1978-10-23

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under Standing Order 43, on a matter of deeply urgent and pressing necessity, namely, the continuance of the strike which has stopped much, if not all, shipping on the Great Lakes for wheat and other products and is costing an estimated $10 million a day.
The situation is worsening day by day as the shipping season approaches its end, and promises to be a body-blow of disaster for western farmers who are shocked by the failure of parliament to bring in legislation to end the strike, a measure overdue since its inception.
I would, therefore, move, seconded by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), that such measure should be introduced at once.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion, under Standing Order 43, can be introduced only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
In view of the fact that in July of 1976 the government arbitrarily removed the CN bus service in Newfoundland from the jurisdiction of the Newfoundland Public Utilities Commission and placed it under the Canadian Transport Commission, with the result that the CTC, completely captive to the CN and the Minister of Transport, permitted a fare increase of 15 per cent immediately, with a further 15 per cent in the
summer of 1977, and in view of the fact that the Sullivan commission of inquiry has found the CN roadcruiser service to be operating with old, unsuitable, totally inadequate equipment at fares far above what is reasonable, and recommends that fares remain at a lower level, I ask leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski):
That the government direct CN to withdraw immediately its application for further increases totalling an average of 36 per cent to go into effect on November 1 and February 1, 1979, that the CN be reprimanded for unmitigated audacity and audacious effrontery, and that the government direct CN to accept the recommendations of the Sullivan commission for improvement in the bus services and for lower fares than would be payable for travelling similar distances on a trans-island train service, and that the government return regulatory control of the CN bus service in Newfoundland to the board of commissioners of the public utilities of Newfoundland.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to the introduction of such a motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FUNDING OF HOME INSULATION PROGRAM-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity arising out of the government's decision to chop $116 million from the home insulation program over the next two years.
In view of the fact that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) has described this program, CHIP, as the key item in the government's energy conservation program, in view of the fact that the minister also stated that the program, if fully implemented, would save this country upwards of 50 million barrels of oil, and bearing in mind that energy conservation is no less important now than it was a year ago when the home insulation program was introduced, I ask leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan):
That the Minister of Energy be directed to restore the $116 million dropped from the CHIP budget and that, further, the government actively promote this program so that it will effectively fulfil the country's conservation objectives.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the introduction of such a motion?

October 23, 1978


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SHIPPING
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion on an urgent and important matter.
Considering that it would be in the best interest of our country to have a genuine merchant marine and since our commitments toward NATO impose upon us the obligation to have an adequate fleet of ships, that our dockyards operate below capacity and that a large number of workers in these dockyards are unemployed, I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette):
That the House order that a special committee made up of representatives of the various parties in parliament be set up to consider carefully this serious naval deficiency so that the government could order the building of merchant ships and others which would likely give work to our workers on the dockyards and which would allow our dockyards to maintain a permanent state of competitiveness.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FINANCE
Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity: urgent because of the serious consequences if action is not immediate; pressing because a budget is to be introduced next month and it is important that opportunity be provided for an early debate so that party positions may be clearly established.
I ask leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Montreal-Bourassa (Mr. Trudel):
That the government introduce immediately the measures necessary to eliminate the present $11.8 billion deficit and provide a reasonable surplus for use in important areas of federal responsibility, and that the government accomplish this task by recognizing the full provincial jurisdictional responsibility in areas such as medical, hospital, health care and welfare programs and social services as well as in certain educational and cultural fields, and by discontinuing

forthwith the huge transfer payments to the provinces in these areas of provincial responsibility, transfer payments which are greater than the federal deficit and which provide billions of dollars of financing for the separatist-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Surely the hon. member is using the Standing Order in the same way as the case last week with the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees). There is some question as to whether the hon. member's motion is a general statement or a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. I would prefer to leave it until we have argued the point of order raised on the last occasion.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of national importance and urgency, under Standing Order 43, to deal with further examples of Post Office lock-outs.
Contrary to the orders of the Postmaster General (Mr. Lamontagne) last week, Mr. Jack Lindsay, the postmaster in my home town of Oakville, confirmed that he was forced to lock out postal workers, without pay, last Tuesday on orders from national Post Office headquarters. Despite this lock-out, all local postal employees returned to work on Wednesday as soon as back-to-work legislation came into effect.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for North-umberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence):
That this House compliments the CUPW members in Oakville and elsewhere who are crossing illegal picket lines in order to adhere to the law of the land, and instructs the Postmaster General to compensate accordingly those Post Office employees who were locked out by the government without pay last week.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


REMOVAL OF ILLEGAL PICKET LINES-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, to seek the unanimous consent of this House on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the enlightened position taken by one of the country's largest police departments which was enunciated by Police Chief Harold Adamson, of Toronto, to the effect that attempting to remove the pickets at post offices in Toronto would result in a serious breach of the peace, and that Police Chief Harold Adamson has shown considerably more insight into industrial relations in the Post Office than has this government, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes):
October 23, 1978

That this House calls on the government to demonstrate the same responsibility shown by the metro Toronto police department in dealing with this dispute.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Acting Minister of Labour.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: I cannot quite understand the shouting across the floor of the House. Perhaps it is a natural inclination to disorderliness.
My question to the Acting Minister of Labour is the same question I put to him four days ago. I understand that he might now have an answer. Can the Acting Minister of Labour tell the House of Commons whether he has named a mediator-arbitrator in the postal dispute, who that person is, whether there has been consultation with CUPW, and whether CUPW is prepared to work with that arbitrator?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Acting Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to report to the House that I have appointed Mr. Lucien Tremblay, former chief justice of the court of appeal of Quebec, as mediator-arbitrator pursuant to Bill C-8.
In response to the question put by the Leader of the Opposition, the consultation process took place during the weekend. Not only was there consultation, but a last-ditch effort was also made to try to bring the two parties together and to convey the message to the union leaders that they ought to respect the law of the land, that no one should disobey the law of the land, and that they ought to encourage their membership to go back to work.
In a spirit of co-operation, the government was ready to start constructive negotiations immediately during the weekend. Unfortunately, these efforts were not successful and I indicated this morning, in meeting the union leaders, that I had no choice but to appoint immediately a mediator-arbitrator pursuant to Bill C-8.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I can certainly express the pleasure on this side of the House that the Acting Minister of Labour,
Oral Questions
who promised a week ago that he would name an arbitrator-mediator within hours, has now-some six days later-been able to make that appointment.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: I would like the Acting Minister of Labour to either confirm or set the record straight on a news report by the Canadian Press this morning, quoting the minister as saying:
There can be no negotiations until the union obeys the back-to-work order passed last week by parliament.
That statement, if it is correct, would appear to conflict quite directly with section 6(l)(a) of Bill C-8 passed by this parliament, which instructed the mediator to proceed forthwith with his negotiations.
Can the Acting Minister of Labour tell the House of Commons whether it is the position of the government that the members of CUPW must obey the law before the mediator begins his work?


André Ouellet: If the Leader of the Opposition would look at the law, he would realize that under the law the mediator-arbitrator has a role to play. The law does not specify that he has to start immediately, but to start at a time which in his judgment is appropriate for him to do active and useful work.
I think the Leader of the Opposition is trying to play it on both sides of the fence. I suppose it is easy for the Leader of the Opposition to do this: it is easy to criticize. But basically what he should remember is that he would have been the first to complain to me if we had rushed into appointing someone without allowing time for some consultations and a genuine effort to pass the message across to the union leader that the union should respect the law and should sit down and work constructively with the government team, under the assistance of the mediator-arbitrator.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, this matter has been going on for far too long already, partly because of this government's failure to act quickly on its responsibilities. Let me refer the minister, who presumably had something to do with the language of the law, to the precise language of the law passed by this House. With reference to the mediator-arbitrator, it says:
-who shall (a) forthwith-
That means immediately -endeavour to mediate all matters-
I ask the Acting Minister of Labour a simple question: has he instructed his mediator-arbitrator, as is indicated by the Canadian Press report this morning, that no mediation is to continue-in other words, that he is not to begin forthwith, but that mediation is to proceed only if members of CUPW have first agreed to obey the law?

October 23, 1978
Oral Questions


André Ouellet: I think those are two separate issues. I do not think the Leader of the Opposition has to give readings of the bill to the appointed mediator-arbitrator. That person is a very well known and respected former judge who obviously knows the law very well, and it will be as easy for him to interpret the law as it is for the Leader of the Opposition.
Secondly the question of whether or not the work of this mediator-arbitrator should start before or after the unions go back to work and respect the law is another question. I think the Minister of Justice will take steps in order to ensure that the law is respected.


Some hon. Members:: When?


André Ouellet: He will not act beyond what are his responsibilities. He has a task to do, and I believe that he will immediately take steps to do his job in a way which in his judgment is the best way to do it.


Charles Joseph Clark: The instruction of the law is very clear. The instruction of the law to the mediator is to begin immediately. My question is whether the Acting Minister of Labour has given contrary instructions.
Has the minister told the mediator that he should not begin his work until members of CUPW obey the law? In other words, has a delay been suggested to the mediator by the Acting Minister of Labour, a delay until the law is obeyed; because that is the clear import of the story, which the minister has not yet denied? 1 gave him the opportunity to set the record straight, to clear the import of the story by Canadian Press that the minister has suggested that the law passed by parliament, as it relates to the immediacy with which the mediator takes up his responsibilities, will not come into play until CUPW members have themselves obeyed the laws of the land. What instruction has been given to the mediator?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I can state quite categorically that I have not said such a thing to the mediator-arbitrator.


GOVERNMENT ACTION AGAINST ILLEGAL STRIKERS
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. At 12.01 a.m. last Thursday legislation was passed and proclaimed respecting the restoration of service within the Post Office. As of today, we do not have full and normal service within the Post Office. On Friday I asked the minister a question respecting the remedy of dismissal and he indicated to me in his answer that that remedy was subject to a great deal of difficulty as to its application by the government.
It is important for the House and Canadians to understand just what remedies are available: we should know what remedies are available to the government, in view of the open defiance by CUPW of the law of the land. Is the minister prepared to make a statement on motions later today in order to indicate to the House and the country the view of the

government as to what its remedies are in this situation? Regarding the obeying of the law, this situation seems to be reaching an impasse.


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport and Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is necessary for the Minister of Justice, or indeed anyone else, to make legal statements in the House as to what rights are and what the law is, in an elaborate way. Certainly, from time to time announcements may be made and decisions may be taken about such things as dismissals, but those are not under the authority of the Minister of Justice; rather, they are under the authority of the appropriate department, department head and minister.
As far as the current postal situation is concerned, clearly there are a number of remedies available. No doubt the public is interested in them. They include injunctions, and we are seeking those. We obtained some this morning in various locations. Also, there are various procedures by way of prosecution which are available to us. I think there is easy misunderstanding in the public mind that these prosecutions may follow very readily, simply because everyone in the public knows that these offences are being committed. That is an easy conclusion. But for the purposes of law enforcement, an attorney general must take care to ensure that the facts and evidence to ground a prosecution before the courts, and not in the media, are available.
That is what we are in the process of doing. I think it is important to say that that evidence, simply because we are in a strike and postal services are halted, should not be obtained in any careless or hasty way. In these cases, ordinarily we study the situation thoroughly in order to safeguard the liberty of the subject. This evidence is being obtained, the charges will be laid based on that evidence and those charges will be pursued to a conclusion before and under the law, regardless of the outcome or stage of a particular dispute. It is a matter of an offence against the law of Canada. Those who have offended will be charged on the basis of adequate evidence, and those charges will be completed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, it is because of the importance of the public knowing what the position is that I invited the minister to make a statement on motions.
There is another problem relating to the law and its enforcement respecting those within CUPW who want to obey the law and go back to work. Aside from the injunction proceedings about which the minister must have some reservations, can he indicate to the House what steps he and the government are prepared to take to ensure that the people within CUPW who want to go back, do their job and obey the law passed by parliament last week will have the opportunity to do so?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we have been, as has the Post Office, urging the return of these various employees to work, assuring them of every possible protection in the exercise of
October 23, 1978

what is now their legal duty. That is the position we have been taking and will continue to take.


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. In the recently announced cutbacks by the federal government, the average cutback for most departments was around 4 per cent but the cutback in the Department of Agriculture was about 8 per cent.
I would ask the minister why he took such a heavy meat axe to the Department of Agriculture, because many valuable programs such as the Farm Credit Corporation program are helping farmers but they will now be severely hampered by this severe cutback.


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, if you segregated the reduction in the capital advance to the Farm Credit Corporation, the percentage reduction to which the hon. member refers would be considerably reduced. The reduction in the advance from the consolidated revenue fund to that Crown corporation does not necessarily mean any diminution in the efforts of that corporation on behalf of farmers: there are other methods that can be followed.
In so far as the selection of programs is concerned, Mr. Speaker, this was not an across-the-board percentage reduction by any department, and the average the hon. member mentioned is simply that, a statistical average. The choice of reductions was based on an assessment of programs starting with those that were considered to lack some degree of acceptable efficiency, and moving to those that might have been quite efficiently run, but where the priorities of objectives were lower than we now thought necessary in terms of over-all reduction in respect of reordering the funds freed up. That was the general process by which these were decided. The Department of Agriculture I think fared just as well or just as badly as any other in that sense.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Regardless of how it is put, Mr. Speaker, the department is still cut back by 8 per cent. I have here in my hands a cabinet document dated June 29 and signed by a senior official in the Treasury Board. It indicates that the Treasury Board had recommended or authorized that the Department of Agriculture, namely, the minister, should discuss with the provinces two new agricultural programs, and the document went on to state:
No additional funds or man-years be committed by the federal government for the above mentioned programs until Agriculture Canada completes... its analysis evaluation of existing federal government programs currently estimated to be $ 1 billion per annum, and reports to cabinet as directed-
Oral Questions
It then gives the file number of a cabinet document. I would ask the President of the Treasury Board whether this total evaluation of federal Department of Agriculture programs referred to in this cabinet document is now completed and, if so, what are the results; if it has not been completed, what is the nature of the evaluation and are provincial governments being consulted?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I have not had access to the evaluation. I do not think from my current knowledge that it is yet completed. Probably I will not have the full details until later this year.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the cabinet documents refer to two programs that the Minister of Agriculture should be discussing with the provinces, namely, the new technology development fund and a family farm improvement program. We have consulted this morning with some of the provincial governments and they know very little about these two programs. Can the minister explain to the House what these programs entail? Is the Minister of Agriculture now pursuing these programs, or is he stopped dead in his tracks because of the re-evaluation? Is that re-evaluation also going to affect other existing federal programs such as the ones I have already mentioned, or others about which the farmers are concerned?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I think that question could be best answered in detail by the Minister of Agriculture, and I will certainly draw his attention to its existence in Hansard.


INDUSTRY
Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, I shall direct my question to his parliamentary secretary.
As the department will soon have to review the quotas for textile imports for the year 1979, could the parliamentary secretary tell the House whether they intend to reduce considerably those quotas in order to protect more our Canadian textile industries on local and national markets?


Mr. Bernard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, in fact the general quotas will be replaced starting from January 1 by bilateral agreements signed with the seven countries which are the main exporters of clothing to Canada. The level of imports from those countries for 1979 will be approximately the same as in 1975.

October 23, 1978
Oral Questions


PROPOSED MANUFACTURERS' PERMITS RESPECTING INCOME TAX
Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his statement. Still, with a view to encouraging the manufacturers even more, have the officials of the government read, or could they read, the statement of the manufacturers who want to obtain, among other things, consolidated tax forms in order to stimulate new manufacturing undertakings and create more jobs in that sector?


Bernard Pierre Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, the government has indeed read the study prepared by the clothing and textiles sector. The study was one of 23 that were tabled in July last. This morning, a subcommittee known as the second level committee, tabled its final report with the government; yes, the government will take into consideration the recommendations of both the textiles and clothing industry and the other industrial sectors in Canada.


REQUESTED REDUCTION IN TEXTILE IMPORTS TO PROTECT CANADIAN INDUSTRY
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Has the Textile and Clothing Board recently made a report and, if so, does it recommend that imports be reduced not only for textiles but also in the clothing sectors in order to protect our clothing plants in Canada?


Bernard Pierre Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, naturally, the Textile and Clothing Board meet the government regularly. The board would like us to reduce the clothing imports in Canada and I believe the government, through the Deputy Prime Minister, and on the occasion of the GATT negotiations, has indicated its firm intention of protecting that industrial sector which is of prime importance to Canada and particularly Quebec.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of Labour. Given the fact that the expressed hope and optimism of the Minister of Transport for an early settlement of the Great Lakes labour dispute did not materialize over the weekend-the strike is now in its second week-and since it has been made clear by the Lake Carriers Association that unless a settlement is reached today, lay-offs will commence immediately, which will

further contribute to the prospect of a premature shutdown of the total system, could the minister tell the House whether legislation will be introduced immediately if the talks break off without success today?


Hon. Andr6 Ouellet (Acting Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, if we had followed the view of the opposition, legislation would have been introduced last week which would have deprived the deck officers' union and management of arriving at a settlement. Indeed, the negotiations that were carried out, allowed for a collective agreement for three years to be reached and signed by both parties.
It is true that discussions with the marine engineers are taking place at the present time. I asked for an update on the negotiations before coming to the House at two o'clock. The report I received was that the parties were still actively negotiating. I think it would be grossly improper for parliament to legislate a settlement while the parties are still negotiating.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, my question directed to the minister was in the event that talks did break down. We on this side of the House are finding it very difficult to rationalize the government's position with respect to the handling of this dispute vis-a-vis the postal dispute. There seems to be a double standard. Perhaps the minister would undertake to tell the House how much longer this country can afford the kind of economic disruption that is currently taking place, before the government proposes any concrete, positive action.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, the government, through the Department of Labour, is hoping for and assisting in the settlement of this matter. The hon. member ought to keep in mind that the due process of collective bargaining through negotiation should be carried out to the fullest extent before adopting the extreme recourse of legislating against the union. The hon. member should not draw a parallel with what was done in the case of the postal workers. In that case, after negotiations-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Even before they went to strike.


André Ouellet: -it became clear that there was no possibility of a negotiated settlement, and it was only after that that the government was asked to intervene.
With relation to this dispute, I appreciate-and members of this House should realize this-that the government is monitoring the situation very carefully. We are as deeply concerned as anybody else about the shutdown of shipping operations on the Great Lakes. I would like to remind the hon. member that, indeed, in the past there have been stoppages of activities on the Great Lakes due to strikes, and I would like him to review what happened in those circumstances while the Conservative party was in power.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


André Ouellet: The strikes carried on for many days.
October 23, 1978


PROPOSED STRIKE BY NORDAIR PILOTS-STATE OF NEGOTIATIONS
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: 
PROPOSED STRIKE BY NORDAIR PILOTS-CONTINGENCY PLANS
Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Minister of Transport. In the unfortunate event there is a strike at Nordair, has the Department of Transport given any consideration to placing additional flights, either by Air Canada or another third-level air carrier, to fill the void that will certainly be created, especially in areas such as the eastern Arctic and northern parts of Quebec which will be without air service of any kind in terms of bringing in supplies and other products?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be premature to comment on the situation, except to indicate that in circumstances like this the practice of the Canadian Transport Commission, among others, is to attempt to facilitate substitute arrangements.

[ Translation]


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the announced budgetary cutbacks which will indirectly result in a reduction in the number of man-years in the public service, especially in the national capital area, does the minister intend to take what I would call drastic action so that the departments adhere religiously to the spirit of his October 12, 1978, statement, as well as to the statement made by the chairman of the Public Service Commission in this regard, in order to minimize the number of lay-offs among the civil servants of the national capital region?
Oral Questions


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the work force reduction policy to which I have made some public reference does provide for reassignment of surplus employees to other jobs for which they are fitted and which become vacant. Relocation and retraining will be provided where this will assist in making people competent for the particular jobs. Reassignment will be based upon preference for those who are competent to fill the vacant positions. The Public Service Commission has established the reassignment program, a new clearance system which will give preference to government employees whose jobs have become redundant, and will help in every way to relocate them.
The work force reduction program is based on the 1969 policy but it has been adjusted in consultation among the national joint council and the heads of the bargaining agents. Full details will be made public in the very near future. One or two items still have to be decided upon.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance, I think my question should properly be put to the President of the Treasury Board, who on September 8 joined the Minister of Finance at a press conference, at which time it was indicated that 1980 expenditures would be $52.6 billion and that the government's anticipated cash deficit would be $9.7 billion.
Would the President of the Treasury Board indicate to us the revenue figures used to come up with a cash deficit of $9.7 billion? How much does the government anticipate its revenue to be for fiscal 1980?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the over-all receipts of the Government of Canada is a matter of simple deduction based on those two figures, so the hon. member can make any forecast as easily as I can. The Minister of Finance has indicated, however, that the detailed breakdown of revenue and other receipts will be presented to the House in a budget some time in mid-November.


REFERENCE OF BILL C-7 TO COMMITTEE
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact there is some uncertainty about the shortfall in fiscal year 1980 between the government's revenue figures, which are well short of their expenditures figure of $52.6 billion, would the Prime Minister at least consider speaking to the House leader with a view to having Bill C-7 referred to a committee of the whole House, so that the membership of the House can deal

October 23, 1978
Oral Questions
with the bill, get the facts on the table and, above all, let the people of Canada see through television exactly what is the position of the Minister of Finance?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has a very able House leader who, through the so-called usual channels, meets with the House leader on the government side. I am sure that if the hon. member has representations to make to his House leader, he could bring them up at the weekly caucus, if he ever goes.


POST OFFICE
Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Postmaster General: it is further to my motion, which I noticed the Postmaster General turned down.
1 should like to ask him on whose orders postal workers were locked out, without pay, in Oakville and elsewhere, and what steps is he taking to compensate the people affected?
[ Translation]


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I inquired concerning the Oakville case, and if orders were given not to pay employees who came to work, that will be immediately rectified. The government's general policy since Bill C-8 was made law is that all postal workers or letter carriers who report to our facilities are to be received, given work and paid.


LAYING OF CHARGES AGAINST ILLEGAL STRIKERS
Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Justice.
In view of the fact that there are a number of rank and file members of CUPW who would like to return to work and obey the law because Canadians are getting sick and tired of this postal strike which has been going against the law for nearly a week, when are the minister and the government going to stop pussy-footing around on this issue and lay the obvious charges, particularly against the union leadership, and bring postal service back by perhaps decertifying the union and replacing those unwilling to work with the many unemployed?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am fairly well satisfied that the attitude demonstrated by the hon. member would not be helpful in settling the dispute. In fact, in addition to developing material in order to lay charges, to which I referred earlier, we are proceeding to attempt to obtain injunctions in a variety of places. The immediate objective is to end the picketing so that it is easier and, indeed, possible for those who wish to return to work to do so.


CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO
Mr. Jim Fleming (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice, in this area of questioning, whether he has any comment to make or if he has reacted by contacting the Attorney General of Ontario or the chairman of the metro police commission, on media reports which seemingly indicate that the chief of police of metropolitan Toronto is not prepared to have his staff act against illegal CUPW picket-line activity.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the report of the comment by the chief of police of Toronto was in connection with the situation as it exists in advance of an injunction being obtained. Police forces, of course, attempt to exercise their responsibilities and to carry out their duties, recognizing that at any given moment in time there may be a series of priorities with which they have to work.
I believe that, in fact, the comments of the chief of police are more in aid of obtaining an injunction and the subsequent enforcement of that injunction than they are pointed in any other direction.


FUTURE OF HOME INSULATION PROGRAM
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It has been announced that $116 million will be chopped from the budget of the Canadian Home Insulation Program over the next two years.
When this program was unveiled, the minister described the Canadian Home Insulation Program as the "key item" in a campaign to reduce the average rate of growth of energy use in Canada to zero per cent, per person, by 1985. With the cutback of funds to this program, I would like to ask the minister if he has abandoned that objective and decided to write off CHIP as a failure.


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Not at all, Mr. Speaker: the program is going forward. Some 50,000 householders across the country have benefited from the program. We would expect some hundreds of thousands to benefit from it in the next year and the year following.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, it is rather interesting that the minister says the program is going ahead even though they are cutting back $116 million.

October 23, 1978


URBAN AFFAIRS
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, who is responsible for the administration of the Canadian Home Insulation Program through Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
In view of the fact that the Canadian Home Insulation Program has been taken advantage of by only 50,000 of the 1.2 million single-unit dwellings eligible for the grant, I would like to ask the minister why his department has failed so miserably to promote the very worth-while aims and objectives of this program.
[ Translation]


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the department has failed. It would be more accurate to say that the public did not respond to this program as quickly as we would have liked. But is does not prevent the Canadian government from putting subventions at the disposal of those who wish to insulate their homes. We believe in the utility of this program. We will continue to promote it in order to encourage the Canadian public to take advantage of it and by doing so, we hope not only that energy conservation will be greater in Canada, but also that home owners insulating their homes will get some advantage out of it as they will save money on their heating bills.

Oral Questions
Of course, we will be looking at proposals or bids with many interests in mind, including those of the employees, and we will attempt to assure that employment is offered as far as possible. We will also look at bids from the point of view of the Foreign Investment Review Agency's principles in order to ensure the best result for Canada in the way the operation of these facilities continues.


Mr. Cossitt:: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. I am surprised that the minister would want to dispose of a public enterprise that is making money for the government.
May I ask the minister this supplementary question? Can he explain why the National Harbours Board refused completely to give any information on the matter of job security last week to the Public Service Alliance of Canada?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of the request or the refusal. I will look into that matter.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister filling in for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce who is away for a 95 per cent segment of his assignment.
Last week, in an answer to a question by the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary, he indicated that FIRA approved the Weyerhaeuser purchase of Northwood mills under some very specific considerations.


REASON FOR LEASING ELEVATOR AT PRESCOTT, ONT.
Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport and concerns a matter that is very important in my part of the country, namely, the plan announced last week by the National Harbours Board to call tenders for the leasing of the government-owned, large grain elevator establishment at Prescott, Ontario, to be run by private enterprise.
Could the minister tell the House the reasons for the government taking this step, when in actual fact the establishment is making money for the government? Also, is he prepared to guarantee that job security will be written into any lease entered into by the government for the 30 full-time and 40 part-time public service employees engaged at this establishment?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the hon. member does not understand why at certain times a facility can be handled by the private sector rather than by the government. We think that can often be done to advantage, and this particular case seems to be such a situation.
Is one of those considerations the fact that lumber retailers in the lower mainland of British Columbia must go to the United States in order to make their purchases respecting Canadian lumber sales within Canada? Also, what implications will this have on the market?


Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of State (Small Business)):: Mr. Speaker, I will report this allegation to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I could not give an answer right now.


Benno Friesen: It is not only an allegation; it is the only number in the phone book. I would also like to ask the minister whether he has considered the unenviable position of the small, independent mills which will be cut off from their market for chips and, therefore, could be driven out of business because of this unfortunate sale.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Again, Mr. Speaker, I cannot comment on the details. When the minister returns, I know he will deal with it in detail.
350

October 23, 1978
Oral Questions


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCES AGENDA FOR FIRST MINISTERS' CONFERENCE
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister: it concerns the conference of first ministers which is slated to take place beginning next week.
I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether the agenda for that conference has been finalized, and whether it will be made public beforehand so that Canadians will know what matters will be discussed at this very important conference.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the agenda has been formalized. I remember a series of exchanges between the premiers and myself in which we agreed on an agenda. I will see if there is any reason why that agenda could not be tabled. Surely, we would be anxious to do so. I will find out, I believe before tomorrow, if there is any objection on the part of any premiers. I would think not.


Miss MacDonald:: Can the Prime Minister inform the House whether the agenda will include a discussion of the terms of reference to the Supreme Court of certain constitutional amendments which were announced some weeks ago by the Minister of Justice?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not clear on the nature of the subject. I do not have any memory of the statement of the Minister of Justice to which the hon. lady refers.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board dealing with overclassification in the public service. I need not remind the minister that, as a result of the ineptness and mismanagement of this government, the people of Canada have been faced with millions of dollars in waste.
Prior to the summer break, the minister indicated he would have a full study made outside of the national capital region. My question is very short, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: Well, ask it.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Watch your language, Mr. Minister. The Acting Minister of Labour is using profanity. Just watch your language.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I don't understand, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member would put his question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I would like to know whether the study the minister said would be undertaken has been completed. If so, has he anything to report in terms of what action he is going to take in order to rectify this very serious matter?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the classification audit in the national capital area and in the non-capital area is, I understand, complete or very close to completion. I have not had an opportunity to study it in detail. Until I have had that chance, I cannot comment further.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Given the fact this government is so interested in freedom of information, will the minister make this study public, so that we will know what the problems are and how we can attack them, or are we to be faced with the usual cover-up for which this government is so famous?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, we will give the information to the hon. member as we do in 95 per cent of these kinds of cases.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. When the minister announced the recent changes in the Unemployment Insurance Act, he suggested there would be a minimal effect on the provinces. Someone said the effect would be $50 million across the country, a figure which is disputed by the provincial governments, who feel it will be more like $100 million to $200 million.
Will the minister assure the House that he will table the method by which he calculated this $50 million overrun on the social welfare programs of this country?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, because of the concern expressed by my provincial colleagues, I met with them and we set up an impact committee to look into this measure. That meeting was held on October 19. Four of the provinces indicated they cannot dispute the figures submitted by us.
The information that was tabled before the ministers and their officials will be made available either at the committee stage or at second reading of the bill. Although some people are not prepared to accept the $50 million figure, they do not have a model whereby it can be contradicted. We must remember that the Canada Assistance Plan makes provision for us to pick up 50 per cent of that cost. Therefore, it is closer to $25 million than $50 million.
October 23, 1978


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport. As the minister should know, the CN bus service-the only trans-island bus service in Newfoundland-has applied to the CTC for a rate increase of 38 per cent, 20 per cent on November 1 and 18 per cent next February 1, after receiving increases of 23 per cent over the past two years. The CTC has stated that under the law it must give the increase on an interim basis to CN on November 1, despite the fact there will have been no hearing to that point.
Will the minister direct CN to withdraw these outrageous increases which they are looking for, in view of the government's battle against inflation and all the other economic policies we have heard described in the last few weeks?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we have been looking closely at the rate structure of buses in the CN service in Newfoundland, particularly with regard to seeing whether the rates at any given point in time seemed to be moving ahead of those in other parts of Canada, especially in the Atlantic area. This had not previously been the case; the rates in Newfoundland had been in line with or lower than other Atlantic rates. That does not end our concern, however. Following the Sullivan commission interim report, we have been discussing the question of the possible transfer of the bus system from CN to VIA. Those discussions are going forward very well.


John Carnell Crosbie: The Sullivan commission, which the minister appointed, stated that CN fares are far and above what are reasonable. It recommended lower fares, fares that would be comparable to a trans-island railway passenger fare because this system replaced the railway passenger system. Is the minister going to act on those recommendations? I ask this in view of the fact that CN was stated to have unsuitable, inadequate equipment, and the fares were described by that independent commission as being far too high.
Is the minister going to act? VIA Rail will still have to impose fares. Will the minister now act on this fare question, in accordance with the royal commission?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated my concern that the fares not be too high and outlined the comparisons of them in Newfoundland with bus fares in other regions, such as the rest of the Atlantic provinces. Bus fares are very often slightly lower than comparable rail fares for similar distances. Therefore, that comparison may be even more favourable than the one the hon. member suggests.
Recent developments have seen the acquisition of three new buses, and discussions in conjunction with VIA's takeover of the service will involve the acquiring of new equipment so that better service can be provided to the people of Newfoundland.
Privilege-Mr. Friesen


PROPOSED STRIKE BY NORDAIR PILOTS-AIR CANADA CONTROL OF NORDAIR
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport: it is supplementary to that asked by my colleague from Lisgar.
One of the considerations in the new negotiations between the employees of Nordair and the company relates to the acquisition by Air Canada. As there is some apprehension in terms of labour relations on this issue, has the government reconsidered its position with regard to Air Canada acquiring control of Nordair, or does it continue to hold the position that Air Canada should pursue that application?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member misstates the current situation. An appeal is before the governor in council on the very question of whether the Canadian Transport Commission's decision in approving the acquisition of Nordair by Air Canada should go ahead. I should emphasize that even that decision very clearly stated that the Nordair's operations should remain separate and distinct from those of Air Canada. I thought that would be somewhat applicable to the parties in this labour dispute.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I want to ask the minister a straightforward question. Is the government's position that it will support the appeal with regard to the acquisition of Nordair by Air Canada, or will they take a contrary position and reject that appeal, which would then prevent Air Canada acquiring control of Nordair?


Otto Emil Lang: The hon. member is asking what decision we have reached. We have not announced a decision because we have not yet taken a decision. We have given careful consideration to all the issues involved, to the arguments advanced before the CTC and to the conclusion which was reached. As soon as a decision is made by the government as to whether or not the takeover should be confirmed, that decision will be announced.


PRIVILEGE
Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Some days ago, at the earliest opportunity, I gave you notice of my wish to raise a question which I felt I should bring before the House as it seemed to me to touch upon parliamentary privilege. The incident involves the behaviour of the CBC in relation to a member of parliament, namely, myself. The CBC is a Crown corporation responsible to parliament. Crown corporations enjoy a wide measure of independence and freedom from government control, which is quite proper. This means, however, that they
80065-23'/2

October 23, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Friesen
must be accountable to parliament for their actions. Without parliamentary control and supervision their autonomy would be virtually total, and since they exist to serve the public interest, and incur vast public expenditures in the process, control by parliament, as I think all hon. members would agree, is absolutely vital.
On October 7 I appeared before the CRTC hearings to make an intervention relative to the CBC licence renewal application. CBC provided direct feed of these hearings to all cable systems across Canada via satellite.
I provided an advance copy of my remarks to the CBC president and vice president. When my turn came on the agenda, I was announced by Mr. Camu to be the next intervener. At that point the television screens in the West immediately went black with instantaneous supply of recorded music for the ten minute duration of my presentation. I have checked and there were no technical problems with the cable systems or telephone companies. I was told that the problem was at the source, namely, the CBC. In addition to this, if technology had been a problem the CBC has not seen fit to send me an explanation.
This is a very brief account of the incident which forms the subject of my complaint. I submit that the evidence of members of parliament at these hearings has a significance which is of some importance. It is certainly no less important than that of other witnesses, and may even have a special importance in view of parliament's unique responsibilities in overseeing the activities of the CBC. I believe I was the victim of a serious affront on the part of the CBC in my capacity as a member of parliament. 1 believe that the CRTC was similarly affronted, as in blacking out my evidence the CBC was impairing the coverage of the CRTC's hearings. I have written to the CRTC notifying them of this misadventure.
I do not know whether I have chosen the appropriate method of bringing this matter before the attention of the House, but I felt it was my duty to do so and I knew of no other way. In conclusion, I would request that if this matter is not considered to be a fitting one to refer to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, it be referred instead to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts. I feel strongly that I should be given the opportunity to submit this matter to the judgment of my fellow-members and that the CBC should be called upon to offer an explanation.


Mr. Speaker:: In the course of his remarks the hon. member did make reference to the relationship between the CBC, as a Crown corporation, and parliament. The role of the corporation is, as we know, a special one. Nevertheless, I would hope that in these circumstances the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts), who reports to parliament for the CBC, would wish to look into the allegations made by the hon. member and report back to the House, at which time the House can address itself to the question of whether a question of privilege can properly be founded. Until that time, pending an intervention by the Secretary of State, I will certainly preserve the right of the hon. member to proceed with his question of privilege.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Alan Martin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to subsection 17(2) of the Anti-Inflation Act I should like to table, in both official languages, a copy of the references from the Anti-Inflation Board to the Administrator with respect to the matters in an attached list.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I rise with regard to question No. 3 on the order paper because it has been on successive order papers for two years and four months. It was put down on May 25, 1976, and it still stands.
When I raised a point of order a few days ago with regard to several other unanswered questions, the reply from the parliamentary secretary was to the effect that a lot of these questions call for a great deal of research. That was one of his excuses for the failure to answer them. I submit that very little research is needed in order to answer this question-that it could be answered in about an hour if somebody wanted to take the trouble. It asks simply this: how many ministers of the Crown have been accepting a $2,000 car allowance year, and how many have not; how many have returned the $2,000 car allowance year, and how many have not; how many have returned the $2,000 because they are not using it-they are being driven around in chauffeur-driven limousines supplied by the government? For example, is the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), with his chauffeur-driven battleship, accepting this $2,000 on the side?
Does it really take two years and four months to find out how many of these gentlemen, who are so busy they have now left the chamber, are accepting $2,000 they do not really need because they do not use their personal cars? I fail to understand why it should take so long to answer such a simple question. When the parliamentary secretary rises to reply I hope he will not confuse the issue by giving us various percentages, as he usually does, saying the government has answered 70 per cent or 80 per cent or 90 per cent of the questions, and so on. Will he simply tell us why it has taken two years and four months to inform the House which of these ministers are taking money from the public trough?
October 23, 1978


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that in the mind of the hon. member that question can be of great public concern in Canada. Nevertheless it does not belong to me to decide whether his question is relevant or not.
I will merely point out to the hon. member that last year we began answering questions on the order paper the tenth day after the Speech from the Throne. Today is eighth day and the hon. member says that he has been waiting for two years. I do not think that a few days or months more will overly tax his patience.
Anyhow, Mr. Speaker, his question required research in some forty agencies or departments. We are therefore making thorough inquiries to provide thorough and accurate answers as we usually do.
And as he pointed out very aptly, last year we answered almost 90 per cent of the questions, including 90 per cent of those which came from the hon. member himself. He realizes, therefore, that he has been well taken care of by this parliament and I can assure him that we will continue to do so.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Shall the questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, October 20, consideration of the motion of Mr. Chretien that Bill C-7, to provide supplementary borrowing authority for the fiscal year 197879, to provide borrowing authority for the fiscal year 1979-80 and to amend the Financial Administration Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, and the amendment thereto (Mr. Stevens) (p. 271).
Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is upon the amendment. All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.
Borrowing Authority Act Mr. Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare the amendment lost.
Amendment (Mr. Stevens) negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The question then is upon the main motion.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, this is the first opportunity I have had to rise in this House since returning on October 10 to start this new session, and it is my first opportunity to make the observation that this is a government in chaos. It is a government that has lost control of its mandate to run the country.
We were told that it was important to bring the House back to face serious economic problems and economic legislation and the government's program for turning around the economy of the country. There is not a single economic bill on the order paper, however, nor is there any of the promised legislation for action that the government said was awaiting the recall of the House. There is not any of the promised legislation and action that the government said it was awaiting the recall of the House in order to deal with, put it in place, and get the economy rolling again. There are no economic bills. There are no references to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs of such things as the commodity tax or Bank Act, items which were not completed in the last session of this parliament and given as examples by this government of vital pieces of legislation which needed to be handled by this House.
We have been promised a budget for the latter part of November. However, before that budget this government has the colossal gall to bring in this bill asking for authority to borrow $17 billion. That is an incredible sum, totally incomprehensible.
We are not told what the money is required for, what government expenditures are going to be next year, what anticipated revenues will be next year, what the rates will be, and whether there will be increases or decreases in the taxes. We are told nothing.
This country, through this House, is given absolutely no information about the government's plans for next year, yet we are asked to give the government authority to plunge this country further into debt to the tune of $17 billion. Can you imagine an individual or corporation going to a bank and saying, "I would like to borrow some money. 1 would like a line of credit for a few tens or hundreds of thousands." The bank is likely to ask for what purpose. "Well, I can't tell you." The bank would ask how you are going to repay the loan. You would say, "I can't tell you for sure." When asked how are you going to spend the money you would reply, "I can't tell you that, but I ask you to give me this loan now because 1 need it, but I can't tell you for what." You would be thrown out on your ear. You would not get one red cent from that banker.

That is the situation here. This government is coming to this House and asking for authority to borrow $17 billion. We are asked to trust it in terms of why it is needed.
We have a trustee position with regard to the taxpayers of this country. We have been elected by our constituents to represent their interests. When the government asks that a debt be incurred on their behalf, we have a responsibility to ask for what purpose, and to deny that authority until such time as we have been told why. Anyone who does not live up to that responsibility is failing the taxpayers within his constituency.
We are told that this is an emergency and the government needs the borrowing authority now. Some emergency! Last Friday we were quite ready to vote on the amendment. Apparently the government was not. We had to endure the spectacle of the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) proving to this House and the country that he knows as much about economics as he does about law. He rambled on in such a manner, using up the allotted time so there would not be a vote on that day. That is an example of a government in a hurry to get things done and move on with the nation's business-the Solicitor General standing up in the House to kill time, trying to make it sound as though he knows something about economics.
We would be failing in our responsibility to pass this legislation without questioning. This is an incomprehensible sum, $17 billion. In order to get it down to something we can understand, I will refer to income tax statistics. There are approximately nine million taxpayer in this country. On a per capita basis, that represents $2,000 for each taxpayer. That is not per individual but per taxpayer in this country. In 1976, the last year for which figures are available, the total income tax collected from these nearly nine million taxpayers was only $13,808 million. We are being asked to authorize borrowing in excess of the total income tax collected in the last year for which data are available.
If anyone managed their business, home or private life in that manner, they would be bankrupt. That is precisely what this government is doing, bankrupting us. This is precisely what the world economic community is telling us in driving our dollar down to 84 cents. They are saying precisely the same thing to this government that a banker would say to you, or I if we walked in and said, "We want more money; don't ask us why; don't ask us how we are going to repay it; we don't know but we will figure it out, trust us."
This money, $17 billion, or $2,000 per taxpayer, means that the total debt endured by each taxpayer in Canada will be $10,000. Each and every taxpayer in this country will be in debt to the tune of $10,000. The interest on that debt is about 8 per cent. That means from now on each taxpayer in this country will pay $800 a year for interest on that debt. That is not paying off principle. That is just interest on the debt, $800 per taxpayer per year forever into the future, unless we find some way of paying off the debt.
We must remind ourselves that this money is not being used for capital expenditures. It is not an investment in a capital project which will yield some dividends and allow us to repay
October 23, 1978

the debt over a period of time. It is operating funds. This is like going to the bank and borrowing money to buy groceries. Household Finance would laugh in your face if you tried to borrow money in order to purchase groceries or pay rent, without offering a plausible story as to how you are going to repay the money.
That is what this government is asking this House to do. We do not know how this will be paid back. We do not know what growth it has planned for Canada next year and the year after. There is no indication of what tax rates will be in place or by what rate they expect revenues to grow.
We are told the government needs $17 billion to spend on operating expenditures. This is most irresponsible for any kind of operation that you can consider. As I say, if a family operated in that way, it would soon be bankrupt. Any business would certainly be bankrupt. Any banker approached to finance that kind of operation would laugh in your face.
To compound the insult to this House and the country, of the government asking for this $17 billion without any indication as to how it will be paid back, on March 16 last the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) came to this House and asked for authority to borrow $5 billion. He said, and I quote from page 3859 of Hansard:
The authority in this bill to borrow a further $5 billion, together with the unused portion of the $16 billion authority granted in March and December of 1977, should provide the government with sufficient borrowing powers to meet all cash requirements for the fiscal year 1978-79, and provide a margin as usual for contingencies.
In March the minister assured the House that an extra $5 billion in borrowing would look after everything for 1978-79, with a significant margin for contingencies. Now he produces a bill which calls for an extra $7 million of borrowing for fiscal year 1978-79-$10 billion is for fiscal 1979-80. There are only two possible explanations. One is that the minister misled the House last March and that the $5 million extra borrowing power called for at that time was not enough to look after the whole of the fiscal year 1978-79, and he knew it. The other is he was so widely out in his projection for cash requirements that he needed another $7 billion.
There are only two possible conclusions to be reached. The first is that the government was being dishonest, a possibility which has to be entertained because at that time it was looking for an election in June, or maybe in October at the latest, and if ministers' statements were not completely honest they probably would not be called upon to account for them. The second possibility, equally damaging, is that the minister was incompetent. Mr. Speaker, can you imagine estimates being so far out as to call for an additional $7 billion, a sum equivalent to half the total income tax collected? It means that the deficit for this year will be wildly in excess of the minister's earlier prediction of $11 billion, huge though that is in itself; it will be much greater than that if he really needs this extra $7 billion.
Things have got to the stage of being tragic. It is not just a question of being angered by this misrepresentation or
Borrowing Authority Act
incompetence on the part of the government. The people of Canada are facing a critical situation as a result of the kind of direction and management they are getting. It is truly a frightening thing to reflect that we have been misled by the Minister of Finance or, in the alternative, that the government is so incompetent in its estimates of its cash requirements and the economy as to require on extra $7 billion. Clearly, all this has to stop. It is essential that changes be made and be made quickly. Unless they are, we shall find ourselves in an indescribable economic mess.
The word "depression" is not too extreme to describe what might happen unless the situation is brought under control. The government must do something about the excessive spending habits which have been built up over the last ten years. The fact of the matter is that taxpayers are simply unwilling to pay the taxes necessary to sustain that kind of spending. This is not just a subjective evaluation; it is an assessment which can be backed up logically and analytically. The evidence that people have reached their limit in their willingness to pay taxes is everywhere.
Recently I read an article describing the growth in cash economy here in Canada. What is happening increasingly is that the cash economy as opposed to the monetary economy is growing rapidly. This shows that an awful lot of people have taken to using, in their business and personal transactions, cold cash which cannot be traced or taxed. It is estimated that the proportion of the economy directly affected is upwards of 35 per cent. In other words, 35 per cent of the economy is effectively beyond the tax system. The assessment is relatively simple to make because the Bank of Canada knows how much cash is in circulation and the amount is growing far more rapidly than would be dictated by normal economic growth. So there is widespread tax evasion by millions of Canadians who now prefer to deal in cash as opposed to taking part in transactions which can be traced and taxed. This is of enormous consequence. Millions of Canadians are saying, "I am paying too much, and rather than pay more I am willing to resort to the inconvenience of a 'sock under the bed' instead of following normal accounting procedures which the tax man can trace".
In addition, there is evidence everywhere of the growth of the barter economy. A dentist attends to the teeth of the carpenter's children and, in exchange, gets a new bar built in his rumpus room; the lawyer, in exchange for helping draw up a will, accepts a leg of beef from the farmer. Indeed, there are firms which have set themselves up in the barter business and which bring together people who have something to trade and who would like some other commodity or service in exchange. These firms are making a lot of money from people who want to take part in barter arrangements of this sort. And the customers are saying quite clearly, "We are paying too much in taxes and refuse to pay any more."
All this has serious consequences for Canadian society. There is only one recourse and it is to cut expenditure. Governments cannot raise taxes beyond the willingness of people to pay them; all they can do is run deficits, as has been

October 23, 1978
Borrowing Authority Act
the case for so many years. But there is a limit to the amount we can borrow without bringing chaos to the capital market. One way out is for the government to borrow from the Bank of Canada, which gets the funds through printing money. Printing money leads to inflation; it is in essence a process of taxation since it debases the value of the money Canadians hold. And we all know the consequences of inflation, the damage it does to the economy. As I say, there is no alternative to these huge deficits than to cut expenditures.
We must also cut taxes. We must cut taxes because we are at the point at which a reduction in taxation would lead to the receipt of more revenue than would an increase in taxation. This may sound like a contradiction, but it is not. If we accept the premise that a tax rate of 100 per cent yields zero revenue to government because no one would produce anything which would be subject to taxation, then at some point there must be a point in the relationship between revenues and taxation at which revenues begin to decline, that is, at which a higher tax rate will serve only to reduce revenue. This thesis is a very elementary one but I do not think it is assailable from a logical point of view; it may be argued we are not yet at that point of the curve, but I believe the empirical evidence is that we are, and that a reduction in the tax rate will result in an increase in government revenue.
Anyone who claims that deducting mortgage interest, as proposed by my leader and my party, would reduce government revenues, is dead wrong. That would increase government revenues, but we cannot rely just on reduction of taxes to raise revenues. There has to be a reduction in expenditures as well, because spending has gone beyond what an economy can or is willing to support in a non-wartime period. The people of Canada have sent this message to the government. They sent this message loudly and clearly via Martin Goldfarb and Associates.
The government responded with its so-called expenditure cuts announced September 8 of this year. Were those cuts or were they not? A couple of things which stand out must be mentioned. One is that the cuts of $2.5 billion proposed were cuts from projected expenditures of $54.6 billion, or a 12 per cent increase. In other words, the projected increase in spending for next year, before these so-called cuts were announced, was to be 12 per cent, yet last February or March the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) presented spending estimates for this year which showed a 9 per cent increase, and he said the government would do better next year.
In February or March the President of the Treasury Board said that spending for next year would increase by less than 9 per cent. Later he said he would cut $2.5 billion from projected expenditure increases of 12 per cent. What are we supposed to believe?
Does the President of the Treasury Board think that we have short memories or that we will not go back and look at what he said last February or March? Or was he anticipating

that an election would come along and bail him out so that he would not have to account? He was either deceiving us last February or March, or these cuts are pure fiction, simply a rearrangement which has nothing to do with reality. I suspect that there is probably a little of each, although this is not the first time this minister has attempted to deceive the House with regard to the spending plans of the government. This afternoon in question period, when asked about cuts regarding the Farm Credit Corporation, the minister indicated that they are not cuts at all but just a bookkeeping change. He said that the Farm Credit Corporation will not get its cash from the government any more. He said it will go directly to the market place.
It makes no difference whether the money comes directly from the market place or from the government; that is still government spending. To call it anything else is pure, unadulterated flim-flam. Exactly the same thing was done with regard to the Export Development Corporation, the Federal Business Development Bank, and CMHC. If we add on the amount of money borrowed by these Crown corporations, spending would be in the vicinity of $1 billion more. The government claims to be spending $1 billion less when in fact only bookkeeping changes are taking place. All the government is doing is rearranging the books in such a way that, if a business were to do the same, the securities exchange commission would de-list that business's stock. Any self-respecting auditor would refuse to sign the books, yet the government does it time after time. That is incredibly irresponsible behaviour. The sooner we turf these rascals out, the better chance we have of turning the economy of this country around.
The first and most important thing in bringing spending under control is to be honest about the spending process. That was the advice of the C. D. Howe Research Institute in its 1975 policy review. Three years ago that institute recognized that one of the reasons government spending has grown at the rate it has-and it has been allowed to grow at that rate-is fundamental dishonesty on the part of governments in presenting their spending plans.
First and foremost, there has to be more honesty about spending programs. The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) should not be allowed to claim that he has cut the expenditures of the unemployment insurance program when in fact he has simply put some of the expenditures on the backs of employees and employers as they make their contributions. That is not a cut in government spending. It is movement of taxes from one place to another. The Minister of Employment and Immigration is not the only one who does that. Every ministry is doing the same thing. There has to be honesty about the spending process, as well as a willingness to make genuine cuts.
Is there a business, individual, or corporation which cannot find flab amounting to 5 per cent? Of course 5 per cent of fat could be cut without doing any harm. A cut of 5 per cent in government expenditures-a very small amount-would reduce expenditures by over $2.5 billion. The cost of sustaining that kind of debt is about $200 million a year. A 5 per cent cut
October 23, 1978

in the fat-not the muscle, the bone or the gristle-would reduce government spending by $2.5 billion and the amount Canadians have to pay in terms of interest on the national debt by $200 million a year.
Anyone with any degree of competence can find that kind of excess spending which can be cut. We were told earlier this year that a spot-check of civil service positions showed that 16 per cent of civil service positions was over-classified, that is, 16 per cent of civil servants are getting paid for jobs of a higher level than the jobs they are actually doing. The cost of that alone was estimated to be in the order of $175 million. Our economy is as bad today as it has been in recent history, certainly since the depression.


Alan Gray Martin: Nonsense.


Harvie Andre: That is what the world is telling us. That is why our dollar is valued at 84 cents American. The world financial community is giving us the same message it gave New York city a few years ago. We are being told to bring our spending under control and to bring our revenue figures closer to our expenditure figures or else the world financial community will have to charge us much more in our dealings and loans. That is why the Canadian dollar is discounted to 84 cents American. If we had the healthy economy which we have the potential to have, our dollar would be worth much more than 84 cents American. That is the clear message.
We cannot bring our economy into line without first cutting expenditures. We must cut back on the horrendous growth in spending on the part of this government. We must cut that fat, not just because we cannot afford it but, in addition, people are becoming unwilling to pay taxes. We see growth in the cash economy to avoid taxes and growth in the barter economy to avoid taxes.
We see an increase in plain, ordinary tax evasion because the public sees how this government spends money. Any taxpayer who might feel a little bit of conscience or a little guilt about employing a tax-evasion scheme certainly loses that guilt when he finds out that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) spent $8,000 of that taxpayer's money flying his friends to a Grey Cup game, and that the Minister of Transport sent his nanny back to England on a government aircraft, and when he sees profligate waste and abuse of his money by this government. If anybody feels guilty about avoiding taxes, they will certainly lose their guilt quickly when they see the kinds of examples of abuse of trust placed in the government.
It is absolutely essential that government spending be reduced, that the tremendous waste be stopped. My colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie), last Thursday ran through a litany of examples of the government's abuse of the trust placed in it and the waste of our tax dollars. Those are not just little problems that are brought up for political advantage on a short-term basis. Those are very serious problems which have serious consequences on the attitudes of Canadians, their attitude towards paying taxes,
Borrowing Authority Act
the ability of this government to collect sufficient revenue to provide those services which are essential and to be able to close this gap between revenues and expenditures. Only when that is done, only when we have evidence that this government will be fiscally responsible, that it will treat taxpayers' money with the respect it deserves, should the House be asked to vote on whether this government should be given extended borrowing privileges. It is an insult to the House and to the country for the government to come to us now and ask us to authorize $17 billion in further borrowing, giving us absolutely no indication of what the money will be used for and where it is coming from. I, for one, will not abuse the trust of the people of Canada by approving of that kind of irresponsible behaviour.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, there are several significant things about this debate today. In the first place there is the fact that we are having the debate today. On Friday this party suppressed its natural anxiety to contribute to the debate and we sat and listened with disbelief to five members of the government party who, one after another, occupied the time of the House from about 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. I think it was an extraordinary example of members of the government party talking out their own legislation, because there is no doubt in my mind that since we had nothing to say and the NDP put up one speaker, and after the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) we did not make any further contribution, the government was talking out its own bill.
We had made what I thought, from a disinterested and objective point of view, was a very spirited attack on this legislation. I think we could have had a vote and given second reading to the bill on Friday and, as my friend, the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) said, brought the bill to the House for committee of the whole. I say that in passing-


Alan Gray Martin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It seems to me that some of the comments that are being made by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) are out of order because indeed a number of members on this side had been speaking for the purpose of putting positive facts on the record in the course of the debate, and I think it is very important that that be noted. Members on this side were bringing out extremely important statistics which were very positive-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. This may be a point of debate or argument, but it is not a point of order.
Since I have the floor may I, at this time, read the proceedings on the adjournment motion.
358

October 23, 1978
Borrowing Authority Act



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be debated at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-War Veterans Allowance Act-Legislation to amend-Level of pension for widows of disabled veterans; the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen)- Finance-Grants in lieu of taxes; the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon)-Transport-Request for continuation of Esquimalt and Nanaimo rail passenger service.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Chretien that Bill C-7, to provide supplementary borrowing authority for the fiscal year 1978-79, to provide borrowing authority for the fiscal year 1979-80 and to amend the Financial Administration Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I will not continue speaking on this other than simply to say that what we listened to on Friday from members on the government side was two hours of concentrated bilge, twaddle and nonsense. I think my friend, the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre), in describing the speech made by the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais), expressed a very harsh criticism of the Solicitor General who, he said, knew as little about economics as he did about law. I consider that to be exceedingly harsh criticism and I hope that if, in the few remaining months during which this government is in power, it becomes necessary, as it probably will be, to have a new minister of finance, we are not inflicted with the disaster of the present Solicitor General becoming minister of finance, in light of the very reasonable assessment of his knowledge of economics made by the hon. member for Calgary Centre.
Another thing about this debate is the fact that there is such a bill. I think it has been mentioned by several members who participated in the debate that until November of 1977 the general attitude of this government was to tack on borrowing power to the supply bill, thereby depriving members of the House of the opportunity to debate this important issue. Last November, because we were debating income tax legislation,
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier).]
the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) tacked borrowing authority on to that legislation thereby enabling the House, at second reading and committee of the whole, to have discussion on the matter.
At the time the Minister of Finance admitted that what had been the practice heretofore was not a good practice because it deprived members of the House of the opportunity to discuss the question of borrowing authority, which is a very important privilege. It is not the granting of supply-we all admit that- but it connotes the granting of supply and it puts the government in the position-I intend to demonstrate this later-with the use of other powers, to be virtually given what is in effect supply. We had that debate and the Minister of Finance said in November of 1977 that he recognized the government had been depriving members of the House of the right, which they should have, to discuss the question of borrowing authority, and he would do something about it.
Then we come to March 1978. Because of a special agreement made among the House leaders to give effect to the urgent need of the government to borrow more money, a special order was made. We had two days of supply set back to back and in the second day-or the first day, I am not sure which it was-we had a bill with regard to supply and the question was debated with a time limit put on it. As has been said by my friend, the hon. member for York-Simcoe, by the hon. member for Calgary Centre and others, when we had that debate last March, the minister said-and I am simply quoting what has been put on record already, but it needs to be said over and over again, as reported at page 3859 of Hansard of March 16, 1978:
The authority in this bill to borrow a further $5 billion together with the unused portion of the $16 billion authority granted in March and December of 1977, should provide the government with sufficient borrowing powers to meet all cash requirements for the fiscal year 1978-79, and provide a margin as usual for contingencies.
Later on in the same speech, as reported at page 3860 of Hansard, the minister again said:
The unused part of the existing borrowing rights, and the new $5 billion authority requested will cover our domestic cash requirements in 1978-79, and will be used to draw on the $1.5 billion U.S. credit opening and the $750 million U.S. loan which is being negotiated.
I call the attention of the House to those statements which are clear, categorical assertions of fact. This parliament acts on behalf of the people and the taxpayers to grant supply and authority for borrowing to the government. There is a contractual relationship. When the government asks for supply, or indicates that it requires the authority to borrow money in order to implement supply, then certain categorical facts should be set before the House.
All of us are entitled to rely on the statements of the Minister of Finance as being accurate and factual. When the contract is broken, we must say to ourselves, "What will be the situation in the future? What about the requests for borrowing authority being made now? To what extent may we rely upon those?" This is far more important to the millions of taxpayers
October 23, 1978

outside the House, which taxpayers bear the burden of finding the money to pay the taxes needed to cover the borrowed moneys. They look to us to demand from the government the facts upon which the legislation is passed.
The reasons for the bill before us are very clear and simple. The hon. parliamentary secretary made a rather ridiculous point of order a little while ago. I admire him very much. Eventually he will learn what points of order are proper and what are not. I should like to refer to the comments of the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Martin) as reported at page 281 of Hansard dated October 19, 1978. He was referring to the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) when he made the following comment:
The hon. member knows this. He knows authority is being obtained now to cover the government's needs not only for the balance of the present fiscal year but for the next fiscal year so as to avoid our having to come back to parliament time and time again for the necessary legislation ...
That is the motto of hon. members opposite. They do not want to come back to parliament. They want us to grant wide powers respecting expenditures and borrowing money. They dislike parliament; it is alien to their method of government. They come here only because the constitution compels them.
The granting of a borrowing authority for the ensuing fiscal year would place us in a very dangerous situation. Together with the other powers the government possesses, and without bringing forward estimates or supply, the government is requesting a $10 billion borrowing power to cover estimates which have not been brought down. Apparently these funds are for certain programs which might be brought in next year. They are asking for a blank cheque.
The hon. member for Calgary Centre put his finger on it when he said that we are losing control of the opportunity and the power of challenging government spending, authority to borrow, authority respecting estimates, to act through orders in council and so on. That demonstrates the imperative, urgent and pressing need. There is no mechanism to make government appear before us to be challenged, of making it provide truthful information, or making the government justify its spending programs. That is the basis upon which this bill is being presented. Parliament, individuals, organizations, and the media do not have this power. In fact it is not within the four corners of the public service.
Once again I should like to refer to a rather fascinating story which I put on the record at the end of the last session. It concerns a very senior public servant in England who wrote a book entitled, "Your Disobedient Servant". Mr. Leslie Chapman wrote his book after resigning from the public service. He had been the regional director of the property services agency for the five southern countries in England. I hope the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Buchanan) will read my speech today, because he is interested in saving taxpayers' money. If he does not listen, at least he can read it later on.
This gentleman was able to institute savings within the four corners of his particular area of jurisdiction which amounted to 35 per cent. He had a spending program for property maintenance of 10.5 million pounds sterling. Approximately
Borrowing Authority Act
two or three years after the insitution of his program, he was able to show a reduction of 35 per cent of 3.5 million pounds. One would have thought that the senior officers of his department, the ministers and his colleagues, who were also regional directors, would have been interested in finding out how this reduction was accomplished. They should have been interested in what marvels this man exercised in order to save such an amount of money, without drawing blood and with the full approval of the involved unions. During the period of these reforms, he undertook consultation with the concerned unions.
They should have allowed him an opportunity to explain his program for the benefit of other departments. Instead of that, his colleagues disagreed and pooh-poohed it because they felt that the circumstances within his department did not exist in others. The permanent secretary, who is the equivalent of our deputy prime minister, said that he would take it under advisement, which is the usual guise. Nothing was done about it at all, and ultimately their public accounts committee got wind of the situation. That committee called a number of people before it, including the permanent secretary, for the purposes of obtaining evidence as to why no reasonable savings were possible within other departments. Subsequently, in approximately six months, the permanent secretary reappeared before the committee and admitted that he was wrong, that his previous statements were incorrect. By that time Mr. Chapman had resigned and had written his book. He explained thoroughly his experiences in the book. It should be required reading for all ministers of the government. I recommend it to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) as well as others. In fact I hope the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) will bring his mind down from the high, high clouds of constitutional problems and direct his attention to the simple, ordinary concerns of Canadians.
People are concerned with government expenditures and realize that there is a need for savings. The sequel to the story is that Mr. Chapman attempted to give evidence before the public accounts committee. But he was told that if he gave his story as an ex-employee or an ex-senior public servant of the government of England, he would be prosecuted under their Official Secrets Act.
That is what has happened, and that is why I said a little while ago it is useless to look within the four corners of the civil service for the kinds of savings that are possible, and I mean the simple, ordinary, homely savings which you and I, Mr. Speaker, realize in respect of our own households and our own businesses. A government adopting to its own use practices of this kind could successfully save lots of money without the necessity of decisions coming from the top that there will be a 20 per cent cut here, a 30 per cent cut there, and some 5,000 employees laid off. I am not talking about the merits of this, I am just talking about the way the government approaches it. I do not believe any of this in any event, and I do not think anybody else does.
80065-24%

October 23, 1978
Borrowing Authority Act
To conclude this sad story of Leslie Chapman, "Your Disobedient Servant," I should just like to read two additional quotations from the book. The first appears at page 157, and is as follows:
There can be no shadow of doubt that the Official Secrets Act as it is at present worded and used contributes to the continuance of waste and extravagance on a massive scale in the public sector, and protects those who are responsible from the consequences of inefficiency, error and downright negligence.
That could be applied so aptly, so well, and so truthfully to this poor, shivering, frightened, weary and inefficient government.
Finally, the other quotation which appears at page 159 of the book, is as follows:
This book is concerned only with the financial consequences of unnecessary secrecy in the public sector, and there should be no room for misunderstanding on this point: while the Official Secrets Act is used as it is in this country, bungling and incompetence of all kinds can flourish undetected and the taxpayer will pay dearly for this.
That is the situation which exists in this government, and I know it as do you, Mr. Speaker, although you are in a neutral position and cannot make any comment. The ministers sitting opposite know, and the public at long last is beginning to know and to realize this, and will act accordingly as it did at the by-elections of a week ago. This is the situation and it is expressed in that particular act. We must find some better way of protecting the public in this regard.
Let us consider the period which led up to the situation bringing about this simple demand by the Minister of Finance in casually seeking authority to extend the government's borrowing power by $17 billion. During this period we saw program after program put together by government economists, political scientists and pseudo-experts, who all believe they really know better than the public itself what is best for the rest of us. Most of these programs were accepted gratefully by the executive as election bait, and with the massive propaganda machinery at the disposal of the government they were sold to the voters who were in fact being bribed with taxpayers' money, not realizing that they are one and the same person.
The result was inevitable. We were led to expect the impossible, and in doing so we bypassed the attainable. The grand masters of the Trudeau government, which manipulated this conspiracy of vast expenditures, now tell us that it was really the public which made these demands and the public will simply have to pay for them by massive use of the printing presses, which is what this bill is all about. We are told bluntly there is nothing we can do about it, particularly in parliament, except acquiesce.
As the rules stand now, that is the case. There is nothing we can do. We can make a few speeches, and government members are compelled by the rules to stay and listen to them. Members will blindly support the government when the bill comes to second reading, through committee, and third reading. The bill will go through, but there are other ways of dealing with this, and I referred to the by-elections as one.

In other parts of the world there have been attempts made by other governments to obtain the powers and authorities such as those this government is seeking. I am talking about proposition 13 in California. We have a parliamentary system. The question of referendum will likely be employed, or the government would like to employ it for its own purposes in connection with constitutional issues. For my own part I do not believe in it and I do not think it will work.
Flowever, I just want to say through you, Mr. Speaker, to hon. members opposite who sit there smiling, and I understand why they sit there and do not worry about this, that all over this continent there is a growing feeling of irritation, anger, discontent and challenge, not only in respect of governments but in respect of the whole machinery and process of governing, which includes legislatures, parliaments, and perhaps extending even to the media, so far as I know. This whole process is under challenge. I suggest very sincerely to my hon. friends that if measures of this kind and extravagant expenditures with no accounting, no truthfulness and no facts, continue by this and other governments, the public will seek and find other ways of dealing with the situation.
I agree with the late Sir Winston Churchill, that while there are defects in the system under which we operate, there has still been no better way yet found of bringing about an improvement over the parliamentary system. We can change and reform the system, but it is still the best system. 1 would like to see a solution.
I have been in this House perhaps too long, as some of my friends would say, during which time I have seen this happen over and over again. As I travel around this country I am convinced that the public, the taxpayers, the consumers, and the property owners will no longer tolerate, without some form of challenge, the situation that has been brought about.
Surely an example of this is the situation we are facing in respect of the postal strike, and the impunity with which, so far, the strikers have resisted this legislation. 1 am not on their side, and I am not going into the question of the law. We have passed this law and we cannot deal with it now, but when we pass a law there must be obedience to that law. If it is not a good law the remedy lies elsewhere in having it changed. However, the fact that there exists throughout this country now what is in fact a challenge to the power of this parliament and this government is a sure indication of how the people feel about parliament and about government.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance when speaking to this bill said that this House had approved the estimates and now had a responsibility to give the minister the power to borrow to cover the bill of payment. This, of course, is wrong so far as the fiscal year 1979-80 is concerned. 1 imagine the parliamentary secretary would now admit he was perhaps a little too enthusiastic in his statement and should have made a distinction.
As far as the fiscal year 1979-80 is concerned, we do not have the estimates as yet. The Treasury Board is probably dealing with those estimates now, trying to cut them down or add to them, as the case may be. We will know what they are
October 23, 1978

to be a little later on. This was pointed out by my colleague, the hon. member for York-Simcoe. In fact he is absolutely right in the sense that this parliament, this Elouse, which is presumed to be the caretaker of the public purse, is absolutely impotent to check or challenge the use of that purse, yet the minister comes before this House casually, almost in an impertinent way, with a short speech saying he wants this bill put through right away, "Hurry up, give me this borrowing power so I can take it to the Senate and get the money." In that way he is acting in accordance with the actual state of affairs in that this parliament in general, and this House in particular, are powerless to challenge the government's right in this regard.
We are impotent, not only because of the increase in tightening of party discipline, particularly on the government side, and a general unwillingness to challenge spending decisions made by government bureaucrats, who are not accountable to this House, but, as well, by reason of the extent to which this House in particular, and government in general, have given up all means of meeting this challenge. A very substantial part of the moneys which are spent, and which this borrowing power will be used to cover, ultimately is in the so-called statutory items which are held to be outside of our scope. I think it is a doubtful proposition, but it was a ruling from the Chair here in the past. I think that each vote in the estimates is a separate bill and can be challenged, but the rules are such that we cannot do it, and they are strictly enforced against us.
There are the debt charges and, the way the government is going with its borrowing, these are going to steadily escalate as taking a greater part of the tax dollar. That leaves approximately 30 per cent of the government spending, which may well be $53 billion this year, which lies within the competence of parliament and the right of the House to challenge. But even with that comparatively small percentage we have now powers to do it. By fiat, precedent and ruling in this House, coupled with the utterly hopeless system of examining estimates amounting to billions of dollars over the last decade or so, parliament has become a farce which, in fact, is a prologue to a tragedy. This is neither the time nor place to document this contention.
I do not think that there is a member of this House on either side who can stand up and honestly deny that public spending is and has been for years out of control, and this House can do nothing about it. The Auditor General has said that for a number of years. The last Auditor General has said that, and so has Mr. Lambert who heads the royal commission on accountability. It has been said by many people, and it was even said by a former minister on the government side, the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. O'Connell), while participating at the end of the debate on March 16, 1978, on the bill to which I have already made reference.
The hon. member said at page 3867 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, I should like to share in this expression of concern about the means at our disposal for the control of expenditures. I think it is a part of a general concern that has arisen over the complexity of legislation, the growth of
Borrowing Authority Act
the regulatory process, the growth and difficulty of managing expenditures. Along with the hon. member-
That is my colleague, the hon. member for Grenville-Carle-ton (Mr. Baker), who had the floor ahead of him.
-I want to say I share the expression of concern raised by the hon. member and hope that the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) and his colleagues will give very serious thoughts to the concern we all feel, regardless of where we sit in this House.
I am awaiting hopefully for the Lambert commission to make a report. I hope and believe, from what was said by Mr. Lambert and his commission in the interim report, that they will deal with the question of accountability of the government to the House for its spending, or making known the information which this House needs to deal with those expenditures, and that they will make some very useful recommendations. However, it cannot stop there. I am hoping that this House will have the courage, determination, and grit to take hold of this issue and lay down some very strong recommendations so that the parliament which succeeds us will have an opportunity on behalf of the public to come to grips with this problem which, as my hon. friend from Calgary Centre has said, is on the verge of swallowing us.
No one can go on. If we were a private corporation we would be declared bankrupt and put in the hands of the receiver, but because we have the capacity to reach out and put our hands in the pockets of the taxpayer and come up with enough money, and enough bank credit by way of borrowing authority, we are not bankrupt. That is the only reason. It will not be the government that goes bankrupt; it will be the taxpayers of this country.
I hope that this parliament, now in its declining days, will render no greater service to the parliament which will succeed us than to call attention to this situation and make certain concrete, specific proposals that will permit that parliament, as trustees for the taxpayers and on behalf of the public, to challenge and properly scrutinize payment proposals and expenditures, so governments planning those payments will know that they will have to come and face a knowledgeable, determined House of Commons and Senate on both sides, and that their expenditures will be based accordingly.
There are two more short points I would like to make. I said earlier that I was concerned about the fact that the Minister of Finance had come to us on March 16 of this year and made a categorical assertion to the effect that the $5 billion borrowing authority then sought would be adequate, with a residue left over from the previous fiscal year, to complete all of the borrowing requirements for the fiscal year 1978-1979. That has not been the case, nor has there been an explanation for it. This is why I would hope, and I would think that it would be to the credit of this House and the government, that the government will provide that this bill, after second reading, would come into this House and committee of the whole, so there would be an opportunity for us to ask questions. Then the Minister of Finance, in full view of this House and the public, will come forth with reasons why, having made this statement in March, 1978, he is now coming before this House again in

October 23, 1978
Borrowing Authority Act
October, 1978, and saying, "Sorry, boys, I made a little slip. I was $7 billion short of my borrowing authority."


Mr. Paproski:: Shame, shame!


Gerald William Baldwin: The other thing which concerns me, Mr. Speaker, is the question of granting in advance the borrowing authority of $10 billion for the fiscal year 1979-1980. I would suggest as a possible scenario, especially to a government headed by a man who has not hesitated to use the War Measures Act and has indicated his willingness to take other unusual powers, that the right given by this parliament to the government to borrow $10 billion, coupled with the right which exists under the Financial Administration Act to govern by Governor General's warrants, would permit the government, for example, in December of this year or, better still, in March of next year, not to dissolve this House, but to adjourn it and govern for ten or 11 months without calling parliament together. That is the scenario which that particular authorization would permit.
I do not say that the government is intending to do such a thing. But we would be derelict in our duty to our constituents in asking them to vote for us as members of parliament with the responsibility to hold government accountable, if we had to admit to them shamefacedly that we gave the government authority to govern this country without the benefit of parliament for ten months. Once parliament has adjourned, it could use Governor General's warrants. I think this is an utterly impossible situation. I would vote against the bill in any event. Under no circumstances could I vote for it, and I hope that no hon. member will vote for a bill that would give this kind of blank cheque to this government. If one does, Mr. Speaker, I do not think that he deserves the confidence of his constituents.


Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: My intervention, Mr. Speaker, in the debate on Bill C-7 will not be too lengthy, but there are a number of points I would like to place on the public record. It was but ten sitting days ago today that this parliament was assembled for its fourth session to listen to a new Speech from the Throne. Canadians expected that throne speech to give a new thrust to a very tired government. They expected it would put forward the government's economic plans for the next six months, and that those economic plans would, first of all, bring some order into Canada's accounts and, second, would give us the economic thrust that all Canadians so desperately sought.
This throne speech came after a 100-day recess of this parliament. There was a president of the United States in the memory of all of us, Mr. Speaker, who talked about "100 days of decision". I thought that maybe during these 100 days of recess the government, not having to face parliament, would use the time to put forward an economic package that could be presented to this House, and through this House to the people of Canada, that would get the economy moving again. During that period, however, the economic picture in this country dimmed substantially. It was during that period, and immedi-

ately after this House resumed sitting, that we saw the prime rate of the Bank of Canada raised for the fifth time in one year to an all time high, since the inception of the Bank of Canada of 10V* per cent. The spin-off effects of crisis management of this proportion will be serious to the home buyer, to young Canadians attempting to get established, to small businessmen trying to make investments, and to the farmer trying to operate an economic unit. I suggest that no one in this House and no economist in the country can assess the effect such mismanagement will have on the plans of all Canadians.
During that time we also saw our dollar slide, or should I use the word sink, to 83 or 84 cents, whilst the government kept saying it was allowing the dollar to find its own level- allowing the dollar to float. When we looked at the reserve account we saw the massive expenditures made in an effort to bolster the dollar at the 83 cent or 84 cent level. Although during that time and into the fall of this year inflation abated somewhat, it is still at a level that is unacceptable and well beyond any figures in any forecast that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) has given to the House. Unemployment is still unacceptably high, especially among Canada's young people. To give you a sign of what is happening-


Yvon Pinard: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I told him in advance of this possibility. I have talked to the representatives of each party in the House and there is unanimous consent that we revert to the introduction of bills before I state something else.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is there unanimous consent that we revert to the introduction of bills?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Norman A. Cafik (Minister of State (Multiculturalism) for Mr. Ouellet) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-l 1, to provide for the resumption and continuation of shipping on the Great Lakes and certain other waters.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, before six o'clock I hope we may obtain unanimous consent to proceed with second reading at eight o'clock, and that the motion would include reference to committee of the whole.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, of course we are prepared to give consent, now or later, to the proposal put
October 23, 1978

by the parliament secretary (Mr. Pinard). Naturally, we have not seen the bill but I hope it is more effective than that introduced with respect to the Post Office dispute which has run on for many days after parliament acted. We are prepared to give the necessary consent when convenient to the government. It might be helpful if the government could indicate its intention with respect to this bill-how quickly it wants to proceed with it-to be assured of the co-operation of the opposition.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it is correct that we are prepared to give consent for the introduction of the bill today, as has now been done. We are also prepared to respond favourably to the request of the parliamentary secretary that later this afternoon we give an answer on the question of proceeding to second reading at eight o'clock. That is, we are prepared to give an answer by six o'clock on the question of proceeding at eight o'clock. With the House leader of the Progressive Conservatives I, too, express the hope that the government was a little wiser in drafting this bill than the one we had to deal with last week.


Mr. Allard:: Mr. Speaker, we also agree on the understanding that the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) be adhered to. We can examine the bill before eight o'clock tonight.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. When shall the bill be read for the second time? Later today, by unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No. Your Honour did not understand. What we are agreeing to is to revert to this order at six o'clock at which time the question you have just put will be answered.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Therefore we revert to government orders at six o'clock. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Agreed and so ordered.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Chretien that Bill C-7, to provide supplementary borrowing authority for the fiscal year 1978-79, to provide borrowing
Borrowing Authority Act
authority for the fiscal year 1979-80 and to amend the Financial Administration Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, just prior to the parliamentary secretary (Mr. Pinard) rising to bring in another back-to-work bill, the second in this session-


Miss Campbell:: You have been asking for it for days.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The hon. member for South Western Nova (Miss Campbell) frequently contributes from the back row, not standing up to make a speech. We expected for some time that this legislation would be forthcoming. It has cost the western grains business, which means the western Canadian farmer, some $10 million per day in lost sales. It is hoped we will be able to get shipping resumed on the Great Lakes in a day or two and that the government will be more successful in this respect than on the return of postal workers to their jobs.
As I was saying at the time of the intervention, just to give a symbol of the crisis management position the government is in I refer to what happened last week with the Canada Savings Bonds. Canada Savings Bonds, which is a major effort of the government to raise its capital needs, had an interest rate of 8.90 per cent. When the Bank of Canada raised the prime rate to 10 'A per cent, the government was forced to change the rate on Canada Savings Bonds to 9.25 per cent. That is just a symbol of this government's having to react on a day by day basis in order to keep the banker from locking the door on the Government of Canada. That is the stage to which we have come.
There was a general consensus in this House that the eight day throne speech debate should be suspended so we could proceed to economic legislation. That consensus seemed to carry right through the House. For two reasons the throne speech debate has been suspended: the first time was to pass legislation ordering postal workers back to work; the other time is this bill, C-7.
Canadians have the right to expect an economic package which would get the economic health of this country back to normal. Instead, what is the government's economic proposal? The economic proposal of this government in this time of crisis has been outlined by various speakers. It is an additional borrowing authority of $17 billion, $7 billion to be applied toward fiscal year 1978-79, and $10 billion for fiscal year 1979-80.
In 1946, immediately after World War II, this country had been through a period of great crisis, the war having followed immediately on the great depression. The accumulated national debt in 1946 was the same amount that the government is asking us to approve in Bill C-7. With the heritage we have received from those who have gone before us, those who built this country, this government is now asking for an additional $17 billion.

October 23, 1978
Borrowing Authority Act
That is a mind-boggling figure that I am not able to comprehend. This government asks for that amount of money without giving any explanation. Just this afternoon this government defeated an amendment moved by the official opposition which called for disclosure of the financial facts on the accounts of Canada prior to passage of second reading of this bill. We wanted to know why this money is needed, but what did this government do? It voted against an amendment which called for the facts.
This government continually postures that it is in favour of freedom of information. Every time the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and others like him bring forward legislation on freedom of information, the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts) and his superiors rise to their feet and say that they are in favour of freedom of information. Once having said that, what do they do? They vote against it. They are in favour of freedom of information, but they want to be free to release to the Canadian people only that information which they feel is necessary. That is the kind of freedom of information in which they are interested.
What is this money to be used for? National debts can be accumulated generally for two reasons. Once, and it is valid, is to create a debt at periods of time when the nation's economy needs stimulus. The money is put into investments which will create jobs and long-term economic activity, not the short, stop-gap measures of which we see so many. Every member in this House in his private dealings has made those kinds of investments where moneys were borrowed and interest, paid to make an investment in order to enhance that individual's or his family's future. That is valid. However, what is this money for? This money is to pay for the ongoing operations of government. It is like asking your banker to give you a loan to pay for your groceries at a time when your bank account is in an overdraft position. That is what this government is asking.
This follows on the heels of a statement of March 1978 when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) in this House on another borrowing authority bill asked for $5 billion for fiscal 1978-79. Others have placed this matter on the record prior to my speaking. He said that $5 billion would be all that he needed to carry the Government of Canada through to the end of fiscal 1978-79 and that it would take care of contingencies. That was in March 1978. Here we are, some scant ten days after this house has been recalled, and the government is asking for another $7 billion. Whom are we to believe? Are the people of Canada not to accept the words of the Minister of Finance?
I do not know if members if this House can grasp the meaning of $1 billion, much less $17 billion. In order to grasp what a billion dollars is, I did a bit of calculating. I want to show the magnitude of $1 billion. If from the day that Christ was bom you had spent $1,000 every day, seven days a week, every month of every year-and 1 think most Canadians can visualize $1,000-you would have spent $722 million. By the end of this century, you would have spent $730 million.
If you had had a billion dollars on the day that Christ was born and you spent $1,000 every day from that day forward, it

would be well into the twenty-first century before you spent the billion dollars. I have given the government the benefit of the doubt and have not charged interest on the $1 billion for over 2,000 years. If you charge interest, it would be a fund that you would never spend at $ 1,000 a day.
This government is asking for an additional $17 billion, but we are not to ask any questions as to how they are going to spend it. It is not our right to know. Mr. Speaker, we are members of parliament who represent the people, and we have a right to know. Does the government maintain that the people, through us, have no right to know? Does any member on that side want to go to the electorate and say: Vote for us but do not ask how we are spending the money? If anyone dares get up and make such a statement I will yield the floor immediately and allow him to do so.
To illustrate the seriousness of the situation in which we find ourselves, let me remind the House that on the basis of the minister's own figures the government deficit amounts to a billion dollars a month. It would take 200,000 years spending $1,000 a day to dispose of that amount of money, yet the hon. gentleman is able to show a deficit of that magnitude every month.
Canada may not be unique in the situation which has been created. Writing in the Washington Review, Richard Whelan outlined what, in his view, is the reason for the decline of the American dollar against other world currencies. According to him, when all is said and done you get down to one word, and that word is "confidence". The investment community, he says, has no confidence in the policies of the government so we have witnessed a slide of the U.S. dollar as against other world currencies. Mr. Speaker, if that is a slide, the Canadian dollar has been plummeting. Mr. Whelan writes:
The crisis the western democracies are facing is due to the fact that the governments of the west have not clearly told their electorates that the expectations which were coming forward could not be reached . . . The result has been the accumulation of deficits at a rate which few of us can comprehend.
All the manipulations of the Bank of Canada will not make up for the lack of that one ingredient-confidence. No matter who is governor of the Bank of Canada, no matter who is Minister of Finance, until the people of Canada have confidence in their government again we shall not be able to extricate ourselves from the economic morass in which we are floundering.
I believe there is another symptom of our present economic ills, and maybe many who sit in this House are not aware of it. But surely we are all conscious of the barrage of advertisements which come to our attention with respect to lotteries, whether regional, provincial or national. Lotteries have been set up as a supposedly painless method of taxation. All the statistics indicate that the people who buy lottery tickets most, as a proportion of the total population, are those in the lower income groups. These people, far from investing money which they can afford-if one could ever call lotteries an investment-are using money which should be going to provide essentials for their families. I know we cannot legislate ways in
October 23, 1978

which people should spend their money and I am not suggesting we should. What I am pointing out is that governments now look upon lotteries as a method of raising substantial amounts of revenue.
This is a further illustration of the serious economic state in which we find ourselves-governments resorting to schemes of this kind to pay for projects which should be legitimate objects of expenditure. Governments of all stripes and at all levels are beginning to think of lotteries as a painless way of raising money. I say this is a reflection of moral weakness. It is not my intention to create a straw man-


An hon. Member:: That is not a straw man; that is a villain.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: My hon. friend is correct. It is time for all of us to face hard facts. We must realize we cannot continue to carry on as we have been doing. It is not only the economists who are warning us, it is the so-called little people who have been saying to us: you had better be listening because we are fed up. Perhaps members on the government side did not get that message this summer, but as I went through my riding people were saying to me time after time: You fellows in Ottawa had better get your house in order. They know about proposition 13 and while they do not, perhaps, understand all the implications they do understand that the ordinary people in California had said "Enough". Indeed, in one of my smaller municipalities the people passed a petition based on proposition 13 calling on the municipal council and the school board to give account of their spending. After that, the taxpayers got the facts and went home. But here in this chamber we do not get the facts. We expect them from municipal bodies and school boards but we cannot get them from a government which states publicly that it is in favour of freedom of information and open administration.
There is one other aspect upon which I should like to comment briefly. The present situation has been described by some political scientists, philosophers and economists as a crisis of governability. While previous western democracies and their people had political differences, they had common goals, and while they might have had differences in terms of degree with regard to direction, they agreed on where they wanted to take their countries.
Theoreticians have started taking note of the present situation, as have many practising politicians who are eminently more qualified to speak on this topic than I am. For instance, Senator Moynihan from New York, who is not considered a conservative, argues that narrow interest groups in society have become so powerful and so self-serving and their own interests have become so dominant that they have lost sight of the common will and the common good. These special interest groups demand special treatment, and in their desire to win re-election, governments in western democracies accede to their demands. The only desire of this government is to cling to power by its fingernails, toenails and, as somebody said, its hangnails.
Borrowing Authority Act
Western democracies are becoming a little more than cheque-writing states. In other words, we come to the government and ask for more money, and we have the false notion that that will not cost us anything and that we will be ahead of the game. Even if that were true and not a myth, it would cost our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren. It goes well beyond the Biblical injunction that God would seek the sins of the fathers to the third and fourth generation. This sin goes much beyond that. When will it be repaid?
The result of contemporary states becoming cheque-writing institutions must be deficit budgeting because we must meet people's expectations. We cannot say no. Saying no is difficult. Saying no to our children is often difficult, but I submit that it is necessary, and it is time that we said no to this government until such time as it comes forward with information. The people of Canada should say no to this government until such time as they are given the information which they are entitled to expect. They should be given that information before they are asked to put on their children and future generations further debt amounting to $17 billion.
Small groups such as those I have described practise but another form of blackmail. That takes me directly back, in my closing remarks, to the blackmail perpetrated by this government. There is a form of blackmail inherent in Bill C-7. Hon. members on the government side might scoff at that, but how long will it take before some government spokesman will get up and say that we had better pass Bill C-7, because if we do not the government will not be able to pay for unemployment insurance cheques, the rightful pensions of senior citizens, family allowances and a myriad of other programs? That is blackmail of the worst kind. I am convinced that before too many days have passed this government will use that argument, because it has not been above using it before.
When I go to my banker hat in hand asking for a loan, he is gracious to me-at least he has been in the past-but he asks for certain facts. He wants to know if what I have in mind is a good investment, not only for the bank but also for me as a customer, because he wants to continue serving me as a customer. He wants to keep me in business. He is a builder and an investor. What does this government do? It tells the Canadian people that it will give no facts or information but that it wants authority to borrow $17 billion. If the government went to a banker with that attitude and with the debt portfolio it has, I wonder if, as the banker threw the government out the door, he would open the door first.
That is but half the story. The other half is that the government is asking for authority to borrow another $10 billion in 1979-80, without giving any information. We are not even being given information regarding 1978-79. The government is asking for borrowing authority for the future. Is that responsible? Can hon. members in this House responsibly support that kind of action? I say that it is time this government accepted the responsibility it has. If it does not, the fate which awaits it at the polls, of which it is so frightened, will surely come to pass.

October 23, 1978
Business of the House


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to revert to motions.


Mr. Speaker:: The House having earlier this day given its consent to the introduction of a bill, and having agreed that at six o'clock the question about reverting to motions would be put, does the House give its unanimous consent to revert to motions, presumably for the purpose of determining whether there is consent to put a motion with respect to a bill introduced regarding the resumption of work on the Great Lakes? In order to revert to motions for that purpose at this time there would have to be unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, after consultation with the House leaders of every party we have agreed to proceed tonight at eight o'clock with the second reading stage of Bill C-ll, the bill to which Your Honour just referred, and that the motion include a provision to refer that bill to the committee of the whole.


Mr. Speaker:: It might be appropriate to be certain about that proceeding. If the motion for second reading were to be put at this time, the House should understand that the debate which is now before the House would have to be adjourned. Otherwise it would not be in order to switch from the order we are now discussing to the subject to be discussed at eight o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, before you put the motion, perhaps you could ascertain whether there is the consent which was referred to by the parliamentary secretary. I am happy to say on behalf of my party that there is that consent, but I should like to make it clear that, having seen the bill, we feel there are some serious questions we must ask, and there may even be some amendments we may wish to make. But we are prepared to proceed this evening with the debate on second reading of the bill, and we are prepared for the reference to be to committee of the whole House.


Walter David Baker: As I indicated earlier, we are prepared to proceed, Mr. Speaker.


Yvon Pinard: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Also, I have told the House leaders of the possibility of amendments being put forward during the committee of the whole stage to two clauses of the bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Consent having been given, first, to reverting to motions, and second, as was now indicated, that the motion be put before the house that this bill be read the second time

and referred to committee of the whole House, that order will be taken up at eight o'clock. It was also agreed and so ordered that the debate on the measure before the House until six o'clock this afternoon be now adjourned. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, when you went on to another subject matter, I was seeking the floor. I think that should be noted.


Mr. Speaker:: It is noted that the next member to be recognized in the debate that was adjourned just now is the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton).


SHIPPING CONTINUATION ACT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Andr£ Ouellet (Acting Minister of Labour) moved that Bill C-ll, to provide for the resumption and continuation of shipping on the Great Lakes and certain other waters, be read the second time and referred to committee of the whole.
Mr. Speaker:: It being after six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At 6.05 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on behalf of the hon. Acting Minister of Labour (Mr. Ouellet). He is necessarily somewhere else at this moment, but of course will join us as soon as possible.
The Bill is a very important one. The House has known that this situation was an important problem for some little time. I want to speak only briefly about it because I hope we have the spirit to move it forward as quickly as possible, yet, a few things need to be said about the bill.
Hon. members will not need to be told that I was very much aware, throughout the beginning of the strike and into its first days, that a strike such as this on the Great Lakes, involving the movement of shipping on our important inland waterway, could have very serious impact upon the economy of the country. I was troubled by that from the first, as many members of the House were. Yet there were other interests and questions at stake.
We have a legal system and understanding in which parties involved in collective bargaining have the right and obligation to attempt to arrive at an agreement between themselves. That
October 23, 1978

legal system allows for some help to be applied on their behalf through particularly the Department of Labour and its minister. That assistance was applied at various stages. In particular a conciliator was appointed. In due course he brought down his report, one which was not the basis for a settlement in the opinion of the parties. Thus, a breakdown occurred which led to the possibility of a strike.
I am sure Your Honour knows the law. We have collective bargaining. We have parties attempting to reach an agreement. When they fail to do so, the Minister of Labour may appoint a conciliator. When his report is in, it may be acceptable to the parties or not. If it is, clearly it is the basis of a settlement. If it is not, then after seven days the parties have the legal right to strike, to lock-out, to enter into a confrontation which is hurtful to them and unfortunately harmful to many other parties. Because it is harmful to many other parties, very often it is easy to ask immediately that the process be interrupted at the very beginning and that the strike be ended.
In this country, as in so many others, we have the right to strike. It was developed by labour unions forming and working together in the early days in conditions when it was a fight against oppression which led them to seek the right to strike and to fight. In those early days, typically the strike was illegal. In its beginnings it was by nature illegal, but it was resorted to because of the strong feelings of individuals that their rights were being overrun within our broad legal system.
In recent days I have had occasion to say a number of times that our democratic system depends not on sanctions and the power of the law so much as it depends upon the willingness of individuals, all citizens, to obey that law. That is a state of mind, a view and an attitude on the part of people which we must guard very zealously over time. The strike, illegal in its historic inception, became a legal weapon when it was recognized that alternatives were not easy to find. To this very day we have not yet found fully adequate alternatives to the weapon of the strike. Thus, we have maintained in our law, until such day as parliament assembled finds another way, collective bargaining, and the possibility of strike and lock-out if that bargaining fails.
In this particular case the bargaining failed; the assistance of the minister in the form of a conciliation report did not achieve an agreement; the parties stood apart and began a strike. Once again, the Minister of Labour intervened to bring mediation to bear and to recommence talks between the parties. Initially there were two unions involved in this matter and a single employer, and bargaining was ongoing with both. It was not easy bargaining. In the beginning, after the Minister of Labour brought them together one of the unions did not show up for the discussions. On the other hand, the Canadian Lake Carriers Association and the deck officers began their bargaining, and after a few days in fact did reach an agreement. Bargaining continued with the engineers who are involved in this particular legislation. As long as there was a chance of agreement without drastic harm being done to the country, it seemed correct in the public interest to let the
Shipping Continuation Act
bargaining continue in the hope of a solution being arrived at between the parties.
Of course, the problem and the danger to the country was growing. A short strike has less danger inherent in it because with the reserves of supplies, stockpiling, etc., the lack of movement of iron ore and other products would not immediately cause drastic unemployment and economic repercussions in the various industries. Even in the case of grain there is an advantage as long as the strike is short, so that grain could continue to move into Thunder Bay, our great terminal location for export to the east, and in its usual volume. Thunder Bay had been very low in stocks, and in the next few months we might have seen some problems in having enough stocks there to meet the exports we were trying to achieve. But as long as these stocks could arrive, we would have some catch-up potential, and the stocks would be there.
However, the day was coming when this situation would change. I was given the word today that this could happen in another day or so, and the movement of grain into Thunder Bay could not have continued as quickly as before. That we would have lost some movement into export temporarily is beyond a doubt. That is a price we pay for the collective bargaining process, with strike as a weapon in it. That is also undoubted.
Even today during the course of the question period the Acting Minister of Labour said that bargaining was continuing, and as long as it was, and he and I both knew that meant with any realistic hope of settlement, it was wise to wait a little longer. But an hour or two later we got word that the negotiations had, indeed, broken off, and that it now looked as though settlement was impossible. We immediately decided that the time had come to introduce legislation into the House and to seek approval of the House as quickly as possible in respect of that legislation. Once this step is taken, once a move in the House of Commons is chosen as the technique for settlement of the strike in place of the collective bargaining process, then surely the more quickly we act the better it must be.
We have presented to the House a bill which proposes a system for the ending of this strike immediately, and a manner of developing the collective bargaining agreement, the final agreement, between the parties. I urge members to support that bill. We will, indeed, in the course of the deliberations concerning the bill be proposing some amendments. I should say that some are simply clarifications, but others are to be proposed simply because the printed form of the bill could not contain them in light of the most recent developments which have occurred.
The one in particular to which I would refer hon. members is a proposal in connection with the clause concerning the term of the collective bargaining agreement, clause 4(1), in which the present term is indicated as continuing an agreement expiring on May 31, 1979. In light of the settlement between the same employer and the deck officers, it seems more

October 23, 1978
Shipping Continuation Act
appropriate to give the arbitrator the flexibility to take into account that settlement in full, including its term. Therefore, we will propose at the appropriate point to move an amendment which will allow the arbitrator to extend that term from June 1, 1979, to May 31, 1980. That is the term which is contained in the deck officers' agreement with the same employer. I think hon. members will appreciate the advantage of allowing that option to the arbitrator instead of confining him to the original straightforward year which was set out in the bill, and which had been developed, if not drafted in final form, before these latest developments had occurred.
It is not with gladness that we ever ask parliament in this way to end a strike, but with the feeling that the public interest will be served, recognizing the harm that might befall the economy if this strike continues-and some members will say too much harm has already befallen it-and recognizing also the importance of the collective bargaining vehicle and the need generally to have people in our society accepting that the law is moving when it ought to move and in a manner in which it ought to move.
I believe the very restraint in allowing the collective bargaining process to develop tends to assure that there will be compliance with this expression of parliament's will. That is extremely important. We know that in the face of another situation which demonstrates that, although people may all too easily think that the law can be a mechanism for causing certain things to happen, the law has its own limitations based upon our constant desire to respect the liberties of individuals and to assure that we move in a careful and guarded manner.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, with this indication of an intention to move an amendment in regard to term-and there will be a couple of others, but only in regard to language and the like- on behalf of the Acting Minister of Labour I am pleased to move second reading of this bill. I ask the House to consider it now, in all its stages if possible, as quickly as possible, so that since parliament has been asked to intervene we move quickly to put an end to this dispute.


Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, in rising tonight to answer the Minister of Transport and Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang), and minister of other portfolios as well in the place of the Acting Minister of Labour (Mr. Ouellet), I must say-and I am sorry I have to say this-I have never in my life listened to a pack of sententious baloney such as we have just listened to tonight with the introduction of this piece of legislation. It may well be that the Acting Minister of Labour is late and is tied up somewhere else, and that does not surprise me a bit; but surely we should not have to listen to a professorial lecture on the collective bargaining system and why we now have to move, why nothing was done before, the fact that we do not have the structures in place to do anything better than what we are doing.
In this regard I would point to the fact that over the last decade there have been the recommendations of the Woods committee, recommendations that the Acting Minister of Labour told the Senate the other night are under active consideration, which the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Tru-

deau) later in this House of Commons denied. These have been things advocated by the official opposition for many years. For the minister to come into this House and tell us there is no better way, that this is the way we have to do it, is just too much for hon. members to have to listen to with any patience.
If I lose my patience at the beginning of my speech it is only because this long night, and it may be a long one, is going to require all of the rest of my patience-and I have a great deal-in order to see this bill through.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Allen Fraser: I hear some noise from the government side.


An hon. Member:: Make your speech.


John Allen Fraser: That is all it is. The government does not have anything to be very proud of tonight. We come here tonight less than one week after we passed a piece of legislation that has not been obeyed. We asked the government when they would appoint a mediator-arbitrator and we were told it would be within hours, but it was done only today. We were asked to pass this other piece of legislation because the public was entitled to mail service, but nearly everybody in the country knows that something much more substantive, intelligent and sophisticated should have been done many months ago.
Tonight we are suddenly asked to pass this legislation. We have listened to a lecture from the Minister of Justice, who is also the Minister of Transport and is speaking for the Acting Minister of Labour. We are asked to pass this legislation when the government does not even have a Minister of Labour. There is nothing personal in saying this, because the Acting Minister of Labour is working hard, but there is no permanent Minister of Labour. We are asked to go along with the government against a backdrop of back to work legislation that is being openly defied. The Minister of Justice has told us for several days that there are certain remedies available as against the postal workers, but he cannot seem to define what they are in terms of back to work steps or disciplinary action.
Against this entire backdrop, Mr. Speaker, we listened to this speech by the Minister of Justice, who told us that this is the only way things can be done. The fact is that if this is the only way things can be done, this House is going to become nothing but a tribunal for settling labour disputes. That is the very thing that all hon. members, if they are honest with each other, would say this House is incapable of being.
I and my party recognize that the situation we are in tonight is very serious. Winter is coming. When the minister said that action had to be taken, there is concurrence for that on this side of the House. Just the other day, however, in asking the minister why he was getting excited only now, if he had known for three months what the effect of a breakdown in the negotiations would be, he had no answer except to say that the government had been monitoring the situation closely and was fully aware of what the economic consequences would be. Yet the government says this is the only way we can proceed. It
October 23, 1978

rejects out of hand the recommendations of the Woods royal commission which years ago recognized that there has to be a better method.
In situations in which these disputes go down to the final crunch, as this one has tonight, hon. members are completely and utterly dependent on the information which the government gives them. It was obvious less than a week ago that the information hon. members were given upon which Bill C-8 was put through to reinstate postal service in this country was somewhat less than the calibre of accuracy that is demanded in this House.
We are in agreement with one thing the minister has said, and that is that we are facing serious economic loss. Some of the figures are worth relating. The Canadian Wheat Board is now behind over 3.5 to four million tonnes of grain which must be shipped before December 15. There is nearly $500 million in costs, and it has been estimated that if this grain does not go through before freeze-up the economic cost to the country will be approximately $1 billion. Producers are losing $10 million a day, and some ship owners say that they are facing losses of more than $200,000 a day.
It is not just a matter of economic loss. There are approximately 2,100 seamen who face being laid off. With an unemployment level of nearly one million in this country, this is not the time to be laying off another 2,100 people who have to support their families. The economic impact of this withdrawal of service is obvious to everyone, but what is hard to understand is why it has taken so long for the government of the day, a government that has been in power for over a decade, to recognize that this ad hoc method of dealing with such situations is not satisfactory, and, as we are finding out with the legislation we passed a week ago, it does not even work very well.
There are certain questions which must be asked tonight. My party will want to know before this legislation passes-and the minister cannot quarrel with us for asking these questions-if they actually have an arbitrator, a person who is prepared to act or who has given an undertaking to the government that he or she will act in this capacity. We will want to know whether there has been any discussion with the union involved as to whether or not the union executive and the rank and file of that union are prepared to obey the law. This country cannot tolerate two pieces of back to work legislation passed within the space of one week which are not going to be obeyed.
We would also like to know, Mr. Speaker, what is the assessment of damage which the minister referred to when I directed a question in this regard to him the other day. We want to hear more about this because one of the things that is essential for the public and the labour movement to understand is the economic assessment of the damages, information which the minister has said the government has.
We do not intend to throw procedural roadblocks in the way of this bill. It is too important to too many people and to the economy of Canada. But it is very strange to listen to the minister tell us tonight that when the government was asked in
Shipping Continuation Act
question period today whether they were going to introduce legislation, the answer was, "Not as long as negotiations are continuing." One would wonder whether the government in giving that answer was being somewhat less than frank with the opposition and with the public of Canada. The speed with which this bill was brought before the House makes us ask whether or not the government knew prior to question period today that there was no hope of negotiations continuing.
I want to emphasize that we will want satisfaction from the minister when it comes to committee of the whole. I know the minister will not object when I say that we want to be satisfied that there was no possibility of the negotiations continuing, that in fact there have been some commitments to the government that the law will be obeyed and that-and this is very important in view of the fact that the same is not happening in the postal strike-the government is in a position to back up the legislation.
Tonight the minister made much of the fact that the law must be accepted. That is true. In the long run, in a free community that is the only kind of law that will last. One of the things that decides whether the law is accepted is whether anybody can be sure it will be obeyed. We will want to be sure that this is not a toothless bill.
We intend to ask a lot of questions at committee of the whole, Mr. Speaker. We will not throw any procedural roadblocks in the way of the bill but we cannot help commenting that the present system of dealing with disputes of this kind is not satisfactory. We have advocated a better way but until the last few days the government, despite the fact they say they have been examining it, have rejected it. The proposals we put forward have the backing of a royal commission on labour-management relations in Canada.
We have had a decade of experience which indicates that this ad hoc method of dealing with matters is not satisfactory and does nothing to enhance labour relations. Indeed, every speech made by members of this government before they bring in legislation rescinding the right to withdraw services is preceded by the pious statement that the government believes in the right to free collective bargaining and the right to strike.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, what the government proposes in this bill tonight is not simply to order some workers on the Great Lakes ships back to work. In effect, what the government is doing tonight and what it did a week ago is to destroy the fundamental principle of collective bargaining which has existed in this country for almost 50 years.
Back in the 1920s when that great Liberal leader, former prime minister, former friend and co-worker of the Rockefellers in the United States, and one of the original instigators of the notorious company unions, Mr. Mackenzie King, gave workers in Canada in the private sector the right to strike, it was more hedged around with rules, regulations and proce-

October 23, 1978
Shipping Continuation Act
dures than is the case with any other country in the democratic world.
It should be remembered that workers in the private sector of the economy who want to go on strike have to follow a very carefully constructed and elaborate set of procedures. They have to try to negotiate with their employers. If they cannot reach an agreement they have to ask for a conciliator appointed by the government. If the conciliator cannot bring the parties together, the government appoints a conciliation board with one representative of the union, one representative of the employers and a chairman who is either agreed upon by both parties or, if they cannot agree, is appointed by the government. Only after the conciliation board has made a report and recommendations, and only if members of the unions do not believe that the recommendations are adequate or if the company will not accept the report, can the workers decide on a legal strike. That has been the procedure for many, many years.
It was only in 1967 that workers in the private sector were given the right to collective bargaining. That right is embodied in the Public Service Staff Relations Act which had the approval of almost all the members of the political parties represented in the parliament of that time. The bill provided that government employees had the right to belong to unions of their choice, the right to bargain with their employer, the government, on many important issues, although it excluded some, and that they could in the course of their negotiations choose to reach a final settlement either by arbitration or by exercising their right to strike. In most cases the unions opted for arbitration as the final way of settling disputes with the government.
In the case of the postal workers, they opted for the right to strike. Last week we saw the postal workers, having bargained for some 18 months without reaching an agreement-indeed, having dozens if not hundreds of clauses in their agreement not settled-opting for the right to strike. I am not discussing whether their demands were exorbitant, but they were exercising the right the parliament of Canada had given them if they could not reach an agreement. On the first day of their strike the government introduced a bill and passed legislation ordering them back to work.
I am not going to discuss the sorry results of the government's decision, Mr. Speaker. I am not going to discuss whether the government should have known that the postal workers would not obey the law immediately and go back to work. Whether the government gave consideration to that, I do not know, but on the first day the workers in the post office went on strike the government brought in legislation to end it.
I said on that day, and I repeat, that if a government believes there is any group of workers whose service is so important they cannot be permitted to strike, then the government should pass legislation along that line. Workers have the same rights as other citizens to know what the rules of the game are; they ought not to have the rules changed in the middle of the game.

The bill before us tonight flows from a dispute between two unions of workers and the companies, the Canadian Lake Carriers Association. They went through the process of collective bargaining and could not reach an agreement, so the government appointed a conciliator who made a recommendation that the workers should receive an increase of 10'/5 per cent in the first year, and that in the second year they should get an increase of 2 per cent plus whatever the cost of living increase is in that year.
I suggest to members of the House that this is not an exorbitant amount. After all, the cost of living in the past year has gone up by almost 10 per cent. There is no indication that the increase in the cost of living will lessen in the next year. The only people arguing that are those on the Anti-Inflation Board who have consistently been wrong for the last two years. That being the case, the workers and their unions were not asking for too much when they asked for this kind of increase over the next two years. The conciliator was not being overly generous when he made that recommendation.
What happened? Did the Lake Carriers Association reject that proposal because they could not afford it, their customers could not afford it or their profits were too low? No. The Lake Carriers Association clothed themselves in a cloak of virtue and said they would not agree to the conciliator's recommendation because it would be inflationary.
1 have never heard of a company stating that it would not increase the price of its product because to do so would be inflationary. Bank profits went up all through the period in which we had the so-called anti-inflation program. In fact, they went up between 20 per cent and 25 per cent a year. The paper companies are reaping unprecedented profits, thanks in large part to the devalued Canadian dollar. Their profits are enormous. Have they decided to hold their price because they are already making enough money? No, Mr. Speaker, they increased their price very substantially. At the same time, their workers were forced to accept a relatively low increase in wages because the anti-inflation guidelines would not permit a larger increase.
I want to point out an interesting fact. One paper company that is showing remarkable profits is Consolidated Bathurst. It has reaped the benefits of increased prices. This has resulted in a very large increase in their profits. Consolidated Bathurst is controlled by Power Corporation, the president of which is Paul Desmarais. Wearing his hat as head of Consolidated Bathurst, Mr. Desmarais does not hesitate to raise the price of paper. However, wearing his hat as head of Canada Steamship Lines, he says they cannot agree to the increase which the conciliator has recommended because it would be inflationary. That is a very specious argument.
I am not surprised that we are having the difficulties we are. I do not have any inside information. However, it should be obvious that in the next year or two this country will have a series of strikes the likes of which we have never seen before. The workers of this country will not agree to a 6 per cent
October 23, 1978

increase, which is what the government proposes, while the cost of living is going up by between 9 per cent and 10 per cent.
To do that voluntarily would be agreeing in advance to a reduction in their standard of living. The workers of Canada will not make that sacrifice voluntarily if they are the only group in this country to do so. They are watching very carefully while corporation after corporation increases its prices and its profits and their standard of living is reduced.
We in principle do not like this kind of legislation. We believe that as part of the democratic system workers have the right to belong to unions and to bargain collectively. There has not as yet been devised a system which works better than the one in which workers have, as a last resort, the right to go on strike if they cannot settle their differences with their employers amicably.
The spokesman for the official opposition again today, as he has done on other occasions, said that there must be better ways. There are better ways. Other countries have tried other ways. Australia and New Zealand had a system of compulsory arbitration 50 years ago. It did not work too badly when the economy was relatively prosperous, when both employees and employers could agree on how to divide the benefits of the industry in which they were involved. However, that system broke down very seriously as soon as the economy went into a recession and it became obvious there were real differences between employer and employee.
We are therefore skeptical of any proposals made either in parliament or outside by academics or industrial relations experts with regard to systems which would supposedly work better than the one we have. Every citizen of Canada knows that when there is a strike, either in the private or the public sector, it hurts somebody. Workers do not go on strike easily. Like everyone else, they must earn a living. They need their weekly pay cheque to pay their bills.
Even when there is strike pay, and there usually is not, it is substantially less than a worker receives while on the job. Therefore, they do not go on strike frivolously. The proof is that more than 95 per cent of the negotiations which go on between union and employers result in a settlement without resorting to a strike.
We are opposed to legislation laying down procedures which prohibit a strike before it takes place. We are less than enthused about legislation which orders workers in the public or private sector back to work. I may disagree with the minister about whether or not he should bring in a bill. However, I am surprised when he brings in a bill which leaves the arbitrator to decide on the terms.
I do not know why the minister did not include the proposals of the conciliator in the bill. 1 believe they were reasonable. Possibly they are not acceptable to the companies. If the terms had been acceptable to the companies but not the union, I wonder whether they would have been included in the bill. With this minister, I believe they would have been. The reason they are not is that they are relatively favourable to the union.
Shipping Continuation Act
In the last week we have witnessed the beginning of a very serious trend in this country. We have witnessed the end of collective bargaining as we have known it. Some members will undoubtedly say that collective bargaining as we have known it does not work. I say it has worked in an overwhelming majority of cases. Those who say it is not working have yet to come up with a better system.
The government has known for months that there could be trouble in the post office, in the shipping industry and, I suppose, in other industries. Yet nothing was done; no effort was made to work out a policy which would be acceptable to the unions.
Let me say a word about what I take to be the implications of the speech of the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) on behalf of the official opposition. I do not believe for a moment one could get the co-operation of labour by setting up some sort of board or commission comprising some representatives of labour in the hope it would remove the necessity for strike action. Observers outside parliament who have discussed this question and compared Canada's record in the field of strikes and labour relations unfavourably with that of Sweden or Germany point to those countries and say that that is the way in which things should be done. But they take into consideration only one of the aspects having to do with strikes and labour-management negotiations. What they forget, or carefully omit to point out, is that in Sweden and Germany governments consult with the labour movement on all questions of economic and social concern to the ordinary people in those countries. They consult with the people with regard to obtaining full employment, measures dealing with inflation, the pension system and the social security system. They make labour a partner in the way government is run. In a similar fashion, they consult with industry.
This is never done in Canada. The only time labour is ever consulted is during a crisis when a group of workers in an industry to which the public is sensitive attempts to exercise its right under the law to go on strike. When that happens, the government gets into a panic and runs to labour with the plea: do something to stop this strike because it may be disastrous. Mr. Speaker, it may be disastrous in the short-run but it is a symptom of a deep-seated sickness which should have been dealt with much earlier. The government has never attempted to do this. It has never consulted with the workers or their unions with regard to any of the important questions which concern ordinary people.
Today, for the second time in a week we are presented with a bill ordering a group of workers to return to work though they are engaged in a legal strike. I do not know whether, when this legislation is passed, the government will have more success than it has experienced with the postal workers. I do not know what discussions are going on now, not only concerning this particular issue but concerning other and broader issues which affect workers in the shipping industry. I am not hopeful, because I see that the track record of the government

October 23, 1978
Shipping Continuation Act
is not good. They have gone to bat twice and they have struck out once and I am not at all sure they will not strike out a second time.
One of my hon. friends says the party opposite is an anti-labour party, and I am inclined to agree with him. I had always thought it was an anti-labour party but hon. members over there succeeded in disguising the fact. They are now showing themselves in their true colours. As they see it, the people who will be asked to bear the burdens of the ruinous economic policies they have followed for the last half a dozen or more years are the one million unemployed and the several million organized workers who do have jobs but who will be forced by legislation, or by whatever means the government can work out, to accept reductions in their real standard of living. That being the case I have no great hopes for the legislation before us.


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few comments on the bill the government introduced at six o'clock tonight. Hon. members are all fully aware of the fact that this House has repeatedly had to deal with bills of that type. As recently as last week, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) introduced a bill to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services.
Mr. Speaker, introduction of such a bill surely proves one thing: that our labour legislation does not, by far, meet our current needs. It is unfortunate that the government has to resort to such procedures especially when it granted them the right to strike. Mr. Speaker, the introduction of this bill means that the government has recognized at last the urgency of the situation and the need to intervene to settle that problem which is as serious as the postal strike for all Canadians, especially the heavy losses that the Canadian economy could suffer in such conflict. However, as in the past, the government is unable to enforce the necessary measures.
In rising to speak on that bill, Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to blame the worker, on the contrary. We must blame the present economic system which is responsible for such problems. We only have to look around to note that strikes are increasing at a frightening speed. There was the recent strike of Air Canada flight personnel, we now have the postal conflict as well as the one we are discussing this evening and we will surely have others in a few weeks. I sincerely believe the government must take a stand in order to put an end to this dispute and take measures to avoid such situations in the future.
Mr. Speaker, it is no wonder that such strikes cause considerable losses to the Canadian economy, but do the workers have to take the blame for it? No, Mr. Speaker, that would be too simple. It would not solve the problem anyway because this is not the first time such things occur. On the contrary, we have been the victims of such breakdowns for years. The step the government has just taken by introducing this bill is likely

to allow our economy to function, more or less, for some time. I must also say the government should not limit itself to playing the part of a fire squad getting to the scene of a fire too late. The government must also be preventive. It must pass measures likely to eliminate the possibility of such situations.
Mr. Speaker, at this stage of the debate, I wonder if passing this bill will solve the problem we are facing now. As for me, I say no. Will that make the workers concerned go back to work? I doubt it. That, Mr. Speaker, will definitely not improve the situation, on the contrary it will only aggravate it. Let us take for example the acute problem in the Post Office after the passage of the legislation brought in last week by the the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, a bill to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services. The union chose to challenge the law. Injunctions are being resorted to. We are witnessing civil disobedience, disorder, confusion, in short, anarchy!
I feel it is high time that the government take its responsibilities and see that the solutions advocated by my party for many years are adopted. Indeed, we the Social Credit Party of Canada are convinced that with our solutions the government would ensure greater co-operation between labour and management since in most cases workers resort to strike in order to get more purchasing power. When we realize that our government is now unable to control inflation, that inflation and salaries inci ,ase considerably while workers salaries increase slowly, there is no doubt about it. Strikes are the logical consequence of that situation. Mr. Speaker, before concluding, I would like to make three suggestions to the present government. First of all, I have a suggestion which would contribute to establish better relationships between employers and employees. It is a formula whereby the workers would share in the profits of the company, thus, enabling them to participate in the development of Canadian businesses.
Here is my second solution. For years, our party has been asking for the establishment of a permanent arbitration board with a power to make decisions without appeal. This board would consist of three arbitrators, the first being appointed by the employer, the second by the unions and the third by public authorities. Thanks to that regular and permanent mechanism it would be possible to achieve social peace in an orderly way, through the prevention of such conflicts even before they arise. That would eliminate the necessity of going before Parliament each time to pass a special legislation, which makes the right to strike inefficient and inoperative, and which leads to bandage solutions, as in the present case, when there are strikes and no settlements in sight; this only serves to widen the gap between workers and employer, which tomorrow maybe too wide to fill.
I would therefore offer a third solution, Mr. Speaker. I seriously believe that the guaranteed minimum income and compensated discount formula, put forth and defended by my party for many years, would greatly help in solving such
October 23, 1978

problems because that formula would allow workers in general to increase their wages without influencing prices, since we live in a vicious circle where inflation forces workers to resort to strike action if they are denied the increases asked for through normal channels.
I therefore believe, Mr. Speaker, that the present government should take its responsibilities and react as a good government should. It should apply the theories of the Social Credit Party of Canada as regards the cost of living and labor management relations and that would certainly restore social peace among our people.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a very brief point of order. I would like to indicate to the House that in speaking about the amendment which I propose to move at line four of page three I concluded my words with the date 1980 when I meant the date 1981, to bring it into line with the settlement with the lakers. I wanted to give the House notice of that error on my part.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to say a few words about the bill which has been brought into the House tonight. 1 can understand the absence of the Acting Minister of Labour (Mr. Ouellet).


Some hon. Members:: Here he is now.


John R. Rodriguez: Oh, he is back. I know that he is a busy minister because this is the second time in less than a week that we have this kind of legislation before us, which tells us that the government is incapable of dealing with the collective bargaining process, whether it be in the public sector or in the private sector. I do not know if I should say I am happy because it means a cost to taxpayers, but I see bureaucrats from the Department of Labour here tonight making all kinds of overtime.
It is interesting that once again we are dealing with back to work legislation. This time it is not in the public sector but in the private sector, and I wonder how this government will handle some of the problems which will arise after putting this kind of legislation into effect.
Even now as I stand here the government has its injunctions in the postal dispute in Halifax and Montreal, but the police forces in those places are refusing to serve them. I wonder how the government will solve that kind of problem once it has passed this back to work legislation. It seems to me that there are shades of 1919 all over again. I suppose we will have to get the RCMP to get out their horses. The RCMP will now enforce the law. The lawbreakers will enforce the law. Over the next couple of weeks there will be an interesting kettle of fish to observe.
I cannot help but comment on the sanctimonious and phony attitude of members of the official opposition. They talk much about bringing in the Woods committee report. The Woods
Shipping Continuation Act
committee report is nothing but a dressed up compulsory arbitration program. It certainly is not a recognition of free collective bargaining.
Here we are tonight putting marine engineers back to work, and we wonder who will be next. What will be the next thing to be declared an essential operation? Who is going to be declared essential? I suspect that every occupational group could be considered essential. After two days of a garbage strike garbage collection is very essential. If certain services are essential, then it seems to me there should be some process of free collective bargaining long before parliament puts workers back on the job.
It seems to me that this habit is becoming very regular. It is the second time in a week. Surely the whole question of free collective bargaining, the notion of bargaining in good faith, will be thrown out the window by employers in the private sector if they get the impression that parliament is prepared to step in and put workers back to work the minute they set off on a strike. There is not an evening that I turn on the TV set to watch the news that I do not hear of a strike here and a strike there. It shows the irresponsibility of the media, both print and electronic, when all that is ever reported is strikes. They never report the fact that 95 per cent of all collective bargaining ends in an amicable solution, that in effect only a small number of processes end by way of the strike route.
The question must be raised, and it must be raised squarely. Here are workers who two and a half years ago were accused of putting Canada into an uncompetitive position with respect to trade in the world. Workers were dumped on in this country and blamed for causing inflation. We were all aware of Gallup polls and all sorts of other polls which said that the problem with the economy of Canada is big trade unions, then big government, and somewhere after Idi Amin came big corporations. There was a bias, catered to by the two big parties, the Liberals and the Conservatives, at both the federal and provincial levels, which dumped on labour, dumped on the working class in this country, so that even workers started blaming each other for the economic mess in which we find ourselves.
Under this guise the government brought in wage controls and for two years they controlled the workers' wages. While they controlled wages and held them to an average increase of 6 per cent, when corporate profits were increasing at an average of 16 per cent, they did not do a very good job of controlling corporate profits. But they sure as hell controlled workers' wages. So whom do they blame now because the inflation rate is as high as it was at the time when the controls were brought in? They blame the public sector employees. They are not going to be the lead dogs. We saw a great program launched by this government saying in effect that the government would not allow public sector employees in this country to be the lead dogs for increases in the private sector. But when you examine the facts, you find that in comparing positions in the public sector with those in the private sector, in every single instance-we are not talking about the level of

October 23, 1978
Shipping Continuation Act
deputy ministers-in the private sector wages are higher than in the public sector.
These are the facts, and yet this government continues to allow the public servants of this country to take it on the chin. It continues to treat them as scapegoats, which leads me to suspect that there is a Machiavellian plot in existence between the Bay Street boys, the corporate boys, and the front benches of this government, that somehow or other they will start an attack on the trade union movement, an attack on the collective bargaining process, and an attack on public sector employees.
The question then must be raised-and it is a legitimate one in my opinion-who will be next? Will it be the Inco workers? Will they be deprived of the right to free collective bargaining? That question has to be answered.
I must say that I find the official opposition to be very phony on this issue. They are trying to play super crotch on this issue. They are all for collective bargaining, but they are also for compulsory arbitration. It is like the definition of a lady of the night; she works both sides of the street. That is the kind of game they want to play; they want to work both sides of the street.
I heard the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek) give a speech in Toronto in which he said we should remove the right to strike from the public sector. Yet all parties in the House, may I remind hon. members, voted to give public servants the right to strike. There was not a "nay" from the official opposition or from the government. They all agreed that the public sector should have that right. But the minute that the public service exercises the right to strike, lo and behold, after CUPW is on strike for only one day, this government shows how tough it is. It puts the workers back to work after only one day of strike.
It seems to me that the government has lost any rapport it had with the trade union movement in this country, and the official opposition is in no position, given the kinds of phony positions they take on labour issues in the House and in committees of the House, to engender in the trade union movement any sort of confidence that they are sensitive to the problems of the working class in this country. For example, they can never enter into a social contact with them, and that is one thing that distinguishes the group on this side of the House from groups on other sides of the House. They have no rapport with the working class.
Just last week I was in Windsor speaking to 500 members of the United Auto Workers, and I listened to the concerns those workers were expressing at the convention. They were concerned about plant closings, about technological change, about how it affected their employment, about the mobility of capital which could move them from a highly industrialized northern state to a southern state where right to work legislation and other kinds of anti-labour legislation are practised. Our workers were expressing the same concerns as well regarding the mobility of capital which permitted the moving of part plants from Canada to the southern United States and other countries abroad.
These are the concerns of our workers, but does the government come to grips with these concerns? Does it try in its legislation to give workers the right to negotiate technological change? No, it uses all sorts of little flimflam excuses and says: You cannot discuss technological change because you are under the PSSRA. These are concerns with which they have not come to grips. That we have the kind of mess that exists in terms of industrial relations in this country is because they do not understand and they are not sensitive to workers. The cabinet, the whole front bench, reads like a who's who from Bay Street.
When I look at those who want to replace them-one has just been elected in Ottawa Centre-we find that in that one case he was an adviser to Richard Nixon. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that that should give every worker a chill right up the back of his spine. These are the people who expect to be sensitive to labour in this country. No, sir, they will say to labour: "That is your place, boy. If you do not stay in your place, parliament will put you back to work."
I think they have embarked on a dangerous path. Tonight the government is faced with the situation of police forces in this country not carrying out the injunctions they have been told to carry out. So you have a law abiding group of citizens, 23,000 of them, who feel in their heart of hearts that they have to resort to civil disobedience. Why? Because the government has failed completely to deal effectively with the situation long before the strike took place. The government had 18 months in which to deal effectively with the problem in the post office, but it left it to the last minute. Then after one day of strike, the government turned around and brought in back to work legislation.
I cannot support in principle compulsory arbitration. It is a band-aid approach. It is a principle which will never be accepted by my party. It does not solve the problems down the road. In fact, we took the same position regarding the CUPW legislation. It takes away the right of workers to negotiate a solution to a particular problem. If parliament is prepared to jump in at the first sign that negotiations are breaking down, then free collective bargaining will be destroyed for the forsee-able future in Canada. It is a principle which is against the beliefs of the New Democratic Party.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters).


Yvon Pinard: Inadvertently Your Honour did not see me rise and seek the floor. I suggest that it should be the turn of a member of this side, if Your Honour does not mind. May I be recognized, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I saw no one rise on the Liberal side of the House, so I recognized the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters). If the hon. parliamentary secretary is seeking the floor, I will recognize him.

October 23, 1978


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 6(5)(a), I move that the sitting be extended after normal hours to consider the various stages of this bill, according to the rules.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It has been moved by the hon. parliamentary secretary that the sitting be prolonged in order to study the remaining stages of the legislation under the rules. Standing Order 6(5)(a) reads as follows:
When Mr. Speaker is in the chair, a member may propose a motion, without notice, to continue a sitting through a lunch or dinner hour or beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for the purpose of considering a specified item of business or a stage or stages thereof subject to the following conditions:
Standing Order 6(5)(b) reads as follows:
When Mr. Speaker puts the question on such motion, he shall ask those members who object to rise in their places. If ten or more members then rise, the motion shall be deemed to have been withdrawn, otherwise, the motion shall have been adopted.
Is there any objection?


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is my understanding that under Standing Order 74 we are allowed to proceed only with the reading before us and an additional reading because of the major conflict which has been pointed out by Your Honour before. The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) might have been better advised to follow the fairly satisfactory practice of asking for unanimous consent, rather than using Standing Order 6.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the hon. member read the motion. The chosen wording indicates that we want to proceed with all stages according to the rules. If there is a later discussion as to whether we can or cannot proceed with third reading, then we can look at the rules, and if it is a matter of emergency, according to the rules we can proceed. This should be discussed later on. The motion was to deal with all stages allowed by the Standing Orders, and there is nothing wrong with that.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the House has extended the hour because it provides me with an opportunity to talk an additional 40 minutes which otherwise would not have been possible tonight.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Arnold Peters: If this type of legislation is used more often than absolutely essential, then it is not an exception to the rule but rather becomes the rule. In that event, all of those who are affected or involved in labour situations will have in the back of their minds that parliament will legislate their problems if agreement cannot be reached. The Acting Minister of Labour (Mr. Ouellet) has found a niche for which he is highly
Shipping Continuation Act
adapted. He should agree that this is an exception and not necessarily the rule.
We are plagued with the legislation which was passed a few days ago affecting the public service of Canada and the post office. Undoubtedly, Canadians are concerned about this. It has resulted in a bad situation because nothing was done except to force the workers back to work, thus removing the rights they would have under any other circumstances.
The situation before us here is a different one. I listened with interest to the hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) who indicated that not much difficulty has resulted because of the short duration of the seaway strike, that shipments have been made to ports. No one will argue that this is not a critical situation; it is one which will have disastrous effects on the economy of the country. We depend on the export of raw materials, certainly wheat. Difficulties will develop in the entire agricultural industry if these elevators are not filled with grain, moved by water transportation instead of waiting for the winter months to fill them by rail transportation.
There is no argument about the fact that this is a critical situation that warrants consideration. It is my understanding that two unions were involved in this situation in the Great Lakes. Both unions went to conciliation. One union continued negotiations under the auspices of the Department of Labour; the other has arrived at a settlement. I would be interested in knowing why the second union has not been able to arrive at the same or a similar settlement. Our Acting Minister of Labour was involved in the negotiations concerning both these unions, but he has not bothered to tell parliament why there was a breakdown in negotiations on the part of one union or whether a similar type of agreement was offered to both. He has not given us the reason why the second union failed to come to an agreement.
The Minister of Transport and Minister of Justice told us earlier tonight that he wanted parliament to extend the term of the collective agreement for a period of approximately one year. A few minutes ago he said he wanted the term extended for two years, until 1981. I can only conclude that the agreement signed with one union was signed on the basis of a three-year term and we are now being asked to provide an agreement in terms of a three-year period for the other union.
If we extend the length of the contract we will obviously be saying to the members of that union, whatever the settlement may be, that it will not be for the period for which the union originally negotiated but will be extended an additional two years. That may have no appeal to hon. members of this House. I have listened to some of their speeches in the last couple of days, often with a great deal of disgust, and I am sure that most want to settle this strike, as they did a previous strike, and as they will probably want to settle a strike tomorrow by employees of Nordair, if such takes place, and the next day a strike by Air Canada and perhaps will want to settle every strike by legislation, not really caring what are the terms of the settlement.

October 23, 1978
Shipping Continuation Act
If that happens labour may decide that parliament is not being fair. Quite frankly parliament should not only be fair under the circumstances, it should be extremely generous. How many of us remember with some amazement the time when Lester B. Pearson was prime minister of this country and settled a strike by giving the union involved something like three times what that union anticipated getting? It was a number of years before another contract came back to this House for settlement because management decided this was a pretty dangerous way of settling labour disputes. That particular dispute also involved the seaway, and the settlement then was generous enough that we were not faced with this kind of legislation for a long time.
In the case of the postal workers we provided the basis and the framework for an agreement that extended the package for a period of one year, and then extended that for a period of two and a half years, without any added inducements. In fact, we allowed a participant to that dispute to go before the arbitrator and remove some of the things the union had already gained through an agreement it had negotiated. This was not covered in the Public Service Staff Relations Act. We allowed the government to go before its own arbitrator and take these things away.
The judge who has been appointed, as I understand the situation as a result of listening to the radio, has asked for a copy of the Public Service Staff Relations Act. He apparently had never seen it before. When he reads it and compares it with what we are now being asked to do, he will understand the reason for the government's intervention. He will understand why the government insisted on a strike in the postal workers case. The government would not agree with its employees on matters that really did not involve money. That judge may well make the decision that this parliament did not have the guts to make.
We are again being asked to negotiate an agreement, but not in respect of people in the public service, employees of Canada, but in respect of the employees of private industry, an industry which is not controlled in any way by parliament, except through regulation.
I am told that Mr. Desmarais has dinner at least once a week with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), and perhaps as well with the Minister of Transport and others. Mr. Desmarais controls the Power Corporation and Great Lakes Shipping, or St. Lawrence Shipping or one of the other big shipping companies which carries out a large shipping operation through the seaway. I am not suggesting this has any bearing on the matter because maybe they do not talk about shipping at all.
In any event, we are now making a decision very much against the interests of the employees.


An hon. Member:: No, no.


William Arnold Peters: Yes, it is very much against the interests of the employees. The strike resulted in a lock-out because the company would not agree to the conciliation board report, and it was a majority report. The report did not recommend any

great shake for the workers. It gave them a cost of living allowance for a period of one year, and suggested an increase of 2 per cent in the second year. That is not an extravagant package. I do not know the exact terms as the Acting Minister of Labour did not give them to us. He should have told us what they are as we are really negotiating this contract on behalf of a private industry and a union outside our control.
If we pass this bill we will have played a great role in this agreement because we will have extended it. The contract will run out in May, 1979, eight or nine months from now. The Minister of Transport originally wanted to extend this term until May, 1980. Now he wants it extended to 1981. So in effect we will be negotiating the term of that contract, and the length of any contract is a damned important thing. We should think about this. Do we really not care about the fact that we are forcing people to accept a contract even though they feel they have the right to strike? Do we really think these people should not have the right to strike simply because a strike will hurt the Canadian people and damage the nation's economy? Should we ask them to give up this right to strike because of that fact?
We are not asking them to do this, but rather we are imposing a limitation on their right to strike. In return for that lost right we should give these employees something worthwhile. We should be negotiating in their favour. Instead we are negotiating against them. The minister did not tell us what the original negotiation package included. He took part in the negotiations during the last few days so he must be aware of the contents. He should tell us what the negotiation package contained in order that we can be fully aware of what we are being asked to do in this arbitrary way. He did not do that.
We can only draw the conclusion that management caused this strike simply by saying that they would not agree to the majority report of the conciliation board. We take away from the company the right to lock the workers out. On the other hand, we stop the workers from getting the benefit of a collective agreement that is to their satisfaction by bringing in this legislation. It is very easy to change the date from 1978 to 1979 or from 1980 to 1981, but it means that those workers in this union will be dissatisfied in 1979, 1980 and 1981 because we have imposed on them our will and have not given them anything to lighten their burden.
We were told in the debate on Bill C-8 about all the merits of a mediator-arbitrator. In this piece of legislation-and this bothers me to no end-we are not passing a stereotype bill but a different one. Is it going to be different for every union we have to put back to work? I do not know how the government will word the legislation for Nordair next week when it decides that they have to fly. I am not sure whether it will fly as Air Canada or as an independent company, but just as sure as shooting, my friend from Hamilton will be asked by these two ministers to do something about solving the terrible transportation problem in Nordair.
October 23, 1978

It is very hard to know what the government will do in that case. Perhaps they will appoint a mediator or an administrator, which is a method that has not been used for some time. I remember when we put dockworkers back to work under the authority of an administrator. The government took over the workers, the docks and put an army in to run the industry. If the minister thinks that he will have trouble finding an arbitrator, he will have even more trouble finding an administrator who will look after financial responsibilities, the responsibilities of operating a union as well as a company, and the responsibility of overseeing all the people he will need to operate his office.
On several occasions I had the opportunity to have dinner with some of the administrators. Charlie Millard was one of the administrators of the docks or the seaway. Somebody was required to travel with the marine workers and pilots at all times under this system. It will be very difficult if we ever have to go to that level.
There is no argument with the fact that this situation has an influence on the economy of the country, but surely if you take away from a segment of the workers in this country the privileges they normally have and adopt new legislation because it is in the public interest, then you have an obligation to compensate those workers in some way. In this case we are not looking to compensate but to punish. What was done recently with the postal workers is, in my opinion, going to backfire very badly on the government and the administration of justice in this country. As my colleague has mentioned, if it results in the police being unwilling to enforce an injunction which is granted on an emergency basis, then we are in pretty bad shape.
Every member should be concerned about such legislation. It is all right to say that the socialists stand behind labour anyway whether they are right or wrong, but in this case hon. members as individuals, if they pass this bill, are passing judgment on what will happen to this union. If hon. members have any knowledge at all of collective agreements they will see that the extension by two years of the date of termination of this contract must play an important role in the outcome of this dispute.
I am not familiar with all the problems and difficulties involved in the discussions which were held with the Minister of Labour, but I think that he has an obligation to tell parliament what the outstanding differences are. It may well be that this House in its wisdom would see fit to implement some of those requests and deny others, but it would give to the workers a contract that would be for the period they anticipated. Then the workers can get back to moving wheat in the few weeks that are available before freeze-up.
We are not only making a settlement for that period in which we would like to ship the maximum amount of grain through the seaway to the terminal points, but we are making a decision that will be binding for the next three years. If the workers do not agree then it will lead to a great deal of conflict in the seaway over the next three years, Mr. Speaker. If you are going to take what people are asking for in a reasonable
Shipping Continuation Act
way-and this is a reasonable union which has not been involved in labour disputes over the years, one which has undoubtedly weighed very seriously its reasons for going on strike-plus the solutions already given to them by the conciliation board, water them down by establishing a mediator and expect it to carry in a labour agreement for a period of two or three years, you are all nuts.
The last point that I wish to mention is the matter of a mediator. We do not use the American arbitration system which has a panel of prominent Americans and Canadians who are available to unions which sign agreements providing that they accept at the conclusion of their contract compulsory arbitration or agreed arbitration. The panel is chosen from a group of Canadians or Americans who are available and who are agreed upon by both parties. We do not have such a panel. Arbitration in Canada is a very difficult and tedious task which quite often involves people who are not entirely familiar with the law. It is unfair that there has not been consultation between both parties as to the choice of an arbitrator-mediator, or whatever the person will be called. If the government were to indicate who they had in mind, both parties could provide input as to their choice. We may have legislated about ten or 12 cases in the past 20 years, but it seems to me that we have been very fortunate in most of the instances in providing a solution that was reasonable and acceptable and not particularly opposed by either side.
Because of the haste of the decision on the post office workers, I suggest we have developed the mental attitude in this place that we believe it is our responsibility and right at any time to impose on the workers of this country, whether in the public service or the private sector, the kind of settlement we believe to be in our interests while completely disregarding the interests of management and organized labour. If we carry that attitude to any degree of irresponsibility, we will reap in great measure the abuses we are heaping on the labour movement in Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.

October 23, 1978
Shipping Continuation Act


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


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


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Ethier in the chair.
On clause 2-Definitions.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Chairman, there are a number of questions I should like to put. I wonder whether the first question ought to be, to which minister should I direct the questions? We have a multiminister and an acting minister. I do not mind asking both of them these questions, but I hope they both will not answer at the same time.
I will start by asking the Acting Minister of Labour to tell us what discussions have taken place between himself, on behalf of the government, and the union involved with respect to compliance or otherwise with this bill. I would also like to know whether the terms of the bill have been discussed and considered by the members of the union, and whether they have particular or specific objections to it which have been brought to the minister's attention.


André Ouellet: Mr. Chairman, replying to a question put to him yesterday by a journalist, the union leader went on record as saying that if parliament passes a law, he will indeed obey it and he will accept the law of the land. I have not talked to him personally since the breakdown of the negotiations today, but I believe that what he said publicly was said to officials of the department today, that if parliament passes a law, he will obey the law. I am told that this message by the union leader was on radio news tonight at ten o'clock.


John Allen Fraser: Has the minister had any assurances from the management side? This bill affects the obligations and duties of management as well, and I would like the minister's assurance that there is no suggestion that we will be faced with a refusal on the part of management to go along with the law.


André Ouellet: Mr. Chairman, this was checked in previous consultations when we felt it would be difficult to arrive at a settlement and we were given to understand by both sides, union and management, that if parliament saw fit to pass a law imposing some conditions on the settlement, they would obey the law and follow the will of parliament.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister whether, on behalf of the government, he is prepared to advise the House-I am not asking him necessarily to specify who would be the arbitrator-that he has the commitment of one or more people who, if requested, are prepared to act?


André Ouellet: Mr. Chairman, it would have been improper for me to make preliminary inquiries of people who could act if parliament were to pass such legislation. Legislation has to be approved, first of all, and passed by parliament.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner).]
October 23, 1978


André Ouellet: But I can assure members of the House that the Department of Labour has a list of well-qualified people who could be contacted tomorrow and whom we could appoint. That is my own feeling. I think that upon passage of this legislation we could appoint someone.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Chairman, I marvel at the constant optimism of the minister, because those were his words on Tuesday night. However, I think we are dealing with a different situation. I would ask the minister why this bill does not include the word "forthwith" with reference to the appointment of the arbitrator, as was the case in the legislation wich was before us on Tuesday evening. Can the minister give a response to that question?


André Ouellet: The hon. member noticed the absence of the word "forthwith."


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: You are not putting anything over on us.


André Ouellet: At my request, the obligation put on my shoulders by parliament will not be the straitjacket that I felt was the case with the previous legislation. I believe that in the best interest of everyone, some leeway should be given to the minister in dealing with the appointment of an appropriate person in the present case.


John Allen Fraser: Has the minister an understanding with the union and with management that there will be consultations before the arbitrator is appointed?


André Ouellet: As you have probably noticed, Mr. Chairman, the current situation is different from that of the postal workers, in the sense that in this case there were extensive negotiations on the day preceding this legislation. In this respect, we will not have a mediator-arbitrator, but solely an arbitrator. This means that the person we appoint will have responsibility, as an arbitrator, of drafting a collective agreement; therefore, will not have to deal extensively with the two parties, as was the case with the previous bill which we studied in parliament.
Therefore, my responsibility is not the same this time as it was in relation to the bill dealing with CUPW. I will appoint someone in the coming hours without necessarily having extensive consultations.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Chairman, I am sure it is appropriate to mention the fact that as recently as a few minutes ago, as reported on the news, CUPW said that under no circumstances will they even meet with the mediator-arbitrator whom the minister was able to appoint today.
I would like the minister's assurance that we will not face some such difficulty, and ask him to assure the House that there has been no indication that that is the difficulty in which the House might find itself. I would also like to know whether the union and management have any idea as to some of the people who might be on the minister's short list.
Shipping Continuation Act


André Ouellet: I hope that the CUPW leadership is unique and that we will not face the same type of difficulties. Indeed, the reactions of the leader of the union of postal workers is amazing, to say the least. Frankly, I hope that after the second instance they will realize that, in the interests of their membership and in the interests of the Post Office, they should sit down and deal with the mediator-arbitrator.
With relation to this bill, I have every confidence that the arbitrator will be in a position to do his work and to achieve a settlement.


John Allen Fraser: The minister touched on the fact that this will be an arbitrator, not a mediator-arbitrator. Can the minister enlarge for a moment on why, in the minister's opinion, there was no need in this case to have a mediator-arbitrator? I would like to know whether in any discussions with either of the parties there was a request for a mediator-arbitrator, as opposed to an arbitrator; that is, assuming they were going to face legislation.


André Ouellet: Mr. Chairman, this message was not conveyed to the Department of Labour at the time the department was assisting in the negotiations. I want to assure hon. members that every avenue of negotiation has been exhausted; that, indeed, intensive negotiations took place in the last few days and it was felt that the mediation course had been explored to the fullest extent and that it was time to stop prolonging mediation and to turn to arbitration. This is why we decided to take that route.


John Allen Fraser: Can the minister advise just what assessment the government has made of the economic damage to the country at this time, or the possible damage in the ensuing weeks if this withdrawal of service and/or lock-out were to continue? I ask this question because in questions to the Minister of Justice, either on Thursday or on Friday, I asked if any assessment had been made in advance as to what would be the economic damage to or impact on the country, and the Minister of Justice answered yes, an assessment had been made.
Could we have some report as to what that assessment is; and even if it is in written form, could it be tabled with the committee?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Chairman-


Charles Joseph Clark: Order.


Walter David Baker: That is not in order, Mr. Chairman.


Otto Emil Lang: The reference to an assessment was to a descriptive account about the kind of damages which would occur and which would include the exact problem which exists for the Wheat Board in a tight movement of grain. It involves an assessment of various industries which might have had other sources of transportation available to them, some of which have transportation by shippers not involved directly in this

October 23, 1978
Shipping Continuation Act
strike. It involves a fairly long description of the whole range of situations, rather than any precise figures.
It is always difficult to assess in any precise way what is lost irredeemably. As I indicated, with regard to grain no doubt there have been some difficulties in terms of the postponement of shipments but, on the other hand, with Thunder Bay now full instead of relatively empty, there is a better chance of catching up and doing better in the remaining part of the season than would have been the case if the terminal had not been so full.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Chairman, there has been some suggestion that the hon. minister is out of order in answering this question, but I have no personal objection to his doing so. While there was an ongoing appreciation of what the effect of this withdrawal of service would result in, there was never any formal assessment drawn up in written form which could be filed at this time. Months ago there was a preliminary review as to the amount of damage. That estimate was upgraded after several weeks, and we received a forecast as to the damage if services were withdrawn until freeze-up. Are there any formal documents which could be filed before the committee?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Chairman, there were briefing notes which were descriptive of the situation. It was important for the government to have a picture of the situation so as to assess the over-all impact, rather than an attempt at a precise measure which is impossible in any case. The picture was painted accurately in the information supplied to us. It was adequate for our purposes, but it was not information which was researched to the degree to determine what every supplier would do in all circumstances. Because of that, I would not table it. It has not been fully researched, and it is not totally accurate.


John Allen Fraser: I asked that question because we have heard a great deal tonight from the New Democratic Party indicating that this is the wrong route to take. When legislation such as this is brought suddenly before us, a relatively independent assessment of the damage has not been made available to the public beforehand. Perhaps in the future some thought might be given to making public an assessment of the damage, in order for the public to be able to measure whether the legislation is appropriate and necessary at the time it is brought before us. One must keep in mind that the New Democratic Party has indicated that this is a wrong measure. I understand that the premier of Saskatchewan requested that some quick and strong action be taken by the minister or one of his colleagues. Can the minister confirm that?


Otto Emil Lang: Yes, I can. There was little doubt about the understanding in western Canada, particularly in the prairies, regarding the damage which even a relatively short strike might cause. Certainly Premier Blakeney of Saskatchewan and many others sent telexes and other messages demanding that we move very quickly. They wanted to have the strike ended even before it began. That was the view of the Saskatchewan New Democratic Party.

The fact of the matter is that it was not just the damage done to date, much of which is recoverable. Of course some of the damage is serious. If the strike continues much longer, the situation will become very serious. Some of the participants indicated that if a settlement was not reached soon, the season would terminate, causing irreparable damage. The catching up could be done regarding grain, assuming that there is six or seven weeks of free movement. If that does not happen, the damage will total $450 million of lost sales in that area alone.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Chairman, I should like to follow up on the point raised by the hon. member for Vancouver South. My question is directed to the Acting Minister of Labour. He is very sensitive about the word "forthwith". In fact, he was quite insistent upon that word being included in Bill C-8, resulting in the mediator-arbitrator being appointed "forthwith". Has he received a definition from the Minister of Justice of the word "forthwith"? Once a precedent has been set in terms of appointing forthwith, one must assume that it has been dealt with at some length.
The minister will have to come up with something better than suggesting that he was boxed in. This bill indicates that an arbitrator can be appointed within hours, as did Bill C-8. What is the government's definition of "forthwith"? Is there flexibility within that definition? Will the minister accept an amendment to the bill to include the word "forthwith"? I think we should be consistent.


André Ouellet: If I am allowed, I should like to answer the hon. member in my mother tongue in order better to express my view on the definition of that word.

The word "forthwith" is defined in French as "immediate-ment" which means that, in fact, the Minister of Labour is obliged by law to appoint, as soon as possible, that is, immediately, a mediator-arbitrator, which is what I did in the case of the act requesting all postal employees to go back to work. As the definition and scope of the word can lead to confusion, it seemed preferable to me, in this bill, not to use the word and so allow the Minister of Labour to use his discretion that there might be no constraints or erroneous interpretation.
That is why, in the bill now before us, the word "forthwith" or "immediately" does not appear, which means that I have more latitude than in the previous bill, without it meaning however that I am allowed to shirk my responsibilities. On the contrary, I intend to use my prerogative as soon as possible.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That is one great story which I do not accept. Perhaps the Acting Minister of Labour is playing it cute right now. Bill C-8 was drawn up by the law officers of the Crown, and they found the word "forthwith" acceptable. If the minister wants to be consistent, that word should be included in the bill before us. Otherwise, it would mean that Bill C-8 is faulty.
October 23, 1978

There have been three proposed amendments already, and I think another one is coming from the Minister of Justice. Will the bill be perfect after the next amendment is introduced? Apparently bills such as this one are drafted in a hurry, and we do not know what the government is doing. It is the old knee jerk reaction. I am not attempting to be facetious. Do hon. members opposite actually know what they are doing? Will the next amendment be the final one, or must we wait until the wee hours of the morning for the law officers of the Crown to look at the bill in order to see if it is correct?


André Ouellet: Mr. Chairman, as was indicated by the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of Privy Council at six o'clock, there will be one amendment and a few consequential amendments to the bill before us. Obviously the opposition has to realize that the government, believing in collective bargaining and hoping that through honest and hardworking negotiation a settlement could be reached, did play a double role in trying to prepare legislation in advance. The legislation has been prepared, but because it was felt that the normal collective agreement process had expired we came forward with this piece of legislation. Indeed, we had to deal with this legislation quickly, and obviously there were a few things that escaped us at the moment. The hon. member should realize that the government, and perhaps this is not the point of view of the opposition, felt the collective bargaining process should go to the limit before adopting any other course of action.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Chairman, I would not deny the conclusion the minister has just put before us. The Leader of the Opposition and other members have asked either the Acting Minister of Labour or the Minister of Justice about legislation. May I ask the minister how long he has had this legislation on his desk, or how long it has been on the desk of the Minister of Justice? I understand the point about not releasing the contents of proposed legislation, as that might be considered intimidation. The Leader of the Opposition and others have asked the government to move quickly in terms of legislation. The acting minister and others have talked about the collective bargaining process, and suggested that no move should be made until the process the minister has talked about had been exhausted. The minister has also talked about this legislation. I am asking how long the minister has had this legislation on his desk, or how long it has been on the desk of the Minister of Justice.


André Ouellet: This legislation was prepared and finalized only today, because we realized only today it was impossible to arrive at a negotiated settlement. It would have been incorrect for us to proceed in advance with a piece of legislation until the negotiation process had been exhausted.
In order to be sure that this is the procedure followed by previous administrations, I asked officials of the Department of Labour to submit a list of major work stoppages under federal jurisdiction in previous years, and the number of days.
Shipping Continuation Act
I found out that under a previous Conservative administration there had been long strikes before any legislation was contemplated. I am not saying this in order to suggest it was wrong to act in this way. I think it is correct to allow the full process of collective bargaining to be pursued before moving to the extreme recourse of legislation by parliament. I have figures which indicate that under previous administrations the collective bargaining process was exhausted before legislative measures were contemplated. That is exactly what this government has done.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Chairman, I really did not want a lecture from the Acting Minister of Labour. The minister and the government are confused in respect of the involvement of esential aspects of public service while being concerned about the collective bargaining process. Speaking personally, I think what should take precedence and be of first concern to the minister is the public interest. It is for this reason that we find ourselves in a box today. The government has not found a solution to labour-management disputes. We have suggested the Public Interest Disputes Commission. This government allowed the post office strike to carry on for some 43 days. The Prime Minister said he could not care less if the strike continued until Christmas, and a former postmaster general, the Hon. Bryce Mackasey, said the employees could stay out until Easter.
There is another important matter here and I do not understand why it is not referred to in this bill. In Bill C-8 there was provision for the mediator-arbitrator to report to the Minister of Labour. Under this bill there is no indication, as far as I can determine, of any reporting procedure. Under Bill C-8 a report is to be made to the minister within 90 days. Why was that particular provision left out of this measure, or is there any reason for that?


André Ouellet: Yes. We could deal with this when we reach our consideration of clause 6. Basically the reason a mediator-arbitrator was prescribed in the bill in relation to the postal workers was that we felt the government ought to allow mediation and consultation to take place before an arbitrator came forward with a collective agreement. The argument put forward by postal employees has been that negotiations have not taken place to their satisfaction.
In relation to this case, the negotiations were extensive. In fact, negotiations were exhaustive. Mediation was carried on during the last four or five days, and it was felt, therefore, that mediation had been taken to its limit and that the only other process to be followed was arbitration. That is why in this bill we deal exclusively with arbitration. This means that the person we appoint as the arbitrator will have only one responsibility, and that is to draft a new collective agreement for the marine engineers.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I noticed that in Bill C-8 there was reference to the Anti-Inflation Act. The minister must be aware of the obvious ramifications and complexities following that
382

October 23, 1978
Shipping Continuation Act
insertion, yet in this bill, unless this has escaped me, there is no such reference to the Anti-Inflation Act. Would the minister clear that matter up for us? In Bill C-8 we have gone even further than we on this side would like to talk about, and that is the dictating of terms. To be consistent, this bill might have followed that precedent, unless the minister has a pretty good reason for leaving it out of this bill yet including the reference in Bill C-8.


André Ouellet: There is an excellent reason, and that is that there is no period governed by this collective agreement we are considering tonight that falls under the Anti-Inflation Act. When we were discussing the other bill we were considering a lengthy period governed by that act, and that is why in the previous measure we had to take this into account.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Chairman, assuming that the legislation is passed tonight, and assuming that the workers obey the order, would the minister give us an indication when we might expect the 122 ships now tied up to resume normal operations?


André Ouellet: My understanding is that because of the agreement which took place between the employers and the deck officers over the weekend some movement is already under way. Hopefully, if parliament is able to pass this legislation in a very short time this evening it will allow the other place to deal with this bill and some operations could be resumed by tomorrow afternoon and normal activity in the few days following.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Chairman, I have a press report here which indicates that the deck officers have not as yet ratified their tentative agreement, and I believe that that is correct. Assuming the worst in this particular case, in the event the deck officers do not ratify the tentative agreement, is there anything in this legislation that would cover a back to work order for the deck officers?
Also, while the minister is considering that question, the press report indicates that while the deck officers are prepared to go back to work prior to the ratification, there seems to be an indication that they are not prepared to go back to work until the marine engineers settle. Perhaps the hon. minister may wish to comment on that as well.


André Ouellet: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member in his second remark almost answered his first question, and that is that the deck officers are ready to go back to work in advance of ratifying their agreement. They have also indicated that as soon as the marine engineers go back all problems will be solved. We believe that if this legislation could be passed within a half hour or so, possibly the other place could deal with it in time to have this bill in effect no later than tomorrow and have operations on the lakes resume within a couple of hours.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Chairman, the minister is assuming that the deck officers are going to ratify their tentative contract. What happens in the event that this is not forthcoming?


André Ouellet: The ballots will not be counted before the month of December, according to my information. By that time I suspect that the seaway will be closed and it will no longer be the same problem we are facing tonight.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: In the event that a settlement is arbitrated for the engineers and it is higher than what is being proposed in the tentative settlement for the deck officers, we may have another issue on our hands; am I not correct?


André Ouellet: I appreciate the question of the hon. member, Mr. Chairman, but he must realize that it is very hypothetical and that I cannot answer it at this time.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That is consistent with the kind of answers we have been getting on this side of the House to the questions we have been posing to the minister. Every question we pose seems to be hypothetical, but it is quite obvious that our hypothesis has come true.
I would like to ask another question, Mr. Chairman, which has to do with another matter. It concerns the union and the fact that they are wanting written guarantees that there will be no reprisals or actions against union leaders for strike related incidents. I notice in the postal bill that there is provision for this particular matter, but I do not see it in the bill that is before us right now. Is the minister concerned about that, and is he aware that this is one of the issues? We have heard a lot about money being the big issue, but this particular written assurance seems to be a matter which is concerning the union as well.


André Ouellet: I think there is a clause dealing with this. We are trying to find it. Indeed, it is a clause which ought automatically to be there.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Chairman, if I might help the minister, it would be similar to clause 4 in the Post Office bill.


André Ouellet: I think it is on page 2, subclauses 4 and 5, at the bottom.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Chairman, I am seeking some clarification. The hon. member for Vegreville was concerned about the protection of the employees, but the minister referred to a section in the proposed bill, subsection (5) of section 3:
No person shall in any manner impede or prevent any person to whom subsection (4) applies from complying with that subsection.


William Arnold Peters: You're out of order. We are not dealing with that yet.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Chairman, we are asking general questions in order to expedite this matter so that when we do reach this clause we can go right through it. The hon. member has made his speech, Mr. Chairman, and nobody interrupted him.


Mr. Woolliams:: And voted against ending the strike.

October 23, 1978


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I did not want to say that, but 1 think it is quite obvious.
In the postal bill there was a section which provided as follows:
No person acting on behalf of the employer shall
(a)	refuse to permit, authorize, or direct or authorize another person to refuse to permit or authorize, an employee who went on strike before the coming into force of this act to resume the duties of his employment forthwith; or
(b)	discharge or in any other manner discipline, or authorize or direct another person to discharge or in any other manner discipline, such an employee by reason of his having been on strike before the coming into force of this act.
Can the minister clarify why there is a difference in the wording of clause 4 of Bill C-8 and clause 5(3) of Bill C-ll? We do not want to make any mistakes now, and this is a puzzle to us on this side; but knowing the minister, he will have an answer for us.


André Ouellet: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has forgotten that Bill C-8 deals with government employees who fell under the Public Service Staff Relations Act, whereas here we are dealing with employees of the private sector who fall under the Canada Labour Code. Thus the wording is not exactly the same. There are two acts which apply, and in the sections concerned they are already protected under the Canada Labour Code. It was not felt necessary that it be included in this bill.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Chairman, can the minister assure me that under the provisions of this bill the employees will acquire and receive the same protection, not more or less, as was provided in the terms of Bill C-8?


André Ouellet: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Nielsen:: Mr. Chairman, I am surprised that the Acting Minister of Labour could think this committee would complete dealing with this bill within a half hour and that the Senate could deal with it tonight. That is physically impossible. I have a number of matters that I want to raise, and I would like to raise them now so that the officials of the department may consider them in the hope constructive amendments may be made to a bill which I consider to be singularly deficient.
I am rather surprised at the NDP who seem to have abandoned ship, except for one caretaker over there. I guess that attitude was engendered after it was pointed out that the premier of Saskatchewan specifically asked for this type of legislation. Now they are silent.
There are several areas in the bill where the rights of workers are in jeopardy. It may have been sheer oversight because of the haste in which the legislation was drawn up, or it may display an attitude on the part of this government, namely that, notwithstanding their sanctimonious words about believing in collective bargaining and the rights of labour, they do not really believe in that at all.
It may display an attitude on the part of this government that, notwithstanding their sanctimonious words about believ-
Shipping Continuation Act
ing in collective bargaining and the rights of labour, they really do not believe it.
I point out to the government that, contrasted with the manner in which matters of this nature were dealt with by the government of the right hon. member for Prince Albert, this legislation and the legislation for the Post Office completely negates any collective bargaining such as was, for instance, displayed in a bill introduced in December, 1960, which required the CNR to continue operating but at the same time required collective bargaining to continue. The caretaker here tonight for the New Democratic Party will remember that bill. Parliament dealt with the situation by continuing the collective bargaining process.
The Acting Minister of Labour has said that under this legislation the arbitrator will have to draft a collective agreement. He said that twice. But that is not my understanding of the legislation. I understand that matters in dispute between the parties are to be referred to the arbitrator, who then has to make a decision and that decision will constitute amendments to the existing agreement. There is no question of drafting a new agreement; all the arbitrator will do is amend.
One of the most disturbing features of the bill-and I hope the government will consider amendments in this area-is that the arbitrator is not required, by the legislation, to consult with labour or management either to determine the matters in issue between the parties or to hear from them with respect to how those issues are to be resolved. My understanding of the Post Office bill is that that process is followed and there is a right to be heard. In essence, this denial to both sides to be heard is a denial of the rules of natural justice, with which I am sure the Minister of Justice will be familiar although there have been occasions in the past when I doubted that. One of those was with reference to the prairie grain assistance act, where the statute used a term about paying the farmers, but the minister interpreted that as meaning no obligation to give those farmers any advance payment for wheat. There is a denial of natural justice here.
I suggest that the government examine clause 6. Surely, there should be incorporated in this clause the right of the parties to be heard before the arbitrator decides on the matter at issue. Clause 6(1 )(a), under which the minister appoints an arbitrator, gives that arbitrator power to decide what matters are to be decided by him. It makes no provision for input by the union or by management. It may be that there are issues not covered by the conciliation report that should be determined under this legislation. Input from both sides should be considered, and there should be input from both sides-within a strict time limit, if you will-providing the parties the right to be heard on those issues. Anything less than that is, surely, a denial of the rule of natural justice. It may be said that if we have that, it will lengthen the process and delay action under the bill. I suggest not, because clause 3 is quite explicit in requiring the shippers to ship and the workers to work until the decisions are made.
I agree with my colleagues who have raised the point about imposing a time limit within which the arbitrator is to be
80065-25Vi

October 23, 1978
Shipping Continuation Act
appointed. Whether the word "forthwith" is used, or "immediately", I say a far more serious objection to imposing no time limit has been raised by my colleagues, because if one looks at clause 6(3) it appears that the arbitrator must make his decision on the matters at issue within 60 days after the date of the reference to him. It seems to me that any delay in appointing the arbitrator will reverberate all down the line. The postal bill used a 90-day term. I suggest a limitation period be laid down in this respect.
One does not have to use the word "forthwith". It could be two days, or five days, but a limitation should be placed on the appointment because that appointment triggers subclause 3 of clause 6.
The hon. member for Vegreville raised the point about reporting. That is clearly set out in the postal bill. In my opinion, this is one of the weakest clauses of the bill. Subclause 3 of clause 6 reads in part as follows:
-the arbitrator shall be required to decide all matters referred to him under this act within 60 days of his appointment.
My first observation concerns the words "be required . Required by whom? Does it require the minister's request before the arbitrator has to report? If not, why are those words there? Why could not it read, the arbitrator "shall decide all matters referred under this act within 60 days of his appointment"? Are the words superfluous, or do they require expanded explanation, placing an obligation on some minister to require that report?
With regard to clause 7(1), Mr. Chairman, one of the rules of natural justice respecting tribunals such as this-this might strike a chord in the memory of the Acting Minister of Labour-is that the report is in writing. There is no such requirement here. Another is that the report is made to a particular body and communicated to the parties. In this bill, we give power to the arbitrator to make decisions on matters that he deems to be at issue between the parties, without hearing the parties, and then a provision in the bill might require him to report. But even if he is required to report, to whom is the report to be made? Is it to the minister? There is no mention of that in the bill. Surely the arbitrator should be required to report to both union and management as a matter of course. I suggest it is the right of the parties to be informed of the decisions in writing.
A far more serious defect in the legislation occurs in the closing lines of subclause (1) of clause 7. If the whole of the clause is read, it will be seen that when the arbitrator decides all matters referred to him by the minister, the collective agreement to which this act applies is deemed to be amended by the incorporation of those decisions in the agreement and all such other amendments as are agreed upon by the parties prior to the decision of the arbitrator, and the collective agreement as so amended constitutes a new collective agreement. By clause 4 the agreement is extended to 1981. Subclause (2) of clause 4 makes it a collective agreement not

capable of future amendment if read in conjuction with subclause (1) of clause 7.
There is no way, even if the parties mutually agree, after the arbitrator's report that that collective agreement can be amended because the provisions of the Canada Labour Code are suspended by reading clause 4 and clause 7 together. That should be made clear so that the union and management are not denied the right to come to mutually agreed upon amendments after the arbitrator makes his decision. That is certainly not in the legislation now. Again, that is a very serious deficiency in the bill.
We on this side of the House are in full accord with the expression of the laws contained in clause 3. We have to get shipping moving and the workers back to work. However, when one looks at clause 8 and clause 9 and compares them with the law on injunctions, a subject matter about which the minister may still remember a few principles, one will see that there are very serious deficiencies indeed.
First, it is my submission to the government that clause 8(1) divests the court of any discretion in the matter of granting an injunction. As a personal viewpoint, I will concur with the approach that the Federal Court, upon a proper application being made, shall be required to issue an injunction. However, surely the terms upon which the court issues that injunction are still a matter of discretion for the court. Not so by clause 8 of this legislation. The injunction shall-and that is a mandatory term-be granted, and it shall direct any company or union to comply with the provisions of this act. That is all.
It shall also be a provision that they may be cited for contempt of the injunction and punished as contempts are usually punished. Surely there should be a provision in that clause that the court shall issue an injunction upon such terms as the court may deem just. That discretion should reside in the judicial bodies that we have set up throughout the country for the purpose of safeguarding the rights and liberties of all.
By permitting the legislation to remain in these terms, you take that discretion away from the court. I see the minister shaking his head, indicating that that is not the intention. I am not accusing the government of saying that it was their intention, but that is the effect of that clause. The jurisdiction is mandatory in the sense that the court may grant an injunction only in the terms set out in clause 8, and none other.


Mr. Benjamin:: Are you going to rewrite the bill?


Erik Nielsen: I am just making the suggestion. I see the champions of the workers are back in their seats, the hon. member for Nickel Belt and the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre. We now have more; we have five. The emergency was declared. The bells rang.


An hon. Member:: You voted for it.


Erik Nielsen: I will vote for this kind of legislation, but it certainly should be cleaned up in the interest of protecting the working man. I am sure the New Democratic Party will agree
October 23, 1978

with that. They have not spoken in the detail I have this evening. I think that is an oversight on their part.
I submit to the government that there should be an appeal prior to the citation and contempt proceedings. That appeal now exists in the law of injunctions. A person against whom an injunction is issued can appeal the injunction. The liberty is always there to apply to have the terms of the injunction carried before the imposition of any punishment or citation. That should be retained.
There is a serious deficiency in clause 8. I sometimes think that even those speaking in detail on matters important do not have the courtesy of listening, and one is just a voice in the wilderness in this institution. I am waiting for the attention of the Acting Minister of Labour; I am sure he is interested. I am sure the government members will be courteous enough to allow me to speak so that I can be heard. I thank the Lord and others that the Acting Minister of Justice is back in his seat. I refer to subclause (2) of clause 8, line 5, and here I direct my remarks to a lawyer, the Acting Minister of Justice. I quote:
Any company or union cited and punished for contempt of court under subsection (1) may appeal from the conviction, or against the punishment imposed, to the Federal Court of Appeal in accordance with such directions,-
What directions? The only possible reference that that phrase can have appears in the previous subclause where the word is used on the bottom line of the page. I will quote the full sentence:
-the court shall issue an injunction directing any company or union named or described therein that has failed or refused to comply with any provision of this act forthwith to comply with that provision and any company or union that fails or refuses to comply with any injunction issued by the court under this section that is directed to it-
Therefore that phrase in clause 8(2) does not refer to any directions at all. I hope the Minister of Justice takes note of that point. Because there are no directions, that subclause should be amended.
I do not know how the government can make any sense out of clause 9(3). Clause 9(1) reads:
For the purposes of section 8 and this section, a union shall be deemed to be a person.
If you try to read in the word "pension" in substitution for the word "union" in subclause (3), the clause makes no sense whatsoever.


The Assistant Deputy Chairman:: Order, please. I regret I must interrupt the hon. member for Yukon but his allotted time has expired.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Acting Minister of Justice to be kind to two people. The first is the hon. member who just resumed his seat who will obviously be here for some time making the proposals he has mentioned. Further, I would ask the minister to be kind to those who sit in the other place and tell them that tomorrow will probably be soon enough. I say this so that we shall not repeat the procedure we followed the other night. I am impressed by their new found interest on behalf of the working people of this country.
Shipping Continuation Act
I am not surprised that Premier Blakeney should have got in touch with the Minister of Transport to urge that something be done to get wheat moving through the seaway. He is no doubt well aware that members of the House of Commons will look after the proposition that this be done properly and fairly no matter what the legislation says.
The point 1 am making is this. If we are to send everyone back to work through legislation, we should develop legislation of a formal kind. I am impressed by the acting minister's knowledge of collective agreements and the difference between the Public Service Staff Relations Act and the Canada Labour Code. They do contain distinctions which a number of hon. members to my right have missed. The next case we shall be considering will perhaps be that of Nordair. Members of parliament and others who fly Nordair, as distinct from those who travel to the south, will no doubt feel that this essential service ought to be maintained. As I say, we should be developing a more sensible piece of legislation.
An important part of the bill before us concerns the signing of an agreement by the first mates and deck officers; there is really no great hurry about this since it is not likely that the vote on the decision they are making will take place before freeze-up.
There is another point which occurs to me. Will the union itself have a role to play in the recall of the officers should this legislation be passed? According to one of the clauses it seems we have limited the right of the union to take part in the orderly recall of its members, though the company is requested to recall its officers, presumably in some order, under a provision which seems to be contrary to what is contained in clause 5.
I understand the minister and his advisers took part in mediation efforts on the basis of the report of the arbitration board. Were any negotiations conducted on the basis of relating the two contracts so as to arrive at this date of 1981? We find here a two and a half year contract where there was really only a six months contract left to be negotiated. I am, of course, interested in the appointment of the arbitrator.
The minister has indicated that the department is in the possession of a list of some kind and that there are qualified people who may be available for this task. His work is likely to be easier in this case than in the case of other disputes in which the House has been dealing. As hon. members know, the parties have already carried out a process of negotiation and a conciliation board has come up with a report, probably a majority report. Was any attempt made to implement that majority report-I assume it was in favour of the workers- rather than go the route proposed by this legislation? The parties have followed the due process of the law and the facts which were available to the conciliation board are the only facts which will be available to the arbitrator. So we are really taking two kicks at the same cat and the result will probably be the same.

October 23, 1978
Shipping Continuation Act
Was any consideration given to bringing down legislation with a simple back to work clause in accordance with the majority decision of the conciliation board, the price being a three-year contract rather than a one-year contract? Why was not such a bill introduced rather than the legislation before us, which recalls the type of law we passed with application to the postal service in a totally different field? In my view the case could be served by a few clauses inserted into the Canada Labour Code to cover this dispute.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, I should like to withdraw a suggestion I made with respect to subclause (2) of clause 8. I misread the clause.


André Ouellet: I am glad the hon. member for Yukon has had a chance to read the bill more thoroughly. In the circumstances it is not necessary now for me to reply to him.
In answer to the hon. member for Timiskaming, I would like to say that indeed the employees have the full protection of the Canada Labour Code, and by the extension of the collective agreement the employees will still be protected to the fullest extent. I am told that many of the employees are still on ships, and as soon as the union withdraws its strike call or as soon as this legislation is passed, those who are not already on ships will, I expect, report back to their respective ships immediately.
With relation to the extension of the collective agreement, I must say that the collective agreement was the same for the marine engineers as it was for the deck officers. During the course of the extensive negotiations the deck officers, along with the employers-following the conciliation board report- decided to extend the collective agreement a third year. It was agreed between the parties that the collective agreement be extended a third year. That is why we would like to include in this legislation the provision that the arbitrator, after having discussions with the parties, has the option to extend this collective agreement to coincide with the agreement which has just been signed by the employers and the deck officers for a three-year contract.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, this legislation will extend it. There is a clause which says that that is fixed and it cannot be changed. We have had other back-to-work legislation before us. The question really has been resolved because the price paid for having the company accept the conciliation board report was the extension of the contract. I do not see why we do not just implement the conciliation board report. The extension would be the same, and the problem could be solved tonight.
This method has been used before. It was not necessary to go through protracted negotiations, because anything can happen if we take this route. Almost anything can happen, and usually does, and conflict is caused every time. In the other case one question would be facing the workers. The question would be whether to accept it or not; but there would not be any additional friction. The simpler we make our back-to-work

legislation, the better; but it should be fair. I see very little role for the arbitrator in this case, with the exception of the implementation of the conciliation board report. We will have extended the contract, and for that reason I do not know why we have added things such as preventing the union from counselling workers not to return to work. We have written things into this legislation which the minister indicates are really not necessary.


André Ouellet: I must say that events took place after the tabling of the conciliation board report which had to be taken into consideration by the government in presenting this legislation. If nothing had taken place since the time of the presentation of the conciliation board report, perhaps the suggestion of the hon. member could be entertained. But the fact is that in the meantime a collective agreement was signed by the deck officers and the employers and this collective agreement is beyond the terms of the collective agreement which was foreseen, studied and reported by the conciliation board.
Therefore, it is a new ball game. There is a different perspective and we have to take this into account because we do not want to take one side or the other. We feel that the fair approach is to appoint an arbitrator who will decide.


Mr. Smith (Churchill):: Mr. Chairman, my question is to the Minister of Transport. I would like to ask the minister what contingency plans he has, or whether he has any, in the event that grain is not moving on the Great Lakes within a very short time.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Chairman, I do not have at hand the plans of the Canadian Wheat Board in this regard, but I can certainly inquire and obtain details for hon. members. The Canadian Wheat Board is always very alert to the challenge which a situation like this places before it, and it will be trying to do everything possible to maximize the through-put of grain to the east in order to make up for any delay which has been caused.


Cecil Morris Smith: I would like to ask the minister to make one suggestion to the Canadian Wheat Board. That suggestion is to direct the Sir John A. Macdonald icebreaker to keep the port of Churchill open for an indefinite period this winter. The studies which have been done so far have proved that the port can be a viable operation if an icebreaker is in attendance to accompany ships in and out of the harbour of Churchill.
Let us keep in mind that the port of Churchill can be very efficient during the winter and that the rail line to Churchill is maintained and capable of moving grain out of Saskatchewan to that port. I would be grateful if that contingency plan could be forwarded by the minister to the Canadian Wheat Board.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Chairman, I see two difficulties. There is no indication that any vessel owner would want to send a vessel on that route, even if an icebreaker were provided. Second, our icebreaking fleet is fairly occupied with other duties throughout any given winter. We are acquiring additional icebreaker
October 23, 1978

strength. Another day may dawn in that regard, but it would not be practical this year.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask just one question of the Acting Minister of Labour, and one question of the Minister of Justice. I have not had much time to read the bill, but I have listened to the questions and answers. Is either minister satisfied that this bill contains enough sanctions to ensure that whatever labour group is involved, produce and goods-grain in particular-will move?
In my second question I will come right to the point. It has to do with the process of collective bargaining and the arbitrator so that labour is protected. Forgetting about all the nitpicking, can we in the opposition be satisfied on those two points?


André Ouellet: Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the concern of the hon. member and I think I can answer both his questions. There is a clause in the bill to which I want to draw his attention. It is on page 4, and it has to do with the powers of the arbitrator. Clause 6(2) reads in part as follows:
-all the powers and duties of an arbitrator under section 157 of the Canada Labour Code.
Part of section 157 of the Canada Labour Code provides:
An arbitrator or arbitration board
(a) shall determine his or its own procedure, but shall give full opportunity to
the parties to the proceeding to present evidence and make submissions to him
or it-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: After assent, assuming this bill is passed by this House and the other place tonight, how long will it be before the workers are back to work moving grain and other produce, which is so important to the economy of the nation? The minister has left the impression that the law will be obeyed.


André Ouellet: As you can see, sir, it is approaching midnight. Because of that, and because of the intention of this House to proceed tonight and to have this legislation come into force as soon as possible, when we come to clause 10 we intend to bring in an amendment which will allow the legislation to come into force eight hours after royal assent.


Mr. Ritchie:: I have a question for the Minister of Transport. It would appear that management quickly threw in the towel at a time when they have six weeks of very good shipping and the most profitable portion of the year ahead of them. Apparently they regard the proposed settlement as being too rich. Will it be necessary to raise the rates? Will they be squeezed by this settlement? What consideration has the government given to this aspect?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Chairman, I do not think I would want to comment on what the terms of the settlement may be as it is eventually developed by the arbitration process under this bill. Obviously the shipowners will have to take into account the settlements they have achieved with their other unions, and that will be a part of their over-all costs. I have not obtained
Shipping Continuation Act
from them, nor even from the Wheat Board, any estimate of what that will mean with regard to the over-all cost of the movement of goods.


William Gordon Ritchie: Would the minister then hazard a guess or give an opinion as to whether this will not be fairly expensive and will result in substantially increased tariffs in the next year or two?


Otto Emil Lang: I cannot really comment on this bill and its impact because, after all, the arbitrator will have to do his work. I would need some calculations from either the shipowners or the Wheat Board of the impact of the other settlements which are now apparently in place and certainly agreed upon. Perhaps that would be helpful to the hon. member.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief. What really concerns me this evening, as we are going late into the night, is that on many occasions in the last seven or eight years that I have been a member of the House we have had to deal with major labour disputes in the country, and thus we have essentially turned this legislative assembly into a labour court. I think it is about time that the government realized that this is not a labour court-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: -that this is not the place to waste time talking about specific labour disputes relating to national problems. Until the government on the other side realizes that it cannot fob off its responsibility to resolve labour disputes on us on this side of the House, until it realizes it is its responsibility to settle these disputes, we will not be any further ahead. Why should the government waste our time and the time of the House of Commons?
I would like to make one suggestion to the Minister of Transport and the Acting Minister of Labour and ask them when both of them will bring in a bill to debate in the House the establishment of a labour court in the country outside of the House of Commons which will resolve problems relating-


John R. Rodriguez: No, no way.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Yes. When will the ministers bring in a bill to the House which all parties can debate, one which will establish a labour court in this country to deal with federal interprovincial and national labour disputes, so we can take this nonsense out of the House? It is almost midnight now. We are not here tonight acting as members of parliament; we are acting as labour arbitrators, and we are not in that position. How many members in the House tonight are experts in labour negotiations? I suppose we could find seven, eight or ten at the most out of the 264 of us. When will we get federal labour problems out of the House and into a labour court in this country which will deal with major labour problems, whether it is a mail strike, a railway strike, a grain handling strike or a Great Lakes shipping strike? That is what I am concerned about and that is what people in my riding are concerned about.

October 23, 1978
Shipping Continuation Act
I worked on the Great Lakes as a short-order cook 23 years ago. When will we get this damned thing out of the House and before a labour court where it belongs? We are wasting the country's time sitting here tonight until midnight. I ask the minister: What is he prepared to do specifically to change this stupid, archaic, partisan system, so that we can get rid of this kind of nonsense and get it somewhere where it makes sense?


André Ouellet: I think it should be put on record that in any industrial society there will be strikes, whether or not legislation provides for the right to strike. The hon. member indicated-


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Chairman, I am not opposed to the right to strike.


Charles Robert Turner: Order, please.


André Ouellet: The hon. member indicated he would like to see these disputes referred to a labour tribunal rather than be dealt with in the House of Commons. I want to remind members who are here tonight, as well as those who are watching us-if there are still people watching us at this time-that the news media, and consequently the public, are not interested in the record of over 90 per cent of labour disputes that have been referred to the Department of Labour after an impasse had been reached and that have been dealt with successfully through mediation and with the assistance of the Department of Labour. All of these cases are not referred to the House of Commons. It is only some specific and particular cases which are referred to parliament.
It has been the philosophy of the current government that when an individual right becomes a public wrong, the government faces its responsibility squarely. It does not hide behind any labour tribunal or public interest dispute tribunal that might be proposed. Parliament is asked to accept its responsibilities and terminate this dispute. That is what we are doing here, and I think it is our responsibility as members of parliament to do it.
However, I agree with the hon. member that this recourse should not be abused. Unfortunately, I must say that mass hysteria concerning strikes and the belief that permanent legislation could end strikes is completely out of order. I think it is illogical to believe that some group, some tribunal or some public interest dispute tribunal could solve the problem. I do not think we can consider such a solution. I think that basically we must believe in the due process of collective bargaining, and only on special occasions should we ask parliament to intervene, as we are forced to do today. It is regrettable that we must do it, but sometimes we must.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Chairman, I do not disagree totally with what the minister said. What positive suggestion does the minister have to facilitate this type of bargaining? How can we eventually reduce confrontation in this country? Would the minister elaborate at this time as to exactly what is proposed to overcome using this chamber as a labour court? Can the
minister propose something better? I am ready to listen to the minister for the next hour.


André Ouellet: Mr. Chairman, I should not like to abuse the time of the House, even though I appreciate the offer of the hon. member. I will have other occasions to make my thoughts known by the House and the public. Indeed I will assure the hon. member of copies of my comments.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Will the minister provide this side of the House with two minutes to elaborate on his answer concerning a solution to these very, very difficult problems in Canada? I am not asking for the minister to continue for an hour, as I said facetiously a few minutes ago. Will he indicate in what direction the government is going?


André Ouellet: The direction of the government is very well known. The Department of Labour has promoted a series of meetings between management and labour in order for both parties to better understand each other. We advocated a series of seminars to analyse the situation and arrive at solutions to the problems. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce today referred to a recently published report of his department. The Department of Labour, union representatives and the representatives of management have been involved in bringing about these studies. Because of the joint effort directed toward bringing the parties together, much progress has been made. The Department of Labour will continue in that direction.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of Labour. One must recall the previous back to work legislation which was passed by the House. The first time I participated was in 1973 when the railway workers were put back to work. That legislation contained a clause which provided a money award, and arbitration was to follow on other issues. There were amendments from all sides of the floor to increase the amount, and the argument was raised that we were not here to conduct a collective bargaining process. The air traffic controllers strike followed, which resulted in legislation that was actually a collective bargaining agreement. We dealt with the classification of workers, rates of pay and overtime.
I agree with the minister, that we should not be dealing with collective bargaining at this level, except on the odd occasion. Since we are dealing with the private sector at this time under the Canada Labour Code, perhaps a clause should have been included within the back to work legislation to provide a cash settlement for the workers. Perhaps that cash settlement would be turned down by the employer, but we must remember that the dispute concerns money. Why was no cash settlement included in the legislation? Would it not be a disincentive to employers? Perhaps they would not want to come before parliament again if we were not their stoolie.


André Ouellet: Obviously there are two ways of looking at this question. In some instances a conciliation board report is looked at by some people as being very interesting. In other instances, such a report can be looked at as a very discourag-

October 23, 1978

ing one. Sometimes it is good, sometimes it is bad. Obviously we are following the general approach. Perhaps it is wiser to follow our course, rather than refer the matter to arbitration.


John R. Rodriguez: In this particular case, the conciliation board recommended a settlement which was rejected by the employer. Then the employer proceeded to lock out the workers. In effect, the legislation was precipitated by the employer. Therefore, I find it rather passing strange that the minister did not include a cash settlement in the legislation before us. If the workers had precipitated the legislation, then benefit would have accrued to the other side. I see the minister nodding. Why was there no cash settlement?


André Ouellet: According to my information, both parties rejected the conciliation board report. The employer as well as the employees was not satisfied. Obviously the employer thought that it was too much and the employees thought that it was not enough. This piece of legislation provides both parties with an opportunity to present their points of view, and an arbitrator to evaluate their representations.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Chairman, I should like to continue on the theme I embarked upon a few moments ago. In Canada we are faced with problems related to the grain handlers, engineers and skippers on the Great Lakes, and to the general work force. My question is directed to the Minister of Transport and the Acting Minister of Labour. We have reached a point where we are creating in Canada today a growing number of terribly dissatisfied male and female workers. For example, millions of dollars can be put into job creation, but millions of dollars cannot be put into job happiness.
Usually, we in this House can enjoy our job, work five days a week here and then go home and do the things we want to do on weekends. We look after the things under our control as members of parliament while we are here, and we assume that the people who have to fill the ships, fill the hopper cars and look after the transportation system are able to do the same thing.
What is really fundamental is that we in this chamber, which is the most powerful legislative chamber in this country, do everything we can to make work more meaningful for the people of this country. Perhaps I am saying the wrong thing, and maybe I am even out of order.


An hon. Member:: You are.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: The point is that neglect in this regard comes back to haunt us, and will haunt us for the next decade and perhaps even the next generation. We have an opportunity tonight, and every day, to humanize the work of the working force in this country. Unless we, as the elected members of parliament, attempt once again to humanize work, we will be failing in our responsibilities.
Many members, over there, as well as on this side, did all kinds of jobs when we were young; and unless we do something
Shipping Continuation Act
to humanize those kinds of jobs, we will be in trouble. Let me give a few examples. You can go to the assembly line at Massey-Ferguson in Brantford and see the kind of work I have in mind. I worked for a steamship line for a number of years as a short-order cook. That was a human job at that time, but today it is not. I worked on a section gang for the CNR. That was a very important job in those days. We are losing the demand for and the responsibility involved in that kind of a job, and we are losing respect for an honest day's work.
What are hon. members on the other side of the House doing to rehumanize the idea of a good day's work? What are hon. members over there trying to do, in real terms, to bring humanity back to the work force? What they are doing is buying more computers, more mechanical aids and more machines. This is what we are talking about tonight. We are talking about people; we are not talking about a bill. Bills come and go, but we are talking about human beings. It is about time the Minister of Transport and the Acting Minister of Labour, wherever he is now, started to think in terms of human beings in this country, rather than numbers. We should be talking in terms of human beings, rather than social insurance numbers and income tax numbers. We are talking about people, and it is about time we in this House started to think in terms of human beings, rather than in terms of numbers. I do not know whether I have asked a question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: You can laugh at me all you want, but I ask the Minister of Transport to stand up right now and give a human answer to a human question.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Chairman, tempting as it would be to get into that very important subject-and it is much broader in scope than this bill-I suggest that the Minister of Labour would like on another occasion to deal with it at greater length in order that he might do justice to the important points that have been made.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
On clause 4-Term of collective agreement extended.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Chairman, I should like to move an amendment to clause 4. I would move:
That Bill C-ll be amended by striking out line 4 on page 3 and substituting the following:
"1978, and expiring on May 31, 1979, and may be further extended by the
arbitrator to include the period beginning on June 1, 1979, and expiring on a
day not later than May 31, 1981."


Charles Robert Turner: The committee has heard the proposed amendment. Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
390

October 23, 1978
Shipping Continuation Act


Charles Robert Turner: All those in favour will please rise. All those opposed will please rise.
Amendment (Mr. Lang) agreed to: Yeas, 65; Nays 5.


Charles Robert Turner: I declare the amendment carried.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Chairman, I have several amendments to clause 4. The next amendment is a technical one to the French version. 1 move:
That the French version of Bill C-ll be amended by striking out line 6 on page 3 thereof and substituting the following therefor:
"fi6e par la presente loi ou en vertu de cette derniere, prennent effet et lient"


Charles Robert Turner: Hon. members have heard the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said amendment?
Amendment (Mr. Lang) agreed to.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Chairman, I would move:
That Bill C-ll be amended
(a)	by striking out line 9 on page 3 and substituting the following:
"for the period by which the collective agreement is extended by subsection 4(1) and, if the arbitrator further extends that period pursuant to that subsection, for that further period"; and
(b)	by striking out line 15 on page 3 and substituting the following:
"by or pursuant to this act where the term of the"-


Charles Robert Turner: Hon. members have heard the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the said amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division. Amendment (Mr. Lang) agreed to.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Chairman, those are the consequential amendments.


Charles Robert Turner: Shall clause 4 as amended carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Arnold Peters: On division.
Clause 4 as amended agreed to.
On clause 5-Strikes and lock-outs prohibited.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Chairman, again 1 would move a consequential amendment as follows:
That Bill C-ll be amended by striking out line 19 on page 3 and substituting the following:
"by or pursuant to subsection 4(1),"-


Charles Robert Turner: Does the committee agree to accept the amendment as presented?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division. Amendment (Mr. Lang) agreed to.
[The Assistant Deputy Chairman.]


Charles Robert Turner: Shall clause 5, as amended, carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 6-Arbitration.
Otto Emil Lang: I move:
That Bill C-ll be amended
(a)	by striking out line 37 on page 3 and substituting the following:
"(a) appoint an arbitrator and refer to him the further extension of the term of the collective agreement to which this act applies to include the period referred to in subsection 4(1) and"; and
(b)	by striking out lines 39 to 42 on page 3 and substituting the following:
"of the collective agreement that in the opinion of the arbitrator,"


Charles Robert Turner: Shall the amendment carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division. Amendment (Mr. Lang) agreed to.


Charles Robert Turner: Shall clause 6, as amended, carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 7-Incorporation in agreement of decisions of arbitrator.
Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Chairman, I have a technical amendment to the French version which is identical in effect to the amendment moved earlier. I move:
That the French version of Bill C-ll be amended by striking out line 29 on page 4 thereof and substituting the following therefor:
"presente loi ou en vertu de cette dernibre, sauf les clauses qui portent sur"


Charles Robert Turner: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Lang) agreed to.


Charles Robert Turner: Shall clause 7, as amended, carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
On Clause 9-"Union".
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, we discussed this previously, but in relation to clause 9(2) and (3), what is the reason for all this verbiage? What does it do?


André Ouellet: Basically, Mr. Chairman, it is in relation to the injunctions against the company and the union which will expedite and simplify the procedures.
October 23, 1978


William Arnold Peters: If this section was not written in, would not the Canada Labour Code provisions, which njake possible the issuing of injunctions under the code and also the penalties, not apply? I see no particular reason for this.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Chairman, if I may, it is related to a technical legal question. It is true that injunctions can lie without the specific provision, but there are some significant and technical problems in injunction procedures, and these sections in our view may allow for injunctions to be obtained without those technical problems arising.


William Arnold Peters: Is this punitive in that it is something which has arisen out of the previous bill and we are now covering all bases? In other words, are we in effect working out an amendment for the Canada Labour Code because of a failure in a section of Bill C-8 that would warrant the introduction of this clause?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Chairman, it is not a result of the episode after Bill C-8. A clause along these lines has been included twice before in strike legislation, both times in the private sector as in the case here.


Charles Robert Turner: Shall clause 9 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 10-Coming into force.
Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Chairman, the hour has passed twelve o'clock, and there is an interest to see this law effected as early as possible. It is designed to give the parties time to have notice of the law and is designed to have the effect of bringing the law into force eight hours after royal assent. I therefore move:
That Bill C-l 1 be amended by striking out line 7 on page 6 and substituting the following:
"day and eight hours after the time at which"


Charles Robert Turner: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Lang) agreed to.


Charles Robert Turner: Shall clause 10 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Charles Robert Turner: Shall the bill carry?


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister, as we are completing this bill, if any draft bill has been contemplated for the other national strike which will be taking place at Nordair?
Shipping Continuation Act The Deputy Chairman: Shall the bill carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Bill reported.


André Ouellet: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is that this bill be read the third time and so pass. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare the motion carried.
Bill read the third time and passed.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, it seems that the Senate is prepared to study this bill immediately, and with unanimous consent, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Bussieres), that we suspend the sitting until the call of the Chair.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to that. However, before we do that, I wonder if I might ask the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader what the House will be dealing with tomorrow.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, later today we will be resuming debate on second reading of the bill we were considering before we moved to the bill now before us.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I, too, have no objection to the proposal. However, I understood that the "late show" was on. Since we are here anyway, we might as well have it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House gives its consent that we stand by to the call of the Chair. We can immediately occupy ourselves with proceedings pursuant to Standing Order 4, it being the understanding of the House that at the conclusion of those proceedings the House will rise to the call of the Chair.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I do not blame those members who are leaving, since it is now 12.47 a.m. However, I want to express my pleasure that the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) is here. He agreed to stay tonight to whatever hour it might be to answer the question that I put down for this adjournment debate.
My question arises from a two-part inquiry that I put to the Minister of Veterans Affairs on Tuesday, October 17, 1978, as

recorded in Hansard for that date at page 165. The first part of my question had to do with the announced review of the War Veterans Allowance Act. The second part had to do with the question of pensions for widows of disabled veterans, those pensions coming under the Pension Act.
With regard to the War Veterans Allowance Act, I can say that all of us who are interested in veterans pensions welcomed the announcement the minister made during the last session that this act was being reviewed.
It can be said that in the last number of years we have made a good many amendments to the Pension Act and, in effect, we have made many improvements in the provisions under that legislation. While we have been doing that, not much has been done to the War Veterans Allowance Act.
I could remind hon. members that the War Veterans Allowance Act was brought before parliament in the early 1930s. Its purpose at that time was to provide for veterans who did not qualify under the Pension Act under which pensions for disability are paid, something a little better than was available to the civilian population under the then old age pensions act.
I should remind the minister and others that over the years-we are talking about a period of 47 or 48 years-a great many changes have been made in pension legislation, especially for the population generally. The result is that the provisions for veterans and their survivors under the War Veterans Allowance Act are no longer much better than are available to civilians generally. One of the main differences, of course, is that the means test which applied to the old age pension back in the thirties and which was therefore carried over to the War Veterans Allowance Act no longer applies to the basic amount of the pension under the Old Age Security Act. This is one aspect which it seems to me should be looked into. I feel strongly that the time has come, so many years after the wars in which our veterans have participated, for there to be a form of guaranteed annual income for veterans at a certain age and that we would be doing a service both to veterans and to our pension legislation by abolishing a good deal of the red tape and the obstacles that are now in place.
These are just a few thoughts I offer about the War Veterans Allowance Act. I appreciate the minister's answer that when he gets the result of the review he will make suggestions about what should be done. I hope his decision will result in legislation this session, or, if action is not possible right away, in a reference to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.
The other part of my question referred to the remaining issue in the Pension Act, the fact that when a veteran dies, if his disability pension was below 48 per cent there is no pension for his widow. We have been over this back and forth. I know all the arguments the minister can use in defence of the present position, but he knows too, particularly as the veterans of World War II are getting older, that this becomes more and more a matter of deep concern to them, and I do not think that our so-called veterans' legislation, our so-called veterans'
October 23, 1978

charter, will be what it ought to be until we resolve this issue, at least to the extent of providing pro rata pensions for widows where the veteran's pension was below 48 per cent.
We have done well in getting the pension rate attached to a standard of wage in the public service. We have done well in getting a certain amount of compensation for prisoners of war both in World War II and World War I. We have done well in many of the things we have achieved with respect to veterans' legislation, and I refer now in particular to the Pension Act. However, this shortcoming still exists, and while I appreciate the fact that the other day the minister's answer seemed to imply some active consideration of the review of the War Veterans Allowance Act, he did not seem very hopeful that he would be bringing in something in this session to provide these pro rata pensions for widows where the veteran's disability pension was below 48 per cent.
I suggest to the minister that this parliament still has a number of months to go, probably into next spring or next summer, and when that time comes, it will not be good enough for the minister or for those on his side of the House to talk about what was done for veterans in the last few years. The question will be what was done in this session.
To sum up these remarks tonight, I say to the minister that what ought to be done, what the veterans would appreciate, would be to make a substantial improvement in the War Veterans Allowance Act and to amend the Pension Act to provide pro rata pensions for widows where the veteran's pension was below 48 per cent.
I hope the minister can say something encouraging. I do not expect him to announce tonight that something will be brought in tomorrow, but I hope he will tell us that these two matters will be given serious attention and consideration during this session.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, staff of the Department of Veterans Affairs have over the past year been conducting a fundamental review of the War Veterans Allowance Act and part XI of the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act. During the review a detailed evaluation is to be carried out on how well the legislation meets its objectives, both in the nature and level of benefits provided to the veteran, dependants and survivors, as well as in the ways and means of determining and delivering the benefits. The examination was undertaken as a result of our recognizing, first, that the age and circumstances of the veteran and family today are very different from 1930 when the legislation was created, and second, that the methods used to administer the legislation might no longer be the most appropriate. The review is to focus on identifying opportunities for improving benefits to recipients and streamlining the administration of such benefits.
The review is reaching the stage where a report on the evaluation findings and a preliminary identification of alternative methods of achieving the objective of the legislation is due.
Adjournment Debate
This will not be a final document; rather, it will be a progress report permitting guidance to be given on the general direction the study should take during its concluding phases.
The question of paying pro rata pensions to widows of pensioned veterans has been raised by the hon. member many times. It has been suggested that a widow should receive a pro rata pension if her husband had been in receipt of a disability pension assessed at the rate of 47 per cent or less. Had his pension been assessed at the rate of 48 per cent or more, the surviving dependants would be pensionable. It should be remembered that a widow will be pensioned if her husband's death was attributable to service or occurred during wartime, regardless of the degree of the assessment of the disability.
I can assure the hon. member that when I have something specific to report on either of these subjects, I shall be pleased to do so.


TRANSPORT-REQUEST FOR CONTINUATION OF ESQUIMALT AND NANAIMO RAIL PASSENGER SERVICE
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, it is rather a shock for me to find myself speaking on an adjournment debate at two minutes to 1 a.m., but the subject is important. It arises out of a question I asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) on October 20 about the Esquimalt-Nanaimo railway. I asked him if he could assure Vancouver Islanders that this popular, and now profitable, rail service will continue beyond December 13. The minister gave me more than the usual favourable answer and told me he presumed that the remarkable increase in the number of people using the services will be taken into account in the various steps which have to be taken with regard to the future of the rail service.
This story goes back a considerable distance. It is a long story of the CPR attempting to abandon a railway that is providing passenger service, and I am sure it has happened in other cases in the country. In this case the Canadian Transport Commission in 1970 and 1973 denied the railway the petition to abandon service and ordered some improvements to take place in the promotion of the service, station improvements and provision of sufficient equipment so that they could avoid carrying passengers in the baggage section.
These ordered improvements were given no attention or minimal attention by the railway, and in fact the line deteriorated so much that the northern section had to be closed in 1975. The railway attempted to avoid necessary repairs for reopening the line. The Canadian Transport Commission ordered that the line be repaired, and it was reopened in December, 1977.
From then on it was the story of the railway trying to give such poor service that nobody would use it and the railway could use that as an excuse to close down the line. Fares were prohibitively high, much higher than bus fares and CPR fares in other places, such as from Calgary to Red Deer. The only promotional effort was the printing of a few time cards. The

October 23, 1978
Adjournment Debate
stations were in disrepair, often locked. Passenger inquiries had no local phone number on the island to phone for information. No food service was available, not even vending machines in either the train or in the stations. The Victoria terminal was relocated away from the city in an inaccessible suburban location. Permanent slow orders were in effect, delaying the train on every trip, without any public notification of the later schedule; thus trains were chronically and permanently behind time. No Sunday service was available, a day which has proven to be one on which there is heavy demand for service.
Predictably, the number of passengers was reduced to the very few who somehow discovered the existence of the service and could afford the exorbitant rate. The railway was given permission to discontinue service, although a one year extension of the order was granted to allow for appeal. This period expires on December 13 this year.
Local residents aware of the significant need and market demand for the service which existed have realized that they must use the service, despite the existing glaring deficiencies. Since December, 1977, thanks to an ad hoc committee which was formed by Mr. John Cooper and Mr. Win Moss to support the railway, loadings have climbed steadily to become impressive indeed. By May, loadings were regularly exceeding the capacity of the single unit available. By June the average daily loadings for the month exceeded 100 per cent of the seating capacity.
In summary, instead of the previous 8,000 to 12,000 passengers per year of recent years, this year saw loadings of over 40,000, and this in spite of the deficiencies in the service.
CPR has responded to the increased demand for service in a minimal way. The CPR action to fight against this ad hoc committee increasing the number of passengers carried has been as follows. No timetables have been available for over four months. Since this is the only company promotion for the service, it does not seem unreasonable to expect timetables, especially in view of changes in the service and fares. Slow orders keeping the train at 30 miles per hour were lifted only after public pressure. Stations have been unlocked after public pressure. Extra equipment has been added only after intense public pressure and the offer to help from B.C. rail.
Sunday service has been added but only after public pressure. After six weeks it was retained because of additional public pressure. Timetables and posters printed by an island daily and by private subscription were removed from the stations and train by order of the company, even though no timetable exists. The Canadian Pacific Railway feels no obligation toward persons who cannot board trains due to overloads, except on occasion to post signs in stations of high-use days warning potential passengers against using the train.
The new, substantially cheaper VIA fares were introduced only after they had been introduced throughout the rest of Canada first, and then only after public pressure. VIA excursion fares were not introduced until some six weeks later, when public pressure brought the matter to light. Amenities are

minimal: stations have no phones; the on-board ash trays are used salmon tins; the disposal kit is an old bucket; the toilets are consistently out of order; and no on-board food service of any kind is available.
These items stress two facts. The CPR has provided service grudgingly, poorly, and only when subject to public pressure and scrutiny on a constant basis. The public response to the service, in light of the foregoing facts, underlines the very real need for the service. Certainly no one is riding because it offers luxury accommodation.
The present schedule is not adequate. It would be much more efficient to use a two-car train which each day would travel from Victoria to the north end of the island and back. One car at each end could be started at the same time. They are self-propelled. They could cater to northern Vancouver Island citizens, as well as the citizens of Victoria and its environs.
At the present time it is not possible for the railway to take this on, because there is an outstanding appeal by the British Columbia provincial government and the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas). But it is my understanding that the minister can authorize an extension of the present extension for another five years, and I ask him to do that. It would give VIA Rail time to get firm control of the passenger service on that railway. Also it would provide the time necessary to continue developing the services on the island. If the minister gives the additional five years, we are confident that the railway will be made permanent and profitable.
[ Translation]


Mr. Charles Lapointe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has just raised a problem that several members of this House have experienced in the past and will probably experience in the future. It concerns the fact that our railroads, whether Canadian National or Canadian Pacific, have too often in the past neglected passenger services for more profitable services. In fact, this is why the government established VIA Rail so as to put some order in passenger services and attempt to serve the Canadians who need these services to travel from place to place as they deserve.

As the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) points out, patronage has increased on this service over the past years as a result of the publicity generated about the service and the introduction of fare reductions this past summer. In June and July, patronage was up 130 per cent over the same period last year, and average loads during this period were around 78 persons per trip. Accordingly, on July 28, 1978, Canadian Pacific added an additional car to the train, thereby increasing capacity from 71 seats to 161 seats each way. Canadian Pacific reports that overloads have occurred only on a few weekends due to groups arriving at the station which are larger than had been indicated earlier to agents. September 30 and October 9 were two dates cited.
October 23, 1978

I should note that the president of VIA Rail inspected the facilities personally last week in order to assess problems with the current service. The Canadian Transport Commission, in its evaluation of this service, determined that it is uneconomic, and a good quality road network and bus service parallels the railway between Victoria and Courtenay. These reasons contributed to the CTC decision to allow the discontinuance.
Royal Assent


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill C-l 1, an act to provide for the resumption and continuation of shipping on the Great Lakes and certain other waters, without amendment.
As stated earlier, there are a number of complex legal and procedural questions relating to the commission's earlier decision and the subsequent appeal by the province of British Columbia which have a bearing on the final decision relating to this service. As the House may be aware, the matter of the B.C. appeal is still before the courts. The commission is, however, reviewing its earlier decision as a result of two applications for review. The commission will be reporting prior to December 13. This review is currently under way and the Department of Transport is assessing the matter in detail at this time.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the minister is well aware of the importance of these services, but it is obvious that the minister cannot take any action as long as the Canadian Transport Commission has not given its ruling following a review of its previous decision concerning this service. I therefore believe that the hon. member for Victoria should raise this issue again, certainly before December 13, and when the commission has given its ruling on that date, make other representations to the minister if the ruling is not favourable so that a study can be made to see what are the possibilities of maintaining this service.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been withdrawn.
Pursuant to the order made earlier, the sitting is now suspended to the call of the Chair.


SITTING SUSPENDED
[Stage Direction]
At 1.08 a.m. the sitting of the House was suspended.

Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty to inform the House that the following communication has been received:
Ottawa, October 24, 1978 Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Wishart Spence, OBE., Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 24th day of October, at 2.25 a.m., for the purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant, Edmond Joly de Lotbiniere Administrative Secretary to the Governor General

A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the House that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bill:
Bill C-l 1, an act to provide for the resumption and continuation of shipping on the Great Lakes and certain other waters-Chapter I.


Mr. Speaker:: It being after ten o'clock, this House stands adjourned until two o'clock later this day.
By unanimous consent the House adjourned at 2.37 a.m.

Tuesday, October 24, 1978