have been set up and are being contemplated by the government. I would refer him-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Francis Fox: If the hon. member is interested in the answer, he should let me speak; if he is not, I will sit down.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Dont be so touchy, Francis.


Francis Fox: The government set up the Marin Commission of Inquiry which reported in 1976. The commission recommended to the government the establishment of an external review authority which will be empowered to receive complaints from citizens and to conduct an independent investigation of those complaints to see whether or not any wrongdoing has occurred.
December 14, 1977

That legislation is presently being drafted. Legislation implementing the Marin report is presently in the hands of the Department of Justice. Legislation is in the process of being drafted and would normally be introduced in the House early in the new year.
Mir. Fraser: The minister knows perfectly well that the question is this. If the right hon. Prime Minister's theory is correct that, if there is an illegal break-in, the citizen lays a charge, then how does a citizen lay a charge if the break-in is done illegally and secretly by security forces and the citizen does not know who made the break-in? How do the courts protect that citizen? This is the novel theory of the right hon. Prime Minister. There is no way whatsoever that the courts can protect the citizen-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Allen Fraser: -unless ministers are responsible-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Allen Fraser: -for the activities of the police which are secret and illegal-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Why don't you ask me the question?


John Allen Fraser: It's no use asking you any more.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: You're too dumb to understand the answer.


John Allen Fraser: Too dumb? You must be the only one teaching that theory in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Prince George-Peace River.


INQUIRY INTO ALLEGED ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES IN ONTARIO- REQUEST FOR REPORT
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General and it is with regard to an inquiry that is presently underway in the province of Ontario. On the basis of information supplied to the attorney general of that province by the Solicitor General of Canada, can the Solicitor General tell the House today what dialogue he has had with the Ontario authorities, and whether he has a report on the outcome of the inquiry which was to inquire into alleged illegal activities of the security service of our country and of officials of his department?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, all the information he brought to my attention was brought to the attention of the attorney general of the province of Ontario who, as I understand it, asked the Ontario police commission to launch an investigation into the matter. There has been complete co-operation between the commission and the RCMP but as yet there has been no report to me or to the attorney general of Ontario in connection with
Oral Questions
this matter. I assume that the investigation by the Ontario police commission is ongoing.


Frank Oberle: I would like to ask the Solicitor General one supplementary question, that is whether he has had any discussion with his own officials and the officials of the security service of the RCMP in connection with these activities of the law enforcement agency in that province, particularly the practice of engaging agents provocateurs to do some of the dirty work which in other parts of the country has been done by the RCMP.


Francis Fox: The answer to the question is no. So far as I am concerned, the matter is in the hands of the Ontario police commission. If the hon. member believes that agents provocateurs have been hired by the RCMP, which is not the case, I would encourage him to bring that evidence to my attention or to the attention of the McDonald Commission of inquiry which is the proper forum for investigating any such allegations.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It has to do with the Poplar River power project in southern Saskatchewan near the boundary with the state of Montana. Press reports have quoted the premier of Saskatchewan as blaming the apprehension existing in Montana about pollution from that project upon the failure of the Department of External Affairs to properly pass along to the Americans the right information. I should like to ask the minister if there has been any problem in this connection to justify the allegation that his department has not in fact been communicating effectively with the United States with respect to the Poplar River project.


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I saw the press reports in this regard and I made inquiries. In so far as I have been able to determine, I do not have the actual word of Premier Blakeney on this but the information I have is that the comments attributed to him were inaccurate, that he made no such claims and that he is satisfied with the position which the Canadian government and the department have taken.

December 14, 1977
Oral Questions HEALTH


ALLEGED DANGER TO INFANTS FROM CHEMICALS CARRIED BY NURSING MOTHERS-REQUEST FOR STUDY
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the extreme anxiety caused to nursing mothers in the announcement of the findings of research work carried out to test foods, which concerned in particular milk, which revealed that nursing mothers carried an amount of additives and chemicals which could be dangerous to the health of the infant at present or in the long term, and whereas it was found that cow's milk did not carry the same high level of additives and chemicals and did not present the same threat to the infant, I should like to ask the minister what steps have been taken to investigate the situation and correct it?
[Translation)


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, upon my return to Ottawa last Tuesday I was immediately informed of the CTV program on the findings of research work carried out by a well known Canadian toxicologist on the dangers of nursing. I checked with my officials and we have taken the necessary precautions. We have appointed a panel of medical experts who will give us more information which will be published as soon as possible and forwarded to all Canadian mothers on an individual basis. The Health Protection Branch of my department has also advised all provinces that hospital milk banks can have all our technical assistance to analyse their samples.


Philip Bernard Rynard: I should like to ask the mother-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Philip Bernard Rynard: 
FISHERIES
[Stage Direction]
Mi. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore): Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment. In view of the scarcity of lobsters along the south shore

of Nova Scotia which the inshore fishermen contend is due to offshore lobster fishing, has the minister made a study of the hundreds of fishermen who have withdrawn their traps from the water and are now unemployed? Also, what steps does the minister intend to take to hold consultations with his United States counterpart since the new regulations for this fishery which is shared by Canada and the United States, would have to be carried out on an international basis?
Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member will recollect that last year at this time we had exactly the same type of problem. It is probably due to ocean conditions or water temperatures that the lobster have not moved into the traditional grounds in all districts. The first week records show that in two districts out of four the catch is above that of last year and in the other two districts it is not as high. As to joint management with the United States, this is the subject of discussion and negotiation as is the future of Georges Bank. My officials are consulting with the lobster fishermen but we know that by the end of the season last year conditions turned out to be not as bad as many people tried to make us believe they would be.


DATE OF INTRODUCTION OF FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT POLICY
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: 
EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs regarding Anatoly Shcharansky. On Monday the minister indicated to the House that he was inviting the Soviet ambassador in to discuss the case. I wonder if he could inform the House of the result of that conversation and whether any action has been taken with respect to Mr. Shcharansky?

December 14, 1977


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, to recap briefly what I said to the House on Monday, I spoke with the ambassador from the Soviet Union in Ottawa and indicated to him that we would be prepared, on the basis of information from Mr. Shcharansky's relatives, to have them sponsor him and issue the necessary documentation for him to come to Canada. As is the normal custom, the ambassador merely took note of my representations and indicated he would pass them on to his government. I saw him again yesterday and I did not get a specific indication from him that this had been done but the conversation led me to believe it had been done. 1 have no way of knowing how soon they will respond to those representations, of course. As soon as they do I will be glad to advise hon. members and determine what further action, if any, it will be necessary to take.


Walter David Baker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the importance of this case would the minister undertake to find out exactly what did happen and to gain more than a mere impression and inform the House as soon as possible because of the interest in the country?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Of course, Mr. Speaker, but I can tell the hon. member that in line with the normal procedure followed in this case I think it is fair to say that there is no doubt that the ambassador was obliged to transmit the representations I made to him to his government. Whether his government chooses to respond is something I cannot forecast but I must say he accepted my representations very fully and indicated he would pass them on so I expect we will receive an answer.
Petitions


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member were to look over the record he would see that I answered a similar question recently and I gave such assurances. 1 might take the opportunity to tell him it is premature to speculate on any application by Petro-Canada for such a major proposal. Certainly, work is underway and a study is being conducted. I hope it will be possible to say more about this in the near future but at the moment it is still very much a schematic or conceptual approach as far as the corporation is concerned.


Mr. Leggatt:: A supplementary question. I assume that is a "yes" answer-that we have received some kind of guarantee. The Minister of National Defence has indicated from time to time that in the $10 billion replacement project for naval vessels over the next 20 years, these vessels will be built in Canada where possible or feasible. I should like the minister to direct his attention to this and perhaps give the House a guarantee that this major shipbuilding program will be executed in Canada, period; not if, and, but or maybe. Can we have some kind of guarantee that the 5,000 shipyard workers who have been laid off will have a chance of getting back to work with a government policy that assures Canadian ships will be built in Canada?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has made a number of statements with respect to assistance for the shipbuilding industry. If there is some particular question that the hon. member wants to put to the Minister of National Defence I believe he should do so.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources concerns the depressed state of the shipbuilding industry in Canada. There is a report that the consortium of Petro-Canada and the Alberta liquid natural gas group who are proposing to bring liquid natural gas out of the eastern Arctic into the eastern markets of Canada, will purchase two tankers from a foreign government at a value of about $400 million. In view of the fact that the government has a regulatory process which must be followed before this purchase can be made which involves the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the Department of Transport and others, would the minister be prepared to give the House a guarantee that this major shipbuilding and ship purchasing project which may take place in the near future involving the Crown corporation, Petro-Canada, will take place in Canada where it belongs and not abroad?


Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister as a follow-up to the question I asked on March 17. Since the former premier of Manitoba, Mr. Ed Schreyer, declined to take a federal position at that time and has now indicated his disinterest in completing his term as Leader of the Opposition in Manitoba, would the Prime Minister indicate whether Mr. Schreyer has again been offered an appointment to a federal position?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will inquire, Mr. Speaker.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the table the second

December 14, 1977
Order Paper Questions
report of the Clerk of Petitions, stating that he has examined the petition presented by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona and finds that it meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are marked by an asterisk.)
Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 124, 151, 213, 248, 268, 275, 305, 324, 336 and 752.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Was a request received from Bar Harbour Airlines to make a stop-over in Sherbrooke on its regular flights between Quebec and Boston and, if so, was it granted and, if not, for what reasons?
2.	Was there an objection to the stop-over made by an airline and, if so, which airline?
3.	Is any airline providing regular commercial service in and out of Sherbrooke?
4.	Is the Airport suitable for commercial traffic and, if not, are changes contemplated?


Otto Emil Lang: In so far as the
Canadian Transport Commission is concerned: 1. Bar Harbour Airlines has applied to the C.T.C. for authority to make an intermediate stop at Sherbrooke on its regular flights between Quebec and Boston without local traffic rights between Sherbrooke and Quebec. A decision on the application has not yet been reached.
2.	Interventions opposing the application were filed by Mober Aviation Inc. and (jointly) Quebecair, Air Fecteau Ltee, Air Gaspe Inc. and Les Ailes du Nord Ltee.
3.	Mober Aviation Inc., of Drummondville, has recently been granted a licence to operate a Class 3 Specific Point Commercial Air Service between Sherbrooke, Quebec City, La Tuque and Roberval. By a recent decision, Mober Aviation Inc. has been granted authority to operate a proposed service between Sherbrooke and Boston but the licence has not yet been issued.
Transport Canada advises as follows: 4. The airport is suitable for commercial traffic. Assistance will be provided to the Municipality next summer by Transport Canada under its Financial Assistance Program, so that they may carry out major repairs to the runway, as well as improve the runway lighting.


Mr. MacKay: 1.	Since the Honourable Otto Lang became Minister of Transport, how many speeches has he made outside the House of Commons and, in each case (a) what is the name of the group or organization to whom he was speaking (b) on what date (c) in what locations (d) what was the general topic?
2.	Are such speeches, transcription of, or notes or summaries, delivered to (a) Liberal Members (b) Progressive Conservative Members (c) New Democratic Party Members (d) Social Credit Members and, if not, for what reason?
3.	Are such speeches or notes in both official languages?


Otto Emil Lang: The information requested is not readily available; it would require an inordinate amount of clerical time and cost which would be necessary in order to prepare the information as requested.


[Stage Direction]
Question No. 213
A. Daniel McKenzie: 1.	What is the total number of persons under contract to the Dominion Fire Commissioner and how many are retired public servants?
2.	What was the total amount in (a) 1975 (b) 1976 paid to those under contract and how much of this was to retired public servants?


Mr. Frank Maine (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: 1. There is presently one person under contract to the D.F.C. This person is not a retired public servant.
2. (a) and (b):
Fiscal Year Total Contracts
Contracts with retired public servants
1974-	75
1975-	76
1976-	77


Mr. McKenzie: For each year 1960 to 1976, what amount was paid by Canadian National Railways for all types of actuarial service and advice and, in each case, what was the name of the firm or person?


Otto Emil Lang: The management of Canadian National Railways advises that this information could not be disclosed without violating the confidentiality of its business relations with the persons furnishing such services and advice.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	Has the Atomic Energy Control Board obtained (a) part-time (b) full-time employees from private employment agencies in (i) British Columbia (ii) Alberta (iii) Saskatchewan (iv) Manitoba (v) Ontario (vi) Quebec (vii) New

*
December 14, 1977

Brunswick (viii) Nova Scotia (ix) Prince Edward Island (x) Newfoundland and, if so, in each case, how many?
2.	Are such employees paid from supplementary estimates and, if not, from what estimates are they paid?
3.	By province, what was the (a) average hourly rate paid to employment agencies (b) average hourly rate paid to employees (c) total amount paid by the Atomic Energy Control Board in (i) 1975 (ii) 1976?
Mir. J.-Gilles Lamontagne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources): The Atomic Energy Control Board reports as follows: 1. (a) (i) to (iv) No; (v) Yes, 1975-76, 19; 1976-77, 22; (vi) to (x) No; (b) (i) to (x) No.
2. No-Main Estimates.
(a)	(c)
1975-76 1976-77	1975-76	1976-77(i)	British Columbia	-	-	-	-(ii)	Alberta	-	-	-	-(iii)	Saskatchewan	-	-	-	-(iv)	Manitoba	-	-	-	-(v)	Ontario	$7.57	$6.28	$14,060.94	$21,182.21(vi)	Quebec	-	-	-	-(vii)	New Brunswick	-	-	-	-(viii)	Nova Scotia	-	-	-	-(ix)	Prince Edward Island	(x)	Newfoundland	-	-	-	-
(b) Average hourly rate paid to employees is not available: determined by employment agencies.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	Has the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation obtained (a) part-time (b) full-time employees from private employment agencies in (i) British Columbia (ii) Alberta (iii) Saskatchewan (iv) Manitoba (v) Ontario (vi) Quebec (vii) New Brunswick (viii) Nova Scotia (ix) Prince Edward Island (x) Newfoundland and, if so, in each case, how many?
2.	Are such employees paid from supplementary estimates and, if not, from what estimates are they paid?
3.	By province, what was the (a) average hourly rate paid to employment agencies (b) average hourly rate paid to employees (c) total amount paid by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in (i) 1975 (ii) 1976?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. (a) CBC does hire part-time employees from private employment agencies to meet unexpected short-terms work demands, to replace staff members who are sick or absent for a variety of reasons, or to fill in for employees who have left but have not yet been replaced on a permanent basis, (b) On occasion CBC uses the services of employment agencies when a competition within the Corporation has not yielded a suitable candidate or in order to have the widest possible choice both from inside and outside the CBC, from which to select a full-time employee. Records are not kept in such a way that the information about numbers of part-time or full-time employees in each location
Order Paper Questions
can be extracted readily and without an undue amount of time, work and cost.
2.	Such employees are paid from the CBC's regular operating budgets.
3.	It has not been customary to require the CBC to provide such details as the costs incurred in business transactions with private companies. The background to this custom is explained in detail in the reply to question No. 2,530, May 22, 1975.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	Has Eldorado Aviation Ltd. obtained (a) part-time (b) full-time employees from private employment agencies in (i) British Columbia (ii) Alberta (iii) Saskatchewan (iv) Manitoba (v) Ontario (vi) Quebec (vii) New Brunswick (viii) Nova Scotia (ix) Prince Edward Island (x) Newfoundland and, if so, in each case, how many?
2.	Are such employees paid from supplementary estimates and, if not, from what estimates are they paid?
3.	By province, what was the (a) average hourly rate paid to employment agencies (b) average hourly rate paid to employees (c) total amount paid by Eldorado Aviation Ltd. in (i) 1975 (ii) 1976?


Mr. J.-Gilles Lamontagne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Eldorado Aviation Limited reports as follows: 1. (a) (i) No; (ii) Yes, 1975-8; 1976-3; (iii) to (x) No; (b) (i) to (x) No.
2. Not applicable.
(a)	(c)
1975-76 1976-77	1975-76	1976-77
(i)	British Columbia								
(ii)	Alberta	-	-	-	(iii)	Saskatchewan	-	-	-	(iv)	Manitoba	-	-	-	(v)	Ontario	$5.43	$5.07	$4,583.76	$292.53(vi)	Quebec	-	-	-	-(vii)	New Brunswick	-	-	-	(viii)	Nova Scotia	-	-	-	(ix)	Prince Edward Island	(x)	Newfoundland	-	-	-	-
(b) Average hourly rate paid to employees is not available: determined by employment agencies.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	Has the National Energy Board obtained (a) part-time (b) full-time employees from private employment agencies in (i) British Columbia (ii) Alberta (iii) Saskatchewan (iv) Manitoba (v) Ontario (vi) Quebec (vii) New Brunswick (viii) Nova Scotia (ix) Prince Edward Island (x) Newfoundland and, if so, in each case, how many?
2.	Are such employees paid from supplementary estimates and, if not, from what estimates are they paid?

December 14, 1977
Order Paper Questions
3.	By province, what was the (a) average hourly rate paid to employment agencies (b) average hourly rate paid to employees (c) total amount paid by the National Energy Board in (i) 1975 (ii) 1976?


Maurice Lamontagne: The National Energy Board reports as follows: 1. (a) (i) to (iv) No; (v) Yes, 1975-21; 1976-9; (vi) to (x) No; (b) (i) to (x) No.
2. No-Main Estimates.
Insert	Table 324	(a) 1975 1976	1975	(c) 1976(i)	British Columbia	- 	(ii)	Alberta	$6.00 $6.55	$2,087.56	$1,352.87(iii)	Saskatchewan	- -	-	-(iv)	Manitoba	- -	-	-(v)	Ontario	- -	-	-(vi)	Quebec	- -	-	-(vii)	New Brunswick	- -	-	-(vm) (ix)	Nova Scotia Prince Edward Island	(x)	Newfoundland	- -	-	-
(b) Average hourly rate paid to employees is not available: determined by employment agencies.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	Has the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority obtained (a) part-time (b) full-time employees from private employment agencies in (i) British Columbia (ii) Alberta (iii) Saskatchewan (iv) Manitoba (v) Ontario (vi) Quebec (vii) New Brunswick (viii) Nova Scotia (ix) Prince Edward Island (x) Newfoundland and, if so, in each case, how many?
2.	Are such employees paid from supplementary estimates and, if not, from what estimates are they paid?
3.	By province, what was the (a) average hourly rate paid to employment agencies (b) average hourly rate paid to employees (c) total amount paid by the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority in (i) 1975 (ii) 1976?


Otto Emil Lang: The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority advises as follows: 1. (a) 1975:(v), 5; (vi), 8; 1976:(v), 6; (vi), 8; (b) Nil.
2.	From internally-generated funds and from Main Estimates.
3.	(a) Ontario-$5.36; Quebec-5.25, (b) Not available
from our records. This information is known only to the private employment agency and its employee, (c) (i) Ontario-$1,186.80;	Quebec-12,510.00; (ii)	Ontario-
$6,063.24; Quebec-12,351.88.


Mr. Howie: Since January 1, 1977, what amount was spent on interior landscaping by the Bank of Canada and on what projects?


Mr.   Ed. Lumley@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance: In so far as the Minister of Finance is concerned: I am advised by the Bank of Canada as follows: Approaching one-third of the budget for interior landscaping referred to in the answer to Question No. 2879 was disbursed during the period in question, (answered August 4, 1977).


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, would Your Honour be so kind as to call notices of motions for the production of papers Nos. 1, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41,42 and 43?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of Privy Council has suggested that we call as a group motions 1, 7, 8, 9, if I understand him correctly.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to give some particulars. The notices of motions for the production of papers which will be answered today are in fact the notices of motions Nos. 1 and 7 to 43 inclusive. Now, there are five or six different types of answers for various groups of notices of motions, and it would take too long to answer each motion individually. That is why I would ask Your Honour to simply call as a group first motion No. 1 and the motions Nos. 7 to 43 inclusive; then, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lamontagne) will himself specify which notices of motions will be answered by a stock answer. That procedure will be a lot simpler for the progress of our proceedings.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, as most of the notices of motion are under my name, I would much prefer the parliamentary secretary to deal with them one motion at a time, giving his answer as the case may be.


Mr. Speaker:: If it is planned that the motions be presented in a manner outlined by the hon. parliamentary secretary today, and preparations are not in place to respond to them individually at this time, of course the only option open to the Chair would be to call them individually, which is the only
December 14, 1977

authority I can exercise at this time unless there is consent to change that practice.
Perhaps there might be consultation in light of further examination of the documents to be tabled in response, if that is to be the case, or whatever responses are to be made, to see whether or not agreement can be reached for handling this matter in a different way; otherwise, to call them seriatim at some time in the future.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, your comment was to call them at some time in the future. We are on motions now; 1 do not see why we just do not go ahead and call the motions. 1 know it will take some time, but I do not think the government should be permitted not to call them. They have indicated they are ready to call them, and the member is entitled to have them called.


Mr. Speaker:: I may have made a mistaken assumption that the two hon. parliamentary secretaries involved were prepared to proceed with them on one basis, but not on the other. It may be, now, that they are prepared to proceed with them individually, in which case I will call them one at a time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 1-Mr. Brisco:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all papers and documents, studies, reports and correspondence between the government and the Province of British Columbia and/or British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority, relating to the duties and functions to be carried out by British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority in its capacity as the designated entity under the Columbia River Treaty and subsequent protocol endorsed by the Governments of Canada and the United States, specifically under Article XIV of the Treaty, including any and all exchanges of notes between the Governments of Canada and the United States exchanged under Article XIV and any other material, documents, papers studies and correspondence in the possession of the government concerning the possibility of designating another entity than British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority as the agent of Canada under the Treaty, or the appointment of a second Canadian entity under the Treaty to share responsibility with British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority, or the empowering or charging of British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority with the responsibility of ensuring the greater stability of the Arrow Lakes and the suspension of all progress on the Kootenay River Diversion project.
Maurice Lamontagne: Concerning Motion No. 1, the answer is as follows: The production of these documents would necessitate long and extensive research into our records, but the important facts, including the duties and functions to be carried out by the designated entity and the related documents, can be found in "The Columbia River Treaty and Protocol-A Presentation. February 1964". This document is available in the Parliamentary Library and at the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources.
There must have been no other protocol, because there were no exchanges of notes or other documents concerning the possibility of designating another entity to share responsibili-
Motions for Papers
ties with the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority, the stability of the Arrow Lakes or the progress on the Kootenay River diversion project.

I therefore request that the hon. member withdraw his motion.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 7-Mr. Stevens:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the letter dated September 1975 from Dr. O. J. C. Runnalls to Gulf Minerals Canada Ltd. advising them of the fourth quarter assessment of dues to SERU otherwise known in English as the Uranium Marketing Research Association or as the Uranium Club.
Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, concerning Motion No. 7, the requested document is of a confidential nature and therefore its content cannot be revealed. Consequently, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 8-Mr. Stevens:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the Department of Justice legal opinion referred to by the Right Honourable the Prime Minister on August 4, 1977 in the House of Commons touching on the uranium cartel.
Mr. Roger Young (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: The legal advice provided by law officers of the Crown on a matter of state policy falls in the class of confidential documents. I would, therefore, ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.

December 14, 1977
Motions for Papers


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 9-Mr. Stevens:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of the quarterly reports prepared fay Andre Petit of the Secretariat at SERU bearing on the uranium cartel.
[ Translation]
Maurice Lamontagne: Concerning Motion No. 9, the requested documents deal with international relations, the release of which might be detrimental to the future conduct of Canada's foreign relations. Therefore, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 10-Mr. Stevens:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of the minutes of all meetings at which Dr. O. J. C. Runnalls attended, bearing on the uranium cartel.
Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, concerning Motion No. 10, the requested documents are internal departmental memorandums and, therefore, their contents cannot be released. Consequently, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 11-Mr. Stevens:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of the minutes of all meetings at which Andre Petit attended bearing on the uranium cartel.
[ Translation]
Maurice Lamontagne: Concerning Motion No. 11, the requested documents deal with international relations, the release of which might be detrimental to the future conduct of Canada's foreign relations. Therefore, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


[Stage Direction]
73.1,	73.2, ETC. RELATING TO URANIUM CARTEL
Motion No. 12-Mr. Stevens:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all SERU Secretariat documents numbered 73.1, 73.2, 73.3 etc. for 1973, bearing on the uranium cartel.
Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, the requested documents deal with international relations, the release of which might be detrimental to the future conduct of Canada's foreign relations. Therefore, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


[Stage Direction]
74.1,	74.2, ETC. FOR 1974 BEARING ON URANIUM CARTEL
Motion No. 13-Mr. Stevens:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all SERU Secretariat documents numbered 74.1, 74.2, 74.3 etc. for 1974, bearing on the uranium cartel.
Maurice Lamontagne: Concerning motion No. 13, the requested documents deal with international relations, the release of which might be detrimental to the future conduct of Canada's foreign relations. Therefore, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


[Stage Direction]
75.2,	ETC. FOR 1975 BEARING ON URANIUM CARTEL
Motion No. 14-Mr. Stevens:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all SERU Secretariat documents numbered 75.1, 75.2, 75.3 etc. for 1975, bearing on the uranium cartel.
Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, the requested documents deal with international relations, the
December 14, 1977

release of which might be detrimental to the future conduct of Canada's foreign relations. Therefore, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 15-Mr. Stevens:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of ail documents relating to quotas of total future production of Canadian members of the club, or uranium cartel.
Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, the requested information is contained in letters dated August 17, 1972, and May 22, 1973, which the then Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources sent to the president of the Atomic Energy Control Board. Since copies of those letters were released along with my press release of October 14, 1977, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion withdrawn.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 16-Mr. Stevens:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the memorandum dated March 22, 1972, from I. W. Coleman, Associate General Counsel, Gulf Oil Corporation to Mr. E. B. Walker, Executive Vice-President, Gulf Oil Corporation, describing recent developments regarding proposed international uranium marketing arrangements and distributed to Mr. R. K. Allen, Counsel, Gulf Mineral Resources Company, a subsidiary of Gulf Oil Corporation; counsel, Gulf Minerals Canada, Limited; J. G. Dieter, Assistant General Counsel, Gulf Energy & Environmental Systems Co., a division of Gulf Oil Corporation; and R. D. Jackson, Attorney, Gulf Oil Corporation.
Maurice Lamontagne: Concerning motion No. 16, the requested document, which is the property of Gulf Oil Corporation, is not in our records. Consequently, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.
Motions for Papers


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 17-Mr. Stevens:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the memorandum dated April 12, 1972, from Mr. I. W. Coleman, Associate General Counsel, Gulf Oil Corporation to Mr. M. E. Minks, General Counsel, Gulf Oil Corporation, reflecting legal analysis and requesting consultation regarding the giving of legal advice to Gulf management personnel concerning a proposed international uranium marketing arrangement and distributed to Mr. E. B. Walker, Executive Vice-President, Gulf Oil Corporation; R. D. Jackson, Attorney, Gulf Oil Corporation; R. K. Allen, Counsel, Gulf Mineral Resources Company, a subsidiary of Gulf Oil Corporation, counsel. Gulf Minerals Canada, Ltd.; H. E. Hoffman, Associate General Counsel/Vice President, Gulf Energy & Environmental Systems Co., a division of Gulf Oil Corporation.
Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, the requested document which is the property of Gulf Oil Corporation is not in our records. Consequently, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 18-Mr. Stevens:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the memorandum dated April 19, 1972 from M. E. Minks to fde summarizing author's communication to Messrs. Zagnoli and Allen concerning proposed international arrangement, and outlining legal conclusions.
Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, the requested document which is the property of Gulf Oil Corporation is not in our records. Consequently, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 19-Mr. Stevens:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the handwritten notes dated April 24, 1972, of Gulf lawyer reflecting telephone conversation with Mr. Allen concerning a uranium producers meeting, which set forth legal opinions and conclusions from the fdes of Gulfs Law Department.
[Stage Direction]
December 14, 1977
Motions for Papers
[ Translation]
Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, the requested document which is the property of Gulf Oil Corporation is not in our records. Consequently, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 20-Mr. Stevens:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the memorandum dated April 28, 1972 from R. D. Jackson, Attorney, Gulf Oil Corporation, to I. W. Coleman, Associate General Counsel, Gulf Oil Corporation, setting forth principal points of discussion between Messrs. Jackson, Ramsey and Zagnoli concerning proposed uranium cartel and distributed to M. E. Minks, General Counsel, Gulf Oil Corporation; M. W. Ramsey, Director, Corporate Planning, Planning and Economics Department, Gulf Oil Corporation.
Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, the requested document which is the property of Gulf Oil Corporation is not in our records. Consequently, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 21-Mr. Stevens:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of memorandum dated April 28, 1972, from R. D. Jackson, Attorney, Gulf Oil Corporation to I. W. Coleman, Associate General Counsel, Gulf Oil Corporation, transmitting opinion of counsel regarding proposed international producers' arrangement which sets forth legal conclusions and advice concerning Gulfs being compelled to participate by the Canadian government and distributed to M. W. Ramsey, Director, Corporate Planning, Planning and Economics Department, Gulf Oil Corporation.
Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, the requested document which is the property of Gulf Oil Corporation is not in our records. Consequently, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 22-Mr. Stevens:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of memorandum dated May 1, 1972, from I. W. Coleman, Associate General Counsel, Gulf Oil Corporation, to M. E. Minks, General Counsel, Gulf Oil Corporation, reflecting discussions among Messrs. Allen, Estey and Matthews regarding application of legal principles and suggested courses of action.
Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, the requested document which is the property of Gulf Oil Corporation is not in our records. Consequently, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 23-Mr. Stevens:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the letter dated May 1, 1972, from W. Z. Estey, Partner, Robertson, Lane, Perrett, Frankish & Estey; counsel for Gulf Minerals Canada, Limited, to I. W. Coleman, Associate General Counsel, Gulf Oil Corporation, together with an attached letter dated January 5, 1972 from W. Z. Estey to R. K. Allen, Counsel, Gulf Mineral Resources Company, a subsidiary of Gulf Oil Corporation; counsel, Gulf Minerals Canada, Limited, prepared by counsel containing legal advice and opinion concerning Canadian statutes and policies as applicable to certain of Gulfs activities.
Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, the requested document which is the property of Gulf Oil Corporation is not in our records. Consequently, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 25-Mr. Stevens:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of a letter dated May 4, 1972, from W. Z. Estey, Partner, Robertson, Lane, Perrett, Frankish & Estey; counsel for Gulf Minerals Canada, Limited, to R. K. Allen, Counsel, Gulf Mineral Resources Company, a subsidiary of Gulf Oil Corporation; counsel, Gulf Minerals Canada, Limited, attaching revised page of the opinion of counsel, set out in a memorandum dated February 6, 1972, from R. D. Jackson, Attorney, Gulf Oil Corporation to fde.
December 14, 1977
Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, the requested document which is the property of Gulf Oil Corporation is not in our records. Consequently, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No.26-Mr. Stevens:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of a letter dated May 11, 1972, from R. D. Jackson, Attorney, Gulf Oil Corporation, to M. E. Minks, General Counsel, Gulf Oil Corporation, together with a buckslip attaching telex dated October 5, 1972, from N. M. Ediger to R. K. Allen summarizing the Ottawa meeting of Canadian Producers, which telex contains marginal notes reflecting mental impressions and conclusions of Gulf Counsel, which writing is believed to be that of Mr. Jackson.
Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, the requested document, which is the property of Gulf Oil Corporation, is not in our records. Consequently, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 27-Mr. Stevens:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of a letter dated May 17, 1972, from O. J. C. Runnalls, Senior Advisor, Uranium, Department of Energy, Mines and Resources; Official of Uranium Canada, Limited, a Crown Corporation, to N. M. Ediger, Manager, Gulf Minerals Canada, Limited, together with a letter dated May 16, 1972, from O. J. C. Runnalls to file, attaching minutes of Canadian Uranium Producers' Meeting of May 9, 1972.
Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, the requested documents deal with international relations, the release of which might be detrimental to the future conduct of Canada's foreign relations. Therefore, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.
Motions for Papers


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 28-Mr. Stevens:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of a letter dated May 19, 1972, from R. K. Allen, Counsel, Gulf Mineral Resources Company, a subsidiary of Gulf Oil Corporation; counsel, Gulf Minerals Canada, Limited, to I. W. Coleman, Associate General Counsel, Gulf Oil Corporation, together with an undated Draft Aide Memoire re Canadian Uranium Producers' Meeting on May 19, 1972 and a letter dated May 10, 1972, from Carl to N. M. Ediger, Manager, Gulf Minerals Canada, Limited, enclosing attachments for purposes of keeping counsel advised and receiving continuing advice from counsel on matters concerning uranium producers' arrangement and which was distributed to W. Z. Estey, Partner, Robertson, Lane, Perrett, Frankish & Estey; counsel for Gulf Minerals Canada, Limited and H. E. Hoffman, Associate General Counsel/Vice President, Gulf Energy and Environmental Systems Co., a division of Gulf Oil Corporation.
Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, the requested document, which is the property of Gulf Oil Corporation, is not in our records. Consequently, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 29-Mr. Stevens:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the memorandum dated June 2, 1972 from R. D. Jackson, Attorney, Gulf Oil Corporation to fde describing discussion between author and Mr. Allen concerning legal advice and containing counsel's advice and opinions with regard to a proposed uranium marketing organization and distributed to M. E. Minks, General Counsel, Gulf Oil Corporation; I. W. Coleman, Associate General Counsel, Gulf Oil Corporation; and R. K. Allen, counsel, Gulf Mineral Resources Company, a subsidiary of Gulf Oil Corporation; counsel, Gulf Minerals Canada, Ltd.
Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, the requested document which is the property of Gulf Oil Corporation is not in our records. Consequently, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 30-Mr. Stevens:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the memorandum dated June 2, 1972, from R. D. Jackson, Attorney, Gulf Oil Corporation to file describing legal analysis and conclusions of Mr. Jackson with regard to a legal opinion which he had been requested to prepare and gives legal opinion of counsel regarding a matter communicated to him by client, and distributed to
[Stage Direction]
December 14, 1977
Motions for Papers
M. E. Minks, General Counsel, Gulf Oil Corporation; I. W. Coleman, Associate General Counsel, Gulf Oil Corporation; R. K. Allen, Counsel, Gulf Mineral Resources Company, a subsidiary of Gulf Oil Corporation; counsel Gulf Minerals Canada, Ltd.; and M. W. Ramsey, Director, Corporate Planning, Planning and Economics Department, Gulf Oil Corporation.
Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, the requested document, which is the property of Gulf Oil Corporation, is not in our records. Consequently, 1 would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 31-Mr. Stevens:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the memorandum dated June 15, 1972 from O. J. C. Runnalls, Senior Advisor-Uranium, Department of Energy, Mines and Resources; Official of Uranium Canada, Limited, a Crown corporation to J. Austin, Deputy Minister of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources; President, Uranium Canada, Limited, a Crown corporation being a summary of Canadian Uranium Producers' Meeting in Johannesburg, May 28, 1972 (classified confidential by Canadian government) and distributed to G. M. McNabb, Assistant Deputy Minister 'Energy) of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources; Executive Vice President, Uranium Canada, Limited, a Crown corporation.
Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, the requested document is an internal departmental memorandum and its contents cannot be released. Therefore, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 32-Mr. Stevens:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the memorandum dated June 27, 1972 from O. J. C. Runnalls, Senior Advisor-Uranium, Department of Energy, Mines and Resources; Official of Uranium Canada, Limited, a Crown corporation to J. Austin, Deputy Minister of the Department of Energy Mines and Resources; President, Uranium Canada, Limited, a Crown corporation being a summary of meeting of Canadian Uranium Producers of June 9, 1972 (classified confidential by Canadian government) and distributed to G. M. McNabb, Assistant Deputy Minister (Energy) of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources; Executive Vice President, Uranium Canada, Limited, a Crown corporation.
Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, the requested document is an internal departmental memorandum

and, therefore, cannot be released. Consequently, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 33-Mr. Stevens:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the memorandum dated July 6, 1972 from R. D. Jackson, Attorney, Gulf Oil Corporation to I. W. Coleman, Associate General Counsel, Gulf Oil Corporation describing advice of counsel concerning a matter communicated to counsel by client and distributed to F. R. O'Hara, Attorney/Antitrust Counsel, Gulf Oil Corporation.
Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, the requested document which is the property of Gulf Oil Corporation is not in our records. Consequently, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 34-Mr. Stevens:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the memorandum dated July 10, 1972, from R. D. Jackson, Attorney, Gulf Oil Corporation, to I. W. Coleman, Associate General Counsel, Gulf Oil Corporation; F. R. O'Hara, Attorney/Antitrust Counsel, Gulf Oil Corporation; and M. W. Ramsey, Director, Corporate Planning, Planning and Economics Department, Gulf Oil Corporation describing work schedule of lawyers regarding preparation of legal opinion and subjects of upcoming meeting of counsel and client, distributed to M. E. Minks, General Counsel, Gulf Oil Corporation.
Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, the requested document, which is the property of Gulf Oil Corporation, is not in our records. Consequently, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 35-Mr. Stevens:
Than an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the memorandum dated July 20, 1972 from R. D. Jackson, Attorney, Gulf Oil Corporation to M. E.
December 14, 1977
[Stage Direction]
Minks, General Counsel, Gulf Oil Corporation containing an antitrust evaluation and counsel's opinion and advice given to Mr. Zagnoli with respect to Gulfs prospective involvement in the proposed international uranium marketing arrangement distributed to R. K. Allen, Counsel, Gulf Mineral Resources Company, a subsidiary of Gulf Oil Corporation, counsel, Gulf Minerals Canada, Ltd.; I. W. Coleman, Associate General Counsel, Gulf Oil Corporation; W. Z. Estey, Partner, Robertson, Lane, Perrett, Frankish & Estey; counsel for Gulf Minerals Canada, Limited; N.M.
Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, the requested document which is the property of Gulf Oil Corporation is not in our records. Therefore, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 36-Mr. Stevens:
Than an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the memorandum dated August 15, 1972 from R. D. Jackson, Attorney, Gulf Oil Corporation, to F. R. O'Hara, Attorney/Antitrust Counsel, Gulf Oil Corporation describing substance of discussions among counsel regarding proposed Canadian regulations concerning uranium marketing, distributed to I. W. Coleman, Associate General Counsel, Gulf Oil Corporation.
Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, the requested document, which is the property of Gulf Oil Corporation, is not in our records. Consequently, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if it is an acceptable answer for the parliamentary secretary to say that a certain matter is not in the government's records. Surely, if the House requests it, the government can get it. The reason I am prompted to raise this point of order is that when a motion is called about a matter that is in the possession of the government, the government still refuses to table it. Is this an acceptable answer?


Mr. Speaker:: In a preliminary way, it seems that this is not the time to challenge an answer. The proposer of the motion is given the option of accepting the answer or rejecting it by transferring the matter for debate. I do not know at the moment if we can alter that procedure because of the high volume of motions being dealt with at this time.
Motions for Papers


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 37-Mr. Stevens:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of memorandum dated September 25, 1972 from Mr. O. J. C. Runnalls, Senior Advisor-Uranium, Department of Energy, Mines and Resources; Official of Uranium Canada, Limited a Crown corporation, to Mr. G. R. Albino, Official of Rio Algom, Ltd., a Canadian mining company; J. Kostuik, Official of Denison Mines, Ltd., a Canadian mining company; W. M. Gilchrist, Official of Eldorado Mines, Ltd., a Canadian Crown corporation; N. M. Ediger, Manager, Gulf Minerals Canada, Ltd.; K. E. Kegel, Official with Uranerz Canada, Ltd., a Canadian subsidiary of a West German company; and G. M. McNabb, Assistant Deputy Minister (Energy) of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources; Executive Vice President, Uranium Canada, Limited, a Crown corporation.
Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, the requested document is confidential and its contents cannot be made public. Therefore, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 38-Mr. Stevens:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the memorandum dated September 26, 1972 from R. K. Allen, Counsel, Gulf Mineral Resources Company, a subsidiary of Gulf Oil Corporation; counsel. Gulf Minerals Canada, Limited to I. W. Coleman, Associate General Counsel, Gulf Oil Corporation describing the letter attaching outline of a proposal prepared by counsel for possible use in the then forthcoming negotiations with joint venture partner concerning the impact of regulations adopted by Canada's Energy Control Board, requesting legal advice from co-counsel regarding the proposal.
Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, the requested document, which is the property of Gulf Oil Corporation, is not in our records. Consequently, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 39-Mr. Stevens:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the memorandum dated October 11, 1972 from R. D. Jackson, Attorney, Gulf Oil Corporation to F. R. O'Hara, Attorney/Antitrust Counsel, Gulf Oil Corporation describing the letter concerning earlier consultation on legal points and recommending the giving of certain legal advice to the client regarding international uranium producers' arrangement.
[Stage Direction]
December 14, 1977
Motions for Papers
Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, with regard to notice of motion No. 39, the answer is as follows: The requested document which is the property of Gulf Oil Corporation is not in our records. Consequently, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 40-Mr. Stevens:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the memorandum dated October 12, 1972 from F. R. O'Hara, Attorney/Antitrust Counsel, Gulf Oil Corporation to R. K. Allen, Counsel, Gulf Mineral Resources Company, a subsidiary of Gulf Oil Corporation; counsel, Gulf Minerals Canada, Limited describing the letter by counsel which sets forth legal comments and brief antitrust analysis concerning a matter on which client requested legal advice.
Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, the requested document, which is the property of Gulf Oil Corporation, is not in our records. Consequently, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 41-Mr. Stevens:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the memorandum dated November 20, 1972 from F. R. O'Hara Attorney/Antitrust Counsel, Gulf Oil Corporation to N. M. Ediger, Manager, Gulf Minerals Canada, Limited describing the letter setting forth counsel's analysis and legal opinion with regard to antitrust considerations and advice with regard to compliance with antitrust laws, regarding international uranium producers' arrangements and direction by Canadian government that Gulf participate therein and distributed to R. K. Allen, Counsel, Gulf Mineral Resources Company, a subsidiary of Gulf Oil Corporation; counsel, Gulf Minerals Canada, Limited; W. Z. Estey, Partner, Robertson, Lane, Perrett, Frankish & Estey; counsel for Gulf Minerals Canada, Limited; J. McAfee, President, Gulf Oil Canada, Limited; M. E. Minks, General Counsel, Gulf Oil Corporation; J. C. Phillips, Vice-President, General Counsel, Gulf Oil Canada, Limited; and S. A. Zagnoli, President, Gulf Minerals Canada, Limited.
Maurice Lamontagne: As concerns notice of motion No. 41, the answer is as follows: The requested document which is the property of Gulf Oil Corporation is

not in our records. Consequently, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 42-Mr. Stevens:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of a letter dated January 2, 1973, from R. K. Allen, Gulf Mineral Resources Company, a subsidiary of Gulf Oil Corporation; counsel, Gulf Minerals Canada, Limited, to F. R. O'Hara, Attorney/Antitrust Counsel, Gulf Oil Corporation and distributed to N. M. Ediger, Manager, Gulf Minerals Canada, Limited and attaching letters dated December 27, 1972, from N. M. Ediger to S. A. Zagnoli, President, Gulf Minerals Canada Limited, and distributed to R. K. Allen and W. Z. Estey, Partner, Robertson, Lane, Perrett, Frankish & Estey; Counsel for Gulf Minerals Canada, Limited and December 22, 1972, from J. Austin, Deputy Minister of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources; President, Uranium Canada Limited, a Crown corporation to N. M. Ediger, setting forth legal conclusions and requesting legal opinion re client's proposed response to Canadian government's proposed directive.
Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, the requested document, which is the property of Gulf Oil Corporation, is not in our records. Consequently, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 43-Mr. Stevens:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of an undated document being handwritten notes of a Gulf Attorney reflecting communication with client and statement of legal question in advance of preparation of formal legal opinion from the fdes of Gulfs Law Department bearing on the uranium cartel.
Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, the requested document, which is the property of Gulf Oil Corporation, is not in our records. Consequently, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.

December 14, 1977


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 24-Mr. Stevens:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of a letter dated May 3, 1972, from O. J. C. Runnalls, Senior Advisor-Uranium, Department of Energy, Mines and Resources; Official of Uranium Canada, Limited, a Crown Corporation, to N. M. Ediger, Manager, Gulf Minerals Canada, Limited, together with an attached undated letter from O.J.C. Runnalls to J. Austin, Deputy Minister of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources; President, Uranium Canada Limited, a Crown Corporation, attaching the Minutes of the Meeting of the International Uranium Producers in Paris, April 20-21, 1972.
Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, the requested document deals with international relations, the release of which might be detrimental to the future conduct of Canada's foreign relations. Therefore, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate. Shall the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, partly following the point of order raised by my colleague from Winnipeg North Centre, I would like to give notice that we will be appealing to Your Honour for whatever remedy is open to us to allow us to get access to the documents that we have been denied by the parliamentary secretary today.
We were told there was nothing secret about this uranium international cartel. 1 suggest there has been an affront to this parliament today, because the bulk of the documentation that we requested is in the hands of the Moss committee of the Congress of the United States. We know it is in the possession of this government, yet they have systematically, with trumped-up excuses, denied this parliament access to information which is in the hands of the United States Congress.
On another occasion, Mr. Speaker, I hope to put forward a motion which will clarify, in this instance, anyway, our right as parliamentarians to the information we have requested as set out in the motions just dealt with.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that the hon. member has the rights provided under Standing Order 48. If he is not satisfied because the papers have not been produced, he is entitled to a debate to be held in due time, pursuant to Standing Order 48, and after one hour and a half of debate, each question will be put. So, his argument does not hold.
Canada Labour Code


Mr. Breau:: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I should like to add that the hon. member could, if he so wished, have asked that the motion be put to the House right away. But he did not make such a request; he spoke of taking another course of action. Parliament could have decided right now whether the documents are to be produced, or not, had the hon. member called for a vote.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has given me notice that as a result of the response he has received, after taking the opportunity to review what has been said he will be raising the matter again. I take that as notice.
Shall the remaining notices of motions for the production of documents be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, December 13, consideration of the motion Mr. Munro (Hamilton East) that Bill C-8, to amend the Canada Labour Code, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, when the House rose last night the minister and other members had spoken on the bill. I would like to add my words. 1 understand that the minister is anxious to show something in the Canada Labour Code for his efforts in the labour field which really have not been all that productive since he was appointed to that portfolio. I think the minister has been singularly unsuccessful in labour relations, so that much of what he has tried to do has not come to fruition.
In general, these amendments to the labour code are innocuous and apply to those in the labour force who are covered by federal regulations, not a great many, but important in the grain handling field especially-which affects Manitoba and the west-banking, transportation, and a few other federal activities. In a general way, it can be said that most of the regulations and amendments are already part and parcel of the present labour regulations and probably do not deviate a great deal from what is being carried on at the present time.
In some of the provinces, these new amendments may be minimal, but in others they may be above the present practice. The importance of the amendments lies in the effect they will have on the general labour situation and on productivity. The provincial labour codes will have to conform to these amendments. To this extent, the proposed labour code changes are
1872

December 14, 1977
Canada Labour Code
important because what we find here also extends into the provincial field, down into small business, even to the small corner grocery store, into professional offices, and so on. Though they are not governed directly by the Canada Labour Code, nevertheless, through provincial adherence to general practice, all firms, no matter how small, will tend to adhere to the regulations.
In a general way, I would say these amendments will decrease productivity and increase labour costs without giving rise to corresponding increased efficiency.
I would like to mention one thing which specifically affects my riding and the province of Manitoba. At the recent annual meeting of the Manitoba Wheat Pool held in Winnipeg, it was pointed out that these amendments to the labour code will cause serious problems for grain handling companies on the prairies because of the adoption of a 40-hour week with only eight hours' overtime permitted within any one week. This was highlighted by Mr. Harold Sneath, the outgoing president of the Manitoba Pool Elevators, who said it would cause serious problems in the grain industry at the local level.
What are the implications of this 40-hour week, with only eight hours allowed for overtime? At country elevators, managers have their own working period. Elevator managers at country points are busy for ten, 12, or 15 hours a day at times, and they take corresponding time off. It is not unusual to find that an elevator manager has taken a couple of days off to go hunting. This is because he worked overtime previously. If this legislation is imposed on the grain handlers, it can only mean increased costs to the farmers, and I question whether it is worth it.
This point should be considered very carefully: it is going to increase costs at the country elevator points. I would hope the government would see fit to introduce an amendment which would give some sort of relief. Certainly, being an elevator agent in this country seems to be one of the more desirable occupations. They do not have a large turnover, and most country elevator agents seem to enjoy their work. So I would think this is an important feature. Should we, in effect, create a situation where at the country elevators the cost to the farmer is to be increased?
We have lately heard from the Hall commission on the abandonment of rail lines in the west. In fact, the abandonment of rail lines and the abandonment of small elevators are one and the same. If this labour legislation comes in as presently constituted, it will effectively kill small elevator points in the country: farmers will haul to larger elevators handling more grain and using a larger staff because they can give the farmer better service during the busy season. This is the considered opinion not of myself alone but of Mr. Sneath, the outgoing president of the Manitoba Pool Elevators. The fact that negotiations have been going on between the management of the pool elevators and the union means that the management's position has been weakened with this legislation.
In another portion of the bill there is reference to dust control. I do not understand why country elevators should be

under federal dust control regulations. 1 think it is another instance of too much federal interference in what is really a matter of provincial jurisdiction. At the lakehead, the Manitoba pool had to spend $1,100,000 on dust control equipment to satisfy the Ontario department of the environment with respect to dust emission. This is significant. Why should country elevators come under federal jurisdiction, under an Ottawa bureaucracy which is insensitive to their needs, where western Canadians have little or no say and where western Canadians are not prominent at all? How can you stop dust from circulating when a truck is dumping grain from an elevator? The operators and the farmers delivering grain simply get out of the way, but presumably the federal inspectors will be able to produce a long dissertation on how to get out of the way of dust produced by grain being dumped. It will certainly cause a lot of problems and cost a lot of money.
It is doubtful if all of these regulations and inspections will really be in our best interests. We have to decide whether all these regulations are needed. In country elevators, a great deal has been done in the past two years with regard to dust control. The elevator companies are to be commended for that.
As for holidays, Boxing Day is to be added to the list of eight general holidays. We are still debating whether to have heritage day in February. The number of holidays in Canada is such that our calendar is beginning to look like a Mexican calendar. That holidays are important in assessing labour productivity is of some significance, I suggest. For example, when discussing the textile bill which was passed under the ministership of Jean-Luc Pepin-who is now saving the unity of this country-the textile industry told the committee that one of the significant reasons for the inefficiency of Canadian textile workers was that their competitors in other countries did not have nearly as many holidays. 1 was surprised to learn that the industry was not referring to low income countries such as Taiwan and Malaysia, but to countries like the United States where the number of holidays was significantly less-as I recall, only two or three. The number of general holidays in Canada is approaching between 4 per cent and 5 per cent of our total working period. This is not insignificant.
Italy, for example, also has many holidays, be they official or religious ones. The government did attempt to compress them into the Christmas and New Year holidays-which workers tended to take off anyway, whether they worked or not-but encountered stiff resistance in this regard. I suggest that in Canada the number of holidays seriously affects our productivity.
The other day the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien), in talking about productivity, said that the wave of pessimism had spread too far. He had some suggestions to make in this regard. We in this country are presently trying to decide how to handle labour, management and government relations with a view to reducing the number of strikes and increasing productivity, something we all support. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) has talked about tripartism. We in
December 14, 1977

Canada have had a considerable overdose of distrust, hostility and recrimination. There are those who say that our adversary system in management-labour relations is unlikely to work very well unless there is a more effective means of putting the issues on the table at the national and regional levels. 1 think this idea has a lot to commend it.
Similarly, we need better data. Unless our unemployment figures and statistics relating to the cost of living are brought up to date, we are going to experience considerable difficulty. You will have labour and management arguing over what is the unemployment level, or the number of man-days lost through strikes, absenteeism and industrial accidents.
The minister believes that tripartism is of some importance as a means of permitting government to become more involved in labour-management bargaining. Presumably, the minister's idea is that when the economic pie is cut up, the discord which arises when negotiating some 10,000 collective agreements will be muted by an overlay of consensus and compromise. No government in any industrialized democracy has gone this far and shared its power with big business and labour. However, in Sweden and West Germany, government has drawn labour and management into the process of economic management, though remaining, as indeed it should and must, the senior partner in the firm.
At the broadest and most fundamental level, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me there are two main objections to this kind of tripartism. I think it can be said that this question has been discussed with labour groups. First of all, it largely excludes from power many constituencies, such as consumers, small businessmen, housewives, students, the retired, the unemployed and the unorganized worker. Consider the fact that about 30 per cent of the some ten million workers in Canada are unionized. 1 suggest that is a significant consideration.
The question to ask is this: Can we reasonably assure ourselves that the benefits of a more harmonious relationship among big government, big business and big labour will exceed the additional cost of shutting out the rest of society? Tripartism is not a broadening of the base of power in society but, rather, an elitist reaction, as a result of which big government and big business would agree to accommodate big labour in reaching decisions which were not necessarily in the interests of society as a whole.
Although tripartism might lead to greater efficiency, in time it might lead to economic management which would be more centralist, more authoritarian and less democratic, since about seven million Canadian workers would be largely left out of consideration except for the democratic process of parliament. We all know, Mr. Speaker, how ineffective parliament is in a given situation when it comes to dealing with the problems of labour and management.
We will continue to have management and labour settling their differences without the services of the government as matchmaker. However, generally speaking, both management and labour have been critical of what the government does. They have said that there is too much government. They have said that there is too little government. They say that govern-
Canada Labour Code
ment is ineffective. They say there are too many controls, and then they say there are not enough controls.
This leaves multipartism to consider. Can we bring to the process the collective wisdom of a wide group of people- which, in effect, is what parliament is? 1 doubt that this will be very successful, though discussion of this issue has not really crystalized. Personally, I feel there is much to be said for the adversary system, the traditional system. In the last 25 years we have had relative labour peace, and as a result we have been unwilling to accept that labour-management differences have yet reached the crisis point. The minister will continue on as he has in the past. Problems between labour and management will sort themselves out without there being too much government interference, government being asked to intervene only when necessary.
Turning to the Canada Labour Code, I would like to point out that section 59(4) of the code currently prohibits the dismissal of pregnant employees only if they have compiled twelve consecutive months of continuous employment. That condition is now to be removed altogether, but 1 suggest the problem with regard to pregnancy is not solved that easily.
I suppose legislators feel that being pregnant should not be a job disqualification under any circumstances. However, with certain people pregnancy is almost incapacitating. As long as pregnant employees can do their usual work, no one complains; but in certain circumstances pregnant employees are often just "around" and are not in a physical condition to contribute their usual work output. In some instances, this amounts to wages without any work being performed. The matter of pregnancy should be studied further. Pregnancy cannot be treated as a non-event, and a pregnant person should not automatically receive the usual work benefits.
In the matter of bereavement, the definition of what constitutes a family can be very widely interpreted, and certainly could be construed and used by many employees in such a way as to get a few days off unless clearly defined. With regard to job protection, during periods of sickness most firms can reinstate their employees with few problems. But with respect to small firms-and I am thinking of perhaps small credit unions, because presumably they come under this legislation- it will not always be easy to reinstate employees in offices of two or three people. There does not seem to be any tribunal to which a small firm can apply to see if it has the ability to meet specified conditions and whether meeting them would be too onerous.
Section 5(7) provides protection against unjust firing. That is of some concern, particularly to small businesses. In fact, most dismissals from small businesses are due to personality conflicts between the boss and the employee. In most cases, no amount of ordering by ministerial authority will resolve the problem. This is a very important matter. Because of possible unpleasant effects and difficult situations, this section must be seriously considered.
8002 7-49 Vi

December 14, 1977
Canada Labour Code
With regard to section 5(8), it is not easy to ensure that an employee has his wages in hand on his regular pay day at all times. An employee may be required to be away on a particular pay day. There are many occasions when it will be costly to comply with this section. Nevertheless, in a general way I think all agree with the thrust of the amendment.
We are always dealing with labour, management and unemployment. We are always concerned about what unemployment statistics mean. In the United States, it has recently become the practice to express the cost of living index with three indices: the cost of living varies among retired people, working people and other groups. When we measure our cost of living index, we forget that it is not always exact and it is sometimes very inaccurate. We should bear this in mind when dealing with the cost of living. The cost of living index is directly related, primarily, to the middle income group and to what that group buys.
It has been suggested that the cost of living index does not truly reflect the situation of the well-to-do or of the poor, and that it does not reflect the situation of those who perhaps do not buy very many commodities because of retirement.
Are the unemployment statistics we are using correct? It has been pointed out that the highest rate of unemployment is among people who are under 25, and that among people 25 years of age and over the unemployment rate is only 4.8 per cent, half a percentage point higher than a year ago. This should be borne in mind when we examine the unemployment situation.
We must also remember the problems with regard to youth unemployment and that the benefits paid by way of unemployment insurance give youth a greater opportunity to experiment with finding the kind of work they want. They have a much greater opportunity than their parents ever had. I think it can be said that young people are leaving school without being qualified for employment in certain jobs. I think educators have some responsibility for this. It is not unusual to see young people coming out of educational institutions with the idea they are worth $15,000 or $16,000 a year-and they are, if they can find jobs. It is important that we consider unemployment statistics when we assess what we should do by way of job-creation. Unless productive jobs are created, an unnecessary amount of job-creation by the government will not lead to lasting employment in the long run.
I would like to say a few words about the withdrawal of the United States from the International Labour Organization. The withdrawal coincided with the election of Mr. Joe Morris to the top office of the CLC. Mr. Morris regretted-and I think rightly so-the decision of President Carter, along with the national labour organization of his country and business, apparently against the advice of the state department, to withdraw American support from the ILO. We should not, however, be too critical or the position taken by the United States. The ILO seems to have fallen under the domination of the Soviet Union and Third World countries which are inclined toward communism. These countries have used the

ILO to put forward their views and as a political forum in which to berate western countries.
It is significant that in those countries there are not true labour movements with unions which are free to become established and to express views. I think this withdrawal will be significant, because the United States contributed about 25 per cent of the total contributed which was, I think, in the area of $25 million. This withdrawal has been likened by a few people to the German withdrawal from the League of Nations, and its subsequent downfall.
In closing, I would like to say that I hope in the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration there will be a complete study of the implications of the amendments contained in this bill. On the surface, they do not seem to be too severe, but in the area of grain handling they will have a major effect. About 90 per cent of grain handling is involved with export movements. Considering our balance of payments situation, that export trade is important, and if this bill causes serious problems for grain handling at country elevators it will not have served its purpose in that sector.


Mr. Charles-Eugene Dionne (Kamouraska):: Mr. Speaker, I paid great attention to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) when he introduced this new legislation before the House yesterday. The only thing I could point out at the outset of my remarks is that the working conditions mentioned in the minister's speech have been existing long enough in Canada and that we should have passed such legislation a few years ago. I realize that Bill C-8 does contain positive improvements which should contribute to avoiding certain delays in employer-employee relations.
Several clauses of this legislation provide workers with the protection they are entitled to. I have found very interesting the clauses which allow a worker to refuse to perform some duties presenting immediate risks without having to suffer a salary loss. I had the opportunity to realize that too often unfortunately that employees were exposed to dangerous work without being adequately protected, especially on construction sites. It is one essential point in working conditions. So we must have clearly drafted, safety regulations and an experienced team responsible for supervising the ways work is assigned on a construction site.
Too often workers who had been looking for a job for a considerable time and are anxious to work suffer from conditions that should not be tolerated in this day and age, when the means are available to guarantee protection against safety hazards. This is fundamental, and union leaders and labour representatives should work in that direction and supervise construction sites.
I myself worked on hydroelectric dam projects, where I found that we were sometimes directed to unsafe work places. This is especially true at times where the unemployment rate is abnormally high. For fear of losing their jobs, workers take the chance of working in unsafe conditions. In that respect, I am
December 14, 1977

100 per cent in favour of the proposal put forward, and I hope there will be adequate implementation so that regulations are understood by workers and they can insist so that their boss, or company executive or the small foreman abide by the rules.
Earned days based on years of service is stimulating for workers. Another provision covers possible intervention to hasten the payment of wages due, and there is much to be done on that. Still recently, 1 had an opportunity to phone an employer in the Lebel-sur-Quebillon area, to get him to give a work statement to an employee who had left the site because the job was finished. He had been waiting for a month and a half for unemployment insurance benefits because the employer had not sent the employment statement as he should have. There is a lot to be done in the monitoring of work conditions.
A number of other clauses in the legislation will certainly help reduce delays and unnecessary procedures that too often hinder the administration of the collective negotiation process.
1 am hopeful in that respect. Delays have been the cause of many strikes. By providing the board with a greater possibility of control over votes, either to establish a bargaining unit or for other usual formalities in the relationships between the union representatives and the workers themselves, we should contribute to avoid many difficulties arising from the decisions which were made after an insufficient analysis of the consequences.
Everybody knows that workers had to struggle to obtain freedom of association. They were right and they had their rights recognized. However, if this freedom which was acquired after so much sacrifice is violated by force, it is no good to the worker. The freedom of choice of the worker, as far as the union is concerned, should always be considered. This is a very important point. A true freedom of association implies the freedom to refuse to become a member of an association and even the freedom to dissociate. This is what freedom is all about, after all. Where is the freedom of association if you are either forced to join a determined union or you can no longer leave that union. We should ask ourselves what is freedom? This should apply to the union organization as to any other association, any other group in society. The freedom of choice also entails the freedom to refuse. It is a violation of individual freedom of choice to force a union upon the individual. We could also deal with closed workshops, the Rand formula, check-offs but we will come back to these points when we have an opportunity.
Today I will limit my remarks to a few points. I want to bring to your attention that I am quite aware of what is going on in the administrative mechanism of trade unions. I have worked in that field for ten years as president of a local. 1 am pleased to add that during those ten years of union work, of labour organization, I have negotiated a number of collective agreements with quite a few employers and large corporations in forest operations. For ten years we have succeeded in negotiating and obtaining improved conditions for workers who had to work in those areas and we never had to go on
Canada Labour Code
strike. Why? Because we were trying to negotiate instead of trying to go on strike. Nowadays it seems that things have gone to the point where strikes mark the start of negotiations. That is why we must put order in this field. We should have done so a long time ago. I am happy today to congratulate the minister for proposing a bill aimed at that goal. We will have to see to it that the implementation is brought along in the proper way.
One of the most important problems we are faced with today is the fact that people no longer care much about government authority. Is it because it is not worth respecting? Let us think about that. We know what happened. This House has to pass legislation to send the men back to work, after giving them the right to walk out. The government is going to send a conciliation officer to the work site. But it doesn't seem to work. These points deserve serious consideration and it is absolutely natural that the government should try first to get better conditions for Canadian workers and then to direct and monitor the way the labour legislation is followed. Anyhow, the role of the government in labour disputes does not seem to be all that wonderful from what we can see. The right to strike is emphasized to the point that we sometimes seem to forget that it is subordinate to the right to work. The situation is quite serious when we reach that point. We are facing an inversion of values. The almighty dollar has priority over all other values.
The interest of the collectivity comes after the interest of the individual or in some cases of the profession. Many people keep on repeating the words freedom, freedom and rights. But these noble principles are so often used without rhyme or reason today that they are becoming real myths without any meaning. They are so often referred to in some circles that they will ultimately destroy themselves. The repeated confrontations between labour and management are a potentially dangerous tactical exercise even if it seems to be cleverly set up. It is all too easy to be so blinded by personal or professional selfishness as to forget that we can only exercise and enjoy our own rights to the extent that we respect other people's rights. While we recognize that man has been created free, we also recognize that he is a social being. Aware of these individual deficiencies, man has always tried to compensate for them by associating with his fellowmen in various ways, which is only normal, associations in which everybody can benefit from the mutual distribution of wealth owned by individuals who know each other, who realize they have common problems, who act sensibly while following a natural tendency by getting together in order to stand a better chance of obtaining as a group what they cannot obtain individually.
I read an article entitled "The Crisis of Collective Bargaining" in the December 1974 isssue of the Labour Gazette. According to this article, for nearly one century, collective bargaining has survived numerous pressures from within and without. In spite of all the fears that it will soon disappear, it still remains the most often used method of conducting labour-management relations. After quoting many statistics, 1,440 to be exact, concerning agreements, the assistant director of the

December 14, 1977
Canada Labour Code
Labour Relations Centre at Queen's University said that 50 per cent of the settlements were reached through conciliation or mediation, 5 per cent through arbitration and 11 per cent after a strike. Only one third of the settlements were reached through direct negotiation between labour and management. These statistics clearly show that very few labour and management negotiators still know how to settle their differences at the negotiating table without the help or the intervention of a third party and without the decisive tools of a strike or a lockout.
Not so long ago, the services of a conciliator or a mediator were rarely needed. Nowadays, their intervention in collective bargaining has become commonplace. We must certainly not underestimate their contribution to maintaining peace in labour relations, but the fact that their services are increasingly called upon points to a weakness in the collective bargaining system. The renewal of collective agreements must not necessarily aim at wage increases, even if this is an interesting part of the negotiations. There is also the improvement of working conditions in the plant, in the office, on the road or on the worksite, the number of working hours, accident prevention through the implementation of safety rules, fair work distribution, proper and timely representations to government authorities using the strongest possible means of persuasion to obtain a well-balanced labour legislation which is not prompted by the fear of an impending election, but is in the interest of the next generation.
It is rather difficult to demand that governments launch all sorts of major building programs even though many projects could be implemented, especially senior citizens' residences and slum clearance.
All that is done while maintaining a financial system which does not reflect the real wealth. Our huge current production could be increased fourfold if there were real means for distributing goods. It is quite normal for people today, as it was before and as it will be in the future, to be looking for some means of escaping misery, which in our opinion is caused by an economic and financial system which is unbalanced and brings about a very unjust distribution of wealth.
To remedy the situation, we Social Crediters propose a reform of the financial system which would permit the practical application of the principle of distributive economy for abundant goods. For those who consider themselves to be scholars, this formula is too simple. They need sophisticated formulas, so complicated that they have to face unbelievable situations where workers willing to work find out they are on strike. Yet, every accomplishment in the world was done through work. Nobody can deny that. It would undoubtedly be interesting to hear the explanations given by strikemongers and those who seem unable to reach an agreement. Can the benefits arising or derived from a strike be described? Good workers, who often have a family to care for, are justified in demanding a little more happiness for themselves and their families, but this should be possible without strikes, where they might be playing into the enemy's hands who is using them to promote subversive interests.
[Mr. Dionne (Kamouraska).l
As we already wrote, unionism is still a democratic means of ensuring the portection of workers as long as it is directed by responsible leaders and that the means used are fair to both parties, when you must bring the management of the business or the various services to recognize their social responsibilities. We have the right to join forces to defend our interests as long as we do not violate the rights of others. This is very important. It is time to determine when the social and economic interests of the people must prevail over the right to strike. When everything is paralysed and air, land and sea transportation is at a standstill, I wonder if the right to strike is justified. This is when we need an appropriate and flexible legislation that would eliminate this situation and would prevent us from having to adopt other legislation to withdraw what has already been given. We operate in a very strange fashion.
I know it is difficult to solve all those problems in our confused financial system, but the situation is so serious that we could at least establish as soon as possible a real labour court made up of representatives of labour, management and government and after a study of the situation in every industry or service, set a salary scale adequate and proportionate to workers' needs and the capacity of the enterprise instead of waiting for conflicts before making decisions.
We might easily understand that workers are asking for working and salary conditions allowing them to have a decent standard of living but, however, it should be possible in Canada to establish living conditions acceptable to all well disposed workers. We have the feeling today that employee strikes have become the regular negotiation process as the possibility of a strike is raised in every collective bargaining. Yet, that principle is entirely wrong. A strike should be used only as a last resort when all other conciliation means have failed. When at the expense of human dignity management continues to exploit the wage earner or forces him to accept poor working conditions, fortunately that kind of employer has been largely reduced in our country, but when the situation exists, a strike can be justified. The employer has no right to determine on his own behalf the salary and working conditions of his employees, any more than the union has to impose its own views unilaterally. If the employer can, figures in hand, show that present and projected conditions forbid any rise in expenses beyond a given percentage if his business is to remain healthy, the union has no right to demand more and even if a strike were legal, it still would be immoral.
I have here two photocopies of press articles about Toussaint & Freres, an industry in the county of Kamouraska-LTslet. The windows have been boarded up from the beginning of the labour dispute, and there is not much left in the Toussaint & Freres plant since the company has emptied its buildings. Faced with labour demands, the employers decided they could not carry on operating under those conditions and as they had the opportunity to transfer their machinery somewhere else, that is what they have done with the result that now some 50 workers are jobless, although some of them had been on the payroll for 18 years and others for ten, 12 or 15 years.
December 14, 1977

So all these people lost their jobs and problems arose. It happened in April. Some people have drawn unemployment insurance benefits only some three weeks ago. So I made many representations to get the Unemployment Insurance Commission to understand those things, namely that they were no longer working in that plant since the employer had shut down. They waited for all the machinery to be taken out, they had to see it done themselves, to make sure that there were witnesses, otherwise they were not ready to pay out the benefits even if some among these people had worked elsewhere on other sites and had accumulated contributions. Yet they were told: In the first place, the decision taken following the loss of your job in a collective dispute contributes to maintaining your status as non-eligible for these benefits.
The same thing is happening at Napoleon Transport Ltd., at Rivierc-du-Loup. There was a lock-out there. The fact is that since last spring, following a communication with a senior Unemployment Insurance Commission officer, there may be one of these guys who is being paid unemployment insurance benefits but he did have to wait for two months. He cannot get anything. He cannot get welfare benefits because as he is told: You have stopped working because there was a labour dispute. This is true in his case, but he was not even unionized. He worked there some three weeks, and then became a victim of local developments. He worked three months elsewhere, for three different employers, yet the Unemployment Insurance Commission told him that he had lost his first job because of a labour conflict. That is the kind of nonsense which should not happen as often as it does now.
There are cases when a strike can be considered as reasonable and acceptable but it is seldom so. Often, if all avenues of negotiation were explored, a strike could be avoided. The time when the boss was almighty and kept his employees in check through fear, threat or blackmail is over. Today management is used to negotiating and even if it finds it sometimes a bit unpleasant, it recognizes that it cannot escape such obligations. However, when it sees the union making unreasonable demands, management immediately reacts by refusing to make any concessions at all. This kind of attitude is very frustrating for union officials and that is when they start being demagogical before their members by calling for union solidarity. You can imagine what happens. How do the workers react? Their blood boils, their pride is hurt and then they are ready for any act of violence. I must say with regret that this has happened in many places, particularly in the province of Quebec, because I know what happened there.
When the Minister of Labour tabled in the House this general law to amend the Labour Code, he stated that these amendments were an integral part of a large program launched by the Department of Labour to improve working conditions generally and strengthen the collective bargaining process and the industrial relations system. He also said that, besides reflecting general improvement in labour, collective agreements and provincial labour legislation, this major review of the Canadian Labour Code also corrected some problems resulting from its application. That bill could constitute a
Canada Labour Code
declaration of workers' rights even though it is far from being complete. This legislation affects about 550,000 private sector workers under federal jurisdiction.
For some activities such as railways, air transport, banks, trucking, broadcasting and television, grain handling, communications and harbours, I noted that some amendments to this legislation would oblige unions to provide financial statements to their members and guarantee fair and objective procedures for job offers in hiring halls. We should keep that in mind as well. In other words, the government should not unconsciously contribute to creating problems and then admit that it cannot solve them.
I have already given examples of things we should never have to do. I refer to legislation ordering striking workers back to work after the passage of legislation giving them the right to strike. Those are examples of obvious inconsistencies which should be avoided at all costs. I approve this bill on the whole because it includes much that is good. However, it should have been passed years ago, but since it has now been introduced it is never too late to act. Therefore, I support its contents on the whole because I see many improvements. Let us hope that amendments brought to the Canada Labour Code will contribute to a healthier climate and restore harmony in employer-employee relations.


Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few brief comments regarding one aspect of this bill that was covered earlier by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie), and that is the way the amendments will affect grain handling in western Canada. First of all, 1 should like to put on the record a letter I received from the manager of one of the elevators in my constituency which sums up very well the feelings of many managers of elevator companies on the prairies. This manager writes as follows:
1 have been notified that the Canada Labour is planning to enforce an eight-hour day, forty-hour week on us effective August 1, 1978.
1 work for Pioneer Grain Co. Ltd. In my personal feelings this is going to damage our free enterprise. We will not have the incentive program that we have now. During harvest it will be a hardship on farmers if we have to close at six o'clock. 1 am sure the farmers will not approve of (an) eight-hour day in harvest.
Therefore, I'm against any action taken to control our working hours.
Two or three weeks ago I had occasion to attend the annual meeting of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool. The minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board addressed the meeting. Following his address, he indicated he was prepared to answer any questions that might be put to him and one or two individuals expressed the concerns they and the wheat pool had regarding the legislation.
Grain handling on the prairies is different from the usual type of industry. If the elevator agents or managers are restricted to a 40-hour week with eight hours' overtime, the system will just not function properly. The sale of grain is subject to quotas and delivery depends on those quotas; it

December 14, 1977
Canada Labour Code
depends on the season of the year and on the weather. It is not uncommon to see a line up to ten, 12, 15 trucks at elevators during the course of a day, and there is no way the agent can shut down at six o'clock in the evening and leave trucks lined up.
I believe the elevator companies and their employees who manage the elevators are, generally speaking, happy with the legislation as it exists. 1 would ask the minister, if he has not already done so, to get in touch with the minister in charge of the Wheat Board, who has obviously consulted members of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool. Perhaps the hon. minister has received representations direct from the wheat pool. If so, I hope he will take them into consideration and will make the necessary changes to the act. It may be by way of an exception or amendment, but I trust he will take the necessary steps to accommodate the requests of the grain companies and their employees.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, as my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) indicated in a speech last night, we are in general support of the proposals in Bill C-8. We are prepared to give it approval at second reading so that it can go to the standing committee for detailed study. Because my colleague covered the waterfront last night, it is hardly necessary for me to do it again. But I thought I would like to take the floor for a few minutes, mainly to deal with two or three specific matters that are raised in the bill.
May I say, when I hear some of the opposition to this kind of legislation, I feel even more inclined to support what the minister is doing. There are those who seem to think that by giving labour additional holidays or additional vacation time, the cost of production increases and our productivity suffers. 1 wish those who pronounce those views could come up to date and realize that a labour force consisting of persons who are recognized as persons and whose rights are recognized is a much more productive labour force than one consisting of just so many hands not far removed from the days of slavery. The whole concept of the right of labour to have a say in its conditions of work has greatly improved productivity in modern decades, and anything we can do to push along that process is all to the good.
1 am glad to see, in the bill, one or two new things such as bereavement leave, provision for sick leave, the portion of the bill that deals with unjust dismissal, and so on. We shall look with very keen interest at the proposals in the bill which try to ensure unorganized workers some of the rights and benefits that have been won by those who are organized.
I should like to ask my good friend, the minister: What happened to an item that was in last session's Bill C-32? The minister may remember that toward the end of last session he introduced Bill C-32 to amend the Canada Labour Code mainly with respect to general holidays. In that bill he included Heritage Day and Boxing Day. In this session we have Bill C-8, and Heritage Day seems to have been dropped. I realize that the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts) announced earlier in this session, in response to a question of mine, that the
[Mr. Neil.)
government had decided not to proceed with Heritage Day during this session in any respect. The argument that he gave was that this was a time of restraint. I find it very difficult to discover much evidence of restraint around this place.


Steve Eugene Paproski: He means after the next election.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The time for governments to bring in goodies is before an election, not after.


Steve Eugene Paproski: These guys work it differently.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes. The whole argument that, because we are in a time of restraint, workers must not be given the benefit of an extra holiday, is seeing things completely in reverse. By that kind of logic one could argue that we should cancel all holidays and make everyone work six or seven days a week, 52 weeks a year. The minister would not argue that that would increase productivity. He knows that would decrease productivity and we would have a very unhappy labour force. I contend, Mr. Speaker, that argument for a holiday midway between Christmas and the New Year period and the Easter period is a good one, especially in this country. It is a long pull from Christmas to Easter, and if we are going to have many winters like the one we are having now, it is all the more reason to have such a holiday.
I remind the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) that a few years ago one of the railway management-labour disputes was finally settled by the adjudication of Mr. Justice Emmett Hall. He knows that in the settlement Mr. Justice Hall made of that dispute there was a provision for Heritage Day to be added to the holidays with pay which railway workers would get as soon as it was passed by parliament. Mr. Justice Hall and those who were involved in that adjudication seemed to think at that time, because a bill for Heritage Day was before parliament and making good progress, that it would probably be through in no time at all.
Well, already the railway workers have lost two or three of those Heritage Day holidays that they thought they got resulting from Mr. Justice Hall's settlement of that dispute. Railway workers still feel today they have been treated unfairly and treated with lack of faith in the fact that this day has not been established. In fact, there has been a postcard campaign about the matter which is under way right now, and those who signed these cards are aware of the fact that a bill for Heritage Day got second reading and committee of the whole passage a year or so ago. They are aware that during the last session the government had two bills before the House concerning Heritage Day. But now, when we get Bill C-8, it is not there at all. 1 hope the minister will listen to argument about the matter when we get this bill into committee. It is an amendment which can be easily made in committee. It will keep faith with the railway workers in terms of Mr. Hall's settlement of that last dispute.

Canadians generally would welcome the idea of a weekend holiday on the third Monday in February. Surely we can do
December 14, 1977

that. In addition to the idea of a holiday, or whatever you call it, there is merit in the concept of the idea of calling it Heritage Day. There are groups and organizations in this country working very hard to help us appreciate and protect the heritage that we have. A day dedicated to that concept is a good one. I hope the minister will not feel that his cabinet colleagues have crowded him in so much that he cannot move on this, and I hope that when we get into committee on the bill Heritage Day can be put into the legislation.
I see the minister has put in the bill a new provision respecting vacations with pay. We have not had such vacations in the law very long, and up to the present time the holiday provided in the law is only two weeks. The minister now proposes that for an employee coming under federal labour jurisdiction who has been six years with the same employer, holiday pay or the period of vacation with pay is to be extended to three weeks. This is an improvement. It is in line with the bill I have been putting into the House year after year for a long time. However, why make such employees wait six years? When such an employee happens to leave one employer and goes to another, he will have to start all over again. Why cannot the idea of three weeks' holidays with pay start after a shorter period of time than six years? Even five or four years would be better; but I suggest it should start after three years with an employer.
The third point I want to raise with the minister has to do with the whole business of health and safety. I have been sitting here trying to think what year it was that the first legislation under the Canada Labour Code having to do with health and safety was brought in. It was when John Nicholson was minister of labour. Many members will not remember those days. It would be during the regime of Mr. Pearson as prime minister. I remember very clearly that bill to provide a safety code section of the Canada Labour Code being referred to the standing committee. We dealt with it at some length because we were concerned about it. I think it was in the month of December, probably 1965, 1966 or 1967. The minister made a strong appeal asking us to get the bill through so that the officials in the department could draft the regulations and the whole regime of health and safety could be put in place. Ten years have gone by. Some of it has been done, but ever so slowly. My contacts with officers of the Department of Labour who are involved in this question lead me to believe that they are keen on it. They want to push for health and safety in the work place, but somewhere there seems to be some force holding them back.
Every time the workers in the CPR Weston shops, which lie between my constituency and that of my friend from Winnipeg North, complain about fumes or other conditions in the shops that are contrary to health and safety, they have to go through a lot of rigmarole and red tape. In the end, very little is done. I certainly do not blame the officials and public servants in the department. They are keen on it. However, somebody is saying, "No. Go slowly on this." It is like the voices we hear sometimes in this debate about increasing the cost of production if we give people holidays or good rates of pay. Our view
Canada Labour Code
is that if you make working conditions healthy and safe, and you provide adequate holidays, rates of pay and all the rest, productivity will be a lot better. I welcome what' the minister has proposed in the health and safety part of the Canada Labour Code, but I ask him for a little more speed in putting the new proposals into effect than has been the case since we first put health and safety in there ten or 11 years ago.
As 1 have already said, we welcome any bill that improves labour relations. We shall study this one very carefully. I hope that special attention will be paid to the three points I have made at this time.


Hon. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to make a few remarks on the amendments to the Canada Labour Code, Bill C-8, and to congratulate the hard-working Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) for bringing in such progressive amendments to the Labour Code-a real milestone in the long line of improvements in labour legislation initiated by Liberal administrations. Of course, primarily affected by this legislation are workers under federal jurisdiction, but its principles will no doubt be an inspiration and example for other jurisdictions to emulate.
As a physician, I am particularly interested and happy that the bill proposes comprehensive measures for the safety and health of workers. I am sure that all in this House agree with the minister that Canadian workers have a fundamental right to an environment that neither damages their health nor imperils their safety. This principle is also an important element in the maintenance of improved employee-employer relations and, consequently, improved productivity and profitability.
I am particularly interested in the minister's announcement as far as a better work environment for Canadians is concerned, and establishing a Canadian centre for occupational health and safety. There is a great need today for such a national institution. Such a centre would promote the concept of a safe-work environment and the enhancement of the physical and mental health of working people throughout the country. It would facilitate consultation and co-operation among provincial, territorial and federal jurisdictions in the establishment and maintenance of high standards of occupational safety and hygiene appropriate to the Canadian situation and compatible with recognized international standards.
I have in mind, in particular, the need for research and enforcement of appropriate regulations for the workers in asbestos mines and asbestos-related industries, and also special and strict standards to protect the worker from deafness which occurs from the occupational hazard of noise which often occurs in factories. It is imperative that this centre co-operate with the various workmen's compensation boards of the provinces in this country, in order to have special committees established to deal more quickly with those workers who have been injured on the job, and especially those who after many years in mines and asbestos-related factories have suffered damage to their lungs, liver and other vital organs of their bodies.
1880

December 14, 1977
Canada Labour Code
Another health problem which is gaining a lot of attention these days in the occupational health field is that of deafness. It is one of the fastest rising illnesses in this country. It is high time for a centre such as the Canadian centre for occupational health and safety to take strong initiatives and bring about a lowering of the noise levels in our factories and urge the various provincial workmen's compensation boards to deal more quickly with cases of deafness.
In conclusion, this bill is a great step in providing a better work environment and, therefore, better worker-management relations in our country. I look forward to making further remarks when the bill is studied in committee.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of the industrial revolution, industry, government and business have been preoccupied with attempts to decide how the product of the industrial machine which we have built should be distributed. In this day and age we seem more concerned at every level-industry, labour and government-with the distribution of the benefits of the industrial machine than we are with oiling the machine and seeing that it keeps running. The risk of a breakdown in the industrial relations process has reached such proportions that some say it poses, at least in this country, a threat to the very survival of the economic system.
In the short time available to me I shall not, of course, be able to go back in history and draw from the experience of history in dealing with the measure we are discussing today. It is, however, my intention to place on record my views with regard to the current situation and to give an outline of the measures which Canadians workers and employers has a right to expect would be included in this bill after the promises made by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) to approach the subject broadly and to make some fundamental changes to a system which has obviously run up on the rocks and is not functioning well at all.
First, let me put this whole subject of industrial relations into proper perspective in the Canadian context. When we speak about industrial relations, we are really speaking only about one-third of the Canadian work force; we are only speaking about one-third of industry which employs that work force. Those of us who represent constituencies in the House of Commons should pay more attention to the other two-thirds of the work force which has no access to unions, and to the two-thirds of the business community which employs those people and cannot afford the schemes of extravagance which have been generated by the industrial relations process. I have in mind small and medium-sized businesses for the most part.
An assessment reveals that the larger corporations, namely, those which maintain oligopolistic or monopolistic positions in society, are the ones which employ union workers. These are the corporations which manage to insulate themselves, if not completely isolate themselves, from the three market forces which the other two-thirds of the industrial community has to work with. Government, of course, is a perfect example. Public
[Mr. Haidasz.l
employees enjoy the greatest security, and their pensions are indexed, the reason being, of course, that government does not need to subject itself to the pressures of a free market system, but dips into the barrel every time a demand is made and settles that demand in a fashion which is least harmful to its political masters and to the harmonious operation of Crown agencies and the administration generally.
The bill has, it is true, recognized the need for adequate coverage of available unions across the country. One would have expected the Minister of Labour to address himself to this aspect. One would also expect him to have made an attempt in this bill to establish a labour code which would help those who are not presently organized either to become organized or to achieve an equitable share of that part of the gross national product which is labour's portion. On the other hand, we would have the right to expect the minister to address himself to the serious problems faced by the business community which is subjected to free market forces and which has a very difficult time dealing with workers when they demand concessions equal to or similar to those which the government grants its own employees.
One of the aspects of the bill which is particularly offensive to me is that discretion to impose a first-year settlement, in cases where certification has been achieved, should be left to the minister or his officials. To put this in proper context, one must consider the certification process, a process which is still not adequately protected in a democratic manner. As a matter of fact, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, in a statement to the minister expressing disappointment with his approach to this question, expresses the view that "certification of a union as a bargaining agent should only occur where there is evidence that there is majority support for a union through a government supervised secret ballot."
I was involved in a situation recently in which unions were certified to represent the work force of a certain industry although the majority of the employees were not in favour of certification. Should the two parties not be able to get together after certification has been made by the government, the minister takes it upon himself to impose a first-year settlement. I can only assume that his decision would be in accordance with the general guidelines and standards set by the public sector.
A great many employers express fears of the consequences such a procedure might bring. As a matter of fact, I am connected with a firm which finds itself exactly in that position. Certification has been made, but there is no contract because the workers do not want a contract. The union which has been certified will not tune or change its contract, a global contract signed in British Columbia. The upshot is this: the employees of that company have no access to a union simply because they are not prepared to sign a contract imposed on them by a union even though it has been properly certified. 1 serve notice on the minister that these workers will be equally upset if he comes along and tells them he intends to impose the initial contract.
December 14, 1977

Many of my colleagues criticize me for what appears to be an anti-labour stand taken from time to time in the House of Commons. 1 have said there is no democracy in the industrial relations process in this country. 1 have said that unions and employers often act irresponsibly. As a matter of fact, in defending a private member's bill in this House I have said on a couple of occasions that the freedoms and rights of the individual are being eroded in this country as a result of the certification process to which we adhere.
1 should like to give hon. members an example of what 1 mean. Just recently I received a letter from one of my constituents, who is an employee of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, enclosing a copy of a letter he had received from the first vice-president of CUPW, Andre Beauchamp. My constituent says that he is relying on me to defend, in the House of Commons, his personal rights and freedoms which he feels are offended, indeed endangered. 1 should like to place part of this letter on the record. It is addressed to all local presidents across the country and quotes article 4.74 of the new national constitution which reads as follows:
4.74 a) The national director convenes the regional executive committee and the local presidents to his region once a year in order to: "Ensure that local officers comply with the national policies and orientation of the union in their attitude toward the employer at Union-management meetings, counsellings, etc., and avoid any suspicion of collusion with the employer by refusing to participate in recreational events, sports events, dances, distribution of prizes and trophies, collaboration to employer newspapers, etc., in order that the integrity and independence of union leaders be safeguarded in their dealings with employer representatives and that members themselves comply with this orientation.
The letter then goes on to define sports events in this way:
Sports events means softball tournaments, hockey tournaments, golf tournaments, curling bonspiels and any other events that will bring you into contact with members of management.
This policy should be enforced and explained to the members.
Management is trying to show two faces-
In the case of the Postmaster General (Mr. Blais), that may not be too far out.
-one during working hours and another outside the workplace; we know from experiences that this does not work out for the benefit of our members.
In solidarity-
That is signed by Andre Beauchamp, first vice president. I ask, Mr. Speaker, is my constituent justified in feeling that his personal freedom is being infringed? I say yes. If he wants to work as a public servant in the Post Office, or anywhere else in the public service, he is compelled to join this union. In earning his livelihood as a public servant, he cannot fraternize with his employer. He cannot participate in softball tournaments. He cannot curl. He cannot do the things which I suppose people do behind the wicket boxes in a post office. There is dire need for fundamental change in our industrial relations process in this country as long as any one of the partners to this tripartite arrangement of government, labour and management adopts this kind of stance.
What are some of the problems we are facing? Last year we had the world record for lost man-years. What a dubious distinction! Our trading partners in the world are not at all
Canada Labour Code
amused by the kind of behaviour which our industries demonstrate every time they demand that a certain delivery contract be filled, or when our transportation system breaks down.


John Carr Munro: Those figures are not accurate.


Frank Oberle: The minister says the figures are not accurate. I wish he would set the record straight. Perhaps Italy again managed to hold the prize for yet another year; but our figures indicate differently, that Canada does have the worst record in the world for lost man-years resulting from strikes, lockouts and shutdowns. As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, there is gross exaggeration of the adversary system, and the letter 1 have just put on the record is a perfect example. There does not seem to be any forum in this country for business, labour and government to get together, as is the case in more advanced and more refined industrial countries with which we compete.
The problem is that there is no true industrial democracy in this country. The kind of industrial democracy that we have is the kind our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) espoused when he said to a press conference in London the other day that he favoured a one-party democracy as a viable option for this country. May I remind my colleagues that a one-party democracy is what exists in East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia and other Iron Curtain countries.
It is about time freedom of association, one of the cardinal principles of democracy, is restored in this country. Freedom of association means that a member of the work force should have the inalienable right to access to a union. It should also mean the right not to join a union if the individual so wishes. The fact is that only about one-third of this country's work force has the option of joining a union; two-thirds have no access to any union.
In order to make fundamental changes in our industrial relations in this country, the minister must address himself to legislating the conduct of unions so as to provide access to their membership for all workers in Canada, which is not the case now. With this bill, the minister seems to want to fill the vacuum by legislating holidays and health and safety regulations within a plant. He expects this to solve the problem. The fact is that it will not.
We must seriously examine some of the industrial relations models which other countries in the western world have adopted, such as those which provide that all persons have access to a union, that no one shall be compelled to join a union. Under the European social charter, unions do not have the right openly to support just one political party, compelling their membership in the union concerned to support that one party. Management should also have the right, as they do in more advanced industrial countries, to join with unions in reacting to legislation and to demands made by the other two partners, government and labour, in the economic process.
I am pro labour, Mr. Speaker, pro union. I believe that union power in this country must be solidified, as it is in other parts of the world. In the West German model there are 16 unions, and every worker in the country has access to one of
800 2 7 -SO Vi

December 14, 1977
Canada Labour Code
them. In this country our unions are fragmented. They fight with each other. None is capable of evaluating the economic problems which this country faces, problems which at least to some extent are brought on by the lack of an intelligent industrial relations program. We should encourage unions to broaden their scope of union activity and to build into that activity certain social components, not just among its membership but along with management, in order that the tripartite and consultative approach necessary to bring about a more enlightened industrial society can be fostered and advanced.
Surprisingly enough, my colleagues in the industrial sphere have already brought in the meaningless things which are in this bill. Bereavement leave is one of those. I do not know an employee of any company with which I am associated, or with which my friends or partners are associated, who would not be allowed to take two or three days or a week off if a member of his immediate family were to die. I do not know anyone who is not given sick leave, an extra holiday or three weeks' vacation after six years' service. These are minimum standards which no industry in the private sector today would want to be without.
The problem is that there should not be conflicting jurisdiction between the federal and provincial governments. We have a federal labour code and provincial labour codes, and no one knows what the minimum standards are. The provinces have direct jurisdiction over health plans, workmen's compensation boards, and so forth, and it becomes rather confusing when the federal minister intervenes and sets one set of standards while the provinces have other standards. Clearly, in this field the federal government should decentralize and surrender its jurisdiction to the provinces.
I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who reminded the minister of his promise about Heritage Day. A promise is a promise. Even though this may not be a good time to legislate more holidays, it is time to improve productivity in our industries. However, a promise is a promise. This measure is long overdue, and in committee I intend to remind the minister of the promise he made to the rail unions at the time of the Hall commission settlement. I remind the minister that we have every right to expect this holiday to be included in the bill before us.
The unions do not like most of the measures in this bill. It sets inadequate standards. The minimum standards set are not acceptable to labour or business. The Canadian Manufacturers' Association indicated to me that it is not at all happy with this bill because it fails to address itself to the fundamental problems we are facing in our industrial relations process. Who likes this bill? I do not know, but it is certainly my intention to find out in the committee and to remind the minister of his responsibility to bring about some basic changes which must be brought in if our economic system is to survive.
[Mr. Oberle.l
[ Translation]


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like also to make a few remarks about this legislation whose objectives, I feel, have some merits. I suggest to the House that this legislation is of paramount importance for the future of our labour relations which long since should have been governed by more effective mechanisms. I think it will prove very important in the future, especially in the economic area, and that is why the provisions of this bill may contribute something useful, but one must not only think so, one must say so.
I have listened most attentively, of course, to the remarks which our official critic, the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) has made. I have also been able to understand quickly the provisions, somewhat general in scope, of this bill. When this legislation deals with labour relations, I suggest again that it deals with much more. It deals with justly warranted leave in this day and age and, in the present context, with security of employment and, something which is also important, the health of workers. We will probably have to reach agreements with the provinces in that regard, in view of their responsibilities.
Mention has also been made of setting up of an information centre. That point is of particular interest to me because I feel, or at least hope, that such a centre would enable union workers to obtain all the economic data they need when the time comes to discuss with the employers. Provided with information that is comparable to that of the employer, I feel, on the one hand, a union could better understand the economic effects of its demands and, on the other hand, that the union also has the right to be made aware of the financial situation of a company. So, with regard to the setting up of an information centre, I dare hope it would be of tremendous help to both sides. It might even help draw both parties closer in the interest of the national economy.
If I understand the bill correctly, I gather an attempt is being made to bring to the same table, more than ever, the three parties concerned, namely the employer, the government and the union workers. God knows how often hon. members have made that observation in the House and urged the government to try, as much as possible, to bring all interested parties and sectors around the same table to discuss collective agreements, in a real dialogue to achieve more interesting results than they have in the past. There is no doubt, as my colleagues pointed out earlier, that we will support this bill on second reading. I should also like to point out that I come from a province, like so many of my colleagues, which has gone through difficult times because of the strikes we have had.
This legislation affects only 10 per cent of workers, but I quite understand that it can hardly cover the majority of workers since the act applies to employees under federal jurisdiction. However, I believe that if we could, indirectly, through this legislation, through these correctives, through these amendments give some sort of an example to the provinces, either indirectly or directly, we could make an important contribution to the collective agreements negotiated in each province. But is it possible at this level of government to invent
December 14, 1977

enough new mechanisms to avoid a greater number of these strikes which are so costly and which have unfavourable effects either on prices or on productivity or on the climate which prevails in certain industries or groups of workers? We are well aware that people do need the public services which are in fact essential services. There have been many problems, not only in Quebec, but throughout the country, in the area of labour relations, and this has caused strikes.
Like many others, I believe that the time is past when the government could give the right to strike with one hand and withdraw it with the other because of the difficulty or the impossibility of coming to an understanding concerning collective agreements or collective bargaining. This legislation therefore aims at improving or facilitating labour relations. I believe it is our duty to wish that the government may meet its objectives, and even urge it to do so.
I am among those who have been always fascinated by-and I do not know if this would be possible-the development of a permanent bargaining mechanism which could perhaps bring to this process the clearsightedness and foresight wished for by all members of the House. Could such a mechanism be invented to enable the people concerned to avoid those strikes which, once again, have been so costly and so unfavourable to our economy? Of course, as the minister said, this legislation aims at improving the labour relations system and, hopefully, the competitive position of Canada on an economic level.
Several observations have been made since last September with regard to the economy, especially to the effect that productivity, labour disputes and the like have had the tendency of making us less competitive for the sale of our products abroad. 1 would not put the whole burden of responsibility on the shoulders of the workers alone. Of course, I think that we have the responsibility of trying to arrange and modify the existing mechanism of negotiations between labour and management. If we at the federal level could engineer a device which could increasingly prevent these strikes, which I insist have had a very negative effect on the economic development of Canada, 1 think indeed that if we could work out a sufficiently efficient mechanism, we could perhaps draw the attention of the provinces to what is happening here and prompt them into imitating this newly created mechanism so that they would also be able to prevent so many strikes from breaking out.
1 mentioned a province which has known difficult times because of strikes. I could refer to my own riding where we have also experienced serious difficulties because of strikes which caused enormous problems to certain people. Given the circumstances, I repeat, even if this legislation concerns only some 10 per cent of Canadian workers, 1 do hope that these amendments will all bring the desired results, and will anyway make union spokesmen, representatives from our industry and our provincial heads of government, but particularly union leaders, reflect and perhaps analyse these new mechanisms which could serve them and particularly their members.
1 think that this legislation aims particularly at protecting the interests of our unionized workers because the interests or
Canada Labour Code
the success of our industries are also directly related to the interests of the workers. These were some of the comments I wanted to make and I hope the minister responsible for this legislation gets the results he expects. Inasmuch as this legislation serves the interests of the workers and the economic development of Canada, I think that as far as our side of this House is concerned we will not hesitate a minute in supporting any good legislation of this kind.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues have indicated, we support most of this bill. The minister is to be congratulated for removing the pregnancy clause which allowed certain industries to dismiss members of their female force because of that condition. Also, some additional holidays have been provided. Why did the minister choose six years as being the time necessary to qualify for three weeks' holiday? He could have chosen three years or some other appropriate time span.
When the original one week and 1 per cent vacation pay program was developed, it was on the basis of 2 per cent for one year and 4 per cent after the second year. Many plans contained a provision, after six years, for a 6 per cent vacation pay program, and now the six years' requirement is being proposed in the bill before us. I think that proposal could have been more generous.
Some hon. members have been blaming the problem of strikes on labour. I suggest it is like dancing: it takes two to tango. It is not always the organized employees who cause a problem; quite often the employers are to blame. This has never been more evident than in the case of the postal employees. These employees have had no employer with whom to bargain or to present their grievances. They are unsure whether they are dealing with the Department of Public Works, Treasury Board, or the Postmaster General. As I understand it, they come under the Public Service Staff Relations Act, which is similar to the Canada Labour Relations Act.
It is very difficult to blame those employees, because they do not know who to negotiate with. That is a problem which must be looked at. 1 am sure those workers would like to come under the Canada Labour Relations Act. They are attempting to have the idea of a Crown corporation accepted by the country in order to come under that act. One of the reasons is their inadequate grievance procedure. Not only must a bona fide union negotiate, arrange working conditions and hours, but it must arrange an orderly method for handling grievances. Under the Public Service Staff Relations Act, grievances take months and months to be settled, and thus the act fails. This causes wildcat strikes and arrangements which are unsatisfactory to the public, to the employees and to the employers. Perhaps more than 10 per cent of the population should come under the Canada Labour Relations Act.
I was interested in the comments of the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle). They reminded me

December 14, 1977
Canada Labour Code
of a man who worked all his life in a plant, fought the unions by working hard against certification, negotiations and strikes, then reached the point where he was on his death bed and requested his lawyer to draft his last will and testament. Tie asked for six union members to be pallbearers at his funeral. His lawyer said, "Why do you want them? You have been opposed to unions all your life." The man indicated that the lawyer was correct, but that every time the unions negotiated a contract, he reaped the benefits; every time the man had a problem, he went to the union and took advantage of it. He concluded by saying, "I do not see any reason why 1 should change that when I am dead".
The addition of the new clause relating to the dismissal of non-organized workers concerns the unions. While perhaps this is necessary because only a quarter of the workers in Canada are organized, it seems to me that assistance under the act should be provided to help organized labour in organizing the unorganized. This bill provides only minimum standards which are acceptable perhaps to the minority. In saying this, I suggest we are merely going through the motions rather than accomplishing anything, because in a small plant in which the federal government is involved and where there are unorganized workers, it is doubtful if they will be able to find a representative to act on their behalf in case of any dismissal, to ensure that the provisions of the Canada Labour Relations Act are observed. It might be better if the advantages of being organized were made clear to the workers because, despite what people say, an organized worker is a much more orderly and productive worker: and if management is reasonable in relation to the employees, it will find unions to be of advantage.
The minister made a major change in the bill by requiring the establishment of a safety and health committee. A few moments ago an hon. member mentioned the occurrence of strikes in his area and said he was opposed to them, as 1 am sure all hon. members are. However, it is interesting to look at the last year for which we have figures in that respect. We find that in 1974, nine million days were lost through strikes and lockouts, and in that year 11.5 million days were lost through accidents.
It seems to me the minister has recognized that one of the major problems causing loss of production by employees is not strikes and lockouts, but sickness. Much of the sickness has not only been the result of lack of safety precautions, but because workers have not been involved in observing that safety precautions are applied in their places of work. We are plagued in this country by a large number of agencies involved in safety. We have special safety measures for ships, others for aircraft, others for miners and loggers. Many categories of safety measures are applied differently from one area to another.
It seems to me very important that we look at some of these safety factors. The hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz) mentioned some of them. One area of danger in my area which requires safety precautions to be taken, and which scares the

hell out of me, is asbestosis, which is the most dangerous disease that can occur because it appears to act like a timebomb. You can be exposed one day, and 20 years later the effects might become evident. It may be limited exposure, but still the results will appear in 20 years time, which may mean total incapacity, sometimes followed shortly by death.
We have little understanding of asbestosis. I think some members from the province of Quebec should take a special interest in that disease, because I believe the standards which are observed in Ontario are being only partly enforced in some of the towns in Quebec where asbestos is being mined and where the asbestos dust content is even higher than in some Ontario mines.
The premier of Quebec has been very concerned about this problem, to the extent of thinking about nationalization of the industry, partly because of the damage that has been done over a long period of exposure to many people in that province. Although the same danger exists with other chemicals, this is particularly true of asbestos. When I was a miner working underground in hard rock mines, I was exposed to silicosis. Silicosis does not affect everyone in the same way. Some miners were affected, and others were less so, even though they all were exposured to it to the same degree.
1 remember working with a young chap who was on a stope very close to me for quite some time. He was in the mine about 11 months, and developed 100 per cent silicosis. We were given an X-ray examination every year and his X-ray showed 100 per cent silicosis. He was very badly incapacitated and could not continue working. We insisted that many other union workers in the mine in which I worked have a regular silicosis examination, and with one or two exceptions no one was found to be suffering from silicosis to any degree.
These are odd diseases and they are not too well understood. In many cases, silicosis can be seen on the X-ray, and it does not get any worse unless you are further exposed or unless there is a complication. But with chemicals such as vinyl chloride, PPB, asbestos and many other chemicals which cause industrial diseases, a time factor is involved. There is a certain period of incubation during which there is no indication of the disease developing, and then it occurs, in many cases with a fatal result in a short period of time.
The minister has indicated that he wishes these committees to be set up in areas where there are unions which, jointly with management, would organize committees; but he has not said how often these committees would meet, what they are to do and how the decisions that they make will be implemented. It will be very difficult to set up a bona fide safety and health organization in plants where there are unorganized workers.
I suppose that those members of the House who are opposed to unions will continue to put forward the argument that union leadership dictates to management. Let me point out that unions also protect the worker, and if someone is nominated at a union meeting to the health and safety committee of the plant, there will be protection, in the course of his duties, against any decision that may be made by that committee. In the case of the unorganized worker, I can see no way in which
December 14, 1977

he can be protected. It is not spelled out how he will be nominated and whether all the employees or only 50 per cent will be required to nominate him. When the bill reaches the committee we will be asking the minister those questions.
I would have liked to see a number of other clauses in the bill. One of them should have dealt with the lack of training of unorganized workers elected to represent fellow workers on a safety committee. The minister should ensure that workers in plants where there is radon gas, radioactivity, or exposure to asbestos or coal dust, are trained properly so that they can operate efficiently. Even on a construction site, workers are sometimes exposed to asbestos dust in small fibre particles. 1 think the organized trade unionist will insist that his union gives him some training in order that he can function properly.
These matters can be discussed in committee, but I hope the minister is prepared to indicate the type of training that will be provided to enable these safety committees to operate properly. It is all right to say that nobody has to work in an area where there is imminent danger, but what is imminent danger? In a mine, the miner is about the only person who can really tell whether there is loose in that area which is dangerous, and if he has been working in the area for some time it is likely he will know whether the danger is imminent.
It would be difficult for the shift boss to come in and say, "I agree the danger is imminent and that you are in danger of loose falling on you." There will be some disagreement, so perhaps the committee should be charged with finding a more appropriate word than "imminent". Once it is established that there is a danger, the matter of degree will always be argued- whether it is imminent, or a large or small degree of danger. We will have to iron this one out. Because of the time lost through problems of industrial health and safety, I think we should make sure that these safety committees are established in such a way that they will offer the maximum amount of protection.
I am sure the minister will agree that changes to the bill are necessary because in many ways we are entering a totally new field. In my experience with the mining industry, the boss usually said it was his responsibility whether conditions were safe or not, and as a rule the only consideration was whether compensation would have to be paid for an accident of fatality. It was often cheaper to pay in the case of a fatality than in the case of an accident, so his understanding of what was imminently dangerous was influenced in a way that safety committees would not be.
I think the minister should indicate how often the committees should meet, and they should be required to report on a regular basis. They should also be allowed an opportunity to participate in research in relevant areas. If these suggestions are adopted, I am sure the minister will find there is co-operation from both management and employees as they come to understand the advantages of participating in an organized way.
Canada Labour Code


Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a brief intervention in this debate. I appreciate that the minister has brought this legislation forward to improve the conditions of the unorganized worker, and we on this side are anxious to see the bill receive second reading and go to committee. I have had an opportunity to look at some of the provisions in the statute, and did so with the eye of a lawyer. The minister is a distinguished lawyer in his own right, of course. I must say that when I encountered such provisions in my law practice, I used to hold them up to a mirror to see if they made any more sense when read backwards.
After the minister introduced the bill yesterday, my colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser), referred to the credibility of the minister in matters pertaining to labour. At that time I was reminded of the story about the late John F. Kennedy. In the course of his political career, he had occasion to visit a number of steel mills and in one was stopped by a worker who asked, "When did you ever work a day in your life? What do you know about labour matters? When did you ever hold a real job?" Mr. Kennedy stumbled a bit and replied that he was sympathetic to the plight and to the aspirations of the working people of the United States. The worker is reported to have replied, "With respect to ever having a job in your life, you have not missed a thing."
Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the minister that this party is interested in supporting legislation that will improve the lot of the unorganized worker in Canada. He will have our support in any attempts to improve the legislation. One of the difficulties with this kind of legislation, considering the breadth and width of our country, is that it contains provisions which are intended to have blanket application. As a westerner, I want to point out again to the minister the particular importance of the grain industry to western Canada and to pronounce a caveat with respect to it.
My colleagues, the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie), and the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil), have already brought to the attention of the minister the unique problems of the grain industry. Farming as a whole is a seasonal occupation where people are very active at certain times of the year and not so active at others. I think we must look carefully at the bill to ensure that in cases where seasonal considerations are necessary, such as the grain industry, there is a degree of flexibility available to elevator operators and people coming under federal jurisdiction. The farmers of western Canada should not be inconvenienced by the inaccessibility of elevators or other important and related industries.
In order to ensure co-operation between management and labour, we should make sure in committee that not only are applications for averaging orders made by employers, but that it is incumbent upon them to consult employees on the advisability of granting an order. The minister might entertain an amendment calling for something short of a formal vote but requiring that the employer consult the employees concerned. We often overlook the interest of the employees in legislation

December 14, 1977
Canada Labour Code
of this kind, when these are the very people we are trying to help.
I do not want to be specific at this time, but the minister may see, from the provisions contained in the amendments to the Canada Labour Code, that at the present time, as far as averaging orders are concerned, there is no reference to employees, no reference to consultation with employees but, rather, the only provision in this respect relates to an application by the employer. If the minister took the grain industry by way of example, he would find the elevator agents would, in fact, be very receptive and agreeable to such an application being made for an averaging order relating to hours of work which they are entitled to perform during heavy seasons. It would be part of an attempt by the government to consult with labour in order to allow them to be involved in the process. Perhaps provision could be made in the legislation to manifest the desire of the minister-I know we on this side have such a desire-to bring employees into the consultative process as opposed simply to being the odd man out and a third party in the whole procedure.
The point I have with respect to the grain industry, whether it relates to elevator agents, managers of elevators or just people involved generally in the grain industry, is twofold. First of all, consideration should be given to this particular segment of employees to ensure that they are able to work during heavy seasons. The period of time should be sufficiently long so that plans can be made. Then everyone involved in the industry will know that hours of work will be adjusted to a particular period of time during a certain designated season. Then there will be no misunderstanding about applications having to be made a few weeks before harvest, for example. On a yearly basis, everyone will know in advance, as far as seeding time and harvest time are concerned, that there will be a period of time when the elevators will be open and available.
I suggest this should extend, as well, to implement dealers and manufacturers. One of the problems we have in western Canada is the difficulty during a heavy season-the harvest season, for example-in getting the parts needed for repair purposes to keep the machinery operating. It seems to me the extent of this application is a matter, again, for the committee. Such a provision respecting the grain industry could well be extended to manufacturers of farm implements. They then have flexibility as far as supplying spare parts was concerned. It could also include truckers and others in the transportation industry which is related to the farm industry. It would allow them to work extra hours and to be sure parts were available at the place of the farming operation. In the long run, we could have a more efficient farming industry, which is so important to our economy.
I realize some of these matters are under provincial jurisdiction. However, I say to the hon. member-who is a very astute member and dresses very nattily-that the particular references I have made are to matters under federal jurisdiction; that is, interprovincial transportation and interprovincial busi-
[Mr. Hnatyshyn.l
nesses. I know the hon. member is rarely wrong, but I must say to him, rarely is he right.
I would ask the minister to take these suggestions into consideration during the committee hearing which we will have, and to make sure that the farming industry, the grains industry in western Canada will not be put in the same position that has all too often occurred through this government's policies, and our suggestions being given scant consideration. I assure the minister that if he attends the committee meetings and this government is not receptive to the representations which I and my colleagues from western Canada will make, we will be heard and we will not stand for any scant attention being given to the interests of western Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I simply say there are many precedents- the minister will know this with respect to the concept of averaging-and many provincial legislatures have passed legislation because of the importance of particular industries within their jurisdictions. This is an important matter as far as western Canada is concerned. We are in support of the basic precepts set forth in this bill, but we want to make sure the application is fair to everyone across the country, especially western Canada. I know the minister will give consideration to the matters that have been raised. We look forward to his receiving our suggestions in the committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It is my duty to inform all members that if the minister speaks now, he will close the debate.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fair comments that have been made by many speakers in the official opposition, the NDP and the Social Credit party. I shall not endeavour to answer many of the points raised, because some speakers said they will raise them again in committee. I shall give further thought to the points raised as to how we intend to achieve the objectives of certain clauses of the bill, what the process will be, how we can speed up the system, how people will be appointed and the number on committees, the interests of people in the grain industry and how they can be protected with respect to averaging. All these things, it seems to me, we can deal with constructively in committee.
The encouraging aspect of the remarks of most of the spokesmen for the opposition parties is that they agree with the fundamental precepts of the bill. That being so, they are more concerned with working out acceptable arrangements in arriving at some of the objectives of the legislation, and in that
December 14, 1977

respect we are prepared to be as flexible and as accommodating as possible. In that spirit of co-operation, Mr. Speaker, perhaps that is sufficient from me, other than to reiterate that we hope to have a constructive session in committee in order to deal with most of the points in a beneficial way.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
Message from the Senate

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: 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-15, an act for granting Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31 March, 1978.
It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 5.51 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, December 15, 1977