1982-11-03

MOTIONS UNDER S.O. 43   THE PRIME MINISTER

['I wish to draw the attention of the House to the distinguished presence in our gallery of a delegation of Italian parliamentarians, headed by Deputy Dominico Susi.']
Mrs. Jennifer Cossitt (Leeds-Grenville):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that Canadians have already suffered through 14 years of economic mismanagement, uncontrolled Government spending, spiralling unemployment and record bankruptcies, resulting in a wave of insurmountable social pressures, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Scott):
That this House be given the opportunity of restoring the trust the Canadian people no longer have in the present Government, and that the Prime Minister follow the excellent example of his right-hand man, Michael Pitfield, Clerk of the Privy Council, and consider tendering his resignation before the Annual Liberal Party Convention this weekend.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.



Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the fishing industry on both coasts is facing its greatest challenge economically in its history, the House regrets the reluctance of the present Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. De Bane) to appear in the Chamber to answer questions and to outline the Government's policy with respect to the fisheries crisis, as is evidenced by his refusal to attend the Question Period on Monday and Tuesday of this week despite his presence in the House on both evenings. Therefore I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro):
That this House directs the Minister to acquire sufficient interest and backbone to carry out his obligations to this House and to the fishermen of Canada by attending the sessions at least during Question Period.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, a comprehensive study by Jensen Engineering of Olds, Alberta, indicates that the agricultural sector of the Alberta economy is saddled with federal excise taxes in excess of $ 130 million for gas, diesel fuel and natural gas. I do not have the figures for all of Canada, but one could safely triple this amount for the three Prairie Provinces-almost $400 million a year in excise taxes for energy. Therefore I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor):
That oppressive and unrealistic federal excise taxes on energy used in food production are an unfair burden for farmers and, in the long run, result in excessively high food costs to consumers, and that the Finance Minister move to correct this situation in his promised 1983 budget or sooner, if possible.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


ENERGY CONSERVATION
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, one of the Government's Halloween tricks on the Canadian public last week was to close down the Renewable Energy Exhibit at Rideau Falls, Ontario. This four-year project attracted more than 50,000 people last year at a cost of $36,000, or less than $1 per person, yet the Government is willing to preserve the Canadian nuclear industry at the staggering cost of $3.5 billion spent since 1979, and last week cut $660 million, from the budget, particularly from the conservation sector. Therefore I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose):
That, for the sake of the Canadian conservation effort, the Renewable Energy Exhibit at Rideau Falls, be reinstated.

November 3, 1982


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


THE DISABLED AND THE HANDICAPPED
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. The Special Parliamentary Committee on the Disabled and Handicapped in its all-party unanimous "Obstacles Report" strongly recommended and urged that a minister responsible for the disabled be designated, whose sole responsibility would be to represent in cabinet the needs and concerns of disabled persons, to act as a political advocate and to formulate new Government policies and programs on behalf of all disabled persons. I hope I may have the support of all sides of the House in moving, seconded by the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Patterson):
That the Prime Minister, at the earliest opportunity, appoint a minister responsible for disabled persons.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, the squabble between the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), who proposes high surtaxes on workers' earnings as a solution to our economic problems, and Dennis McDermott, the real leader of the New Democratic Party, who insists, on the other hand, on increasing the $23 billion Liberal deficit, must pain all true socialists such as the Right Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mr. Trudeau) or the Hon. Member for Outremont (Mr. Lalonde). Therefore I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Patterson):
That, if the New Democratic Party insists on public self-destruction, then at least it have the common decency to crawl away and die quietly.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer).


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Canada Post is attempting to cut expenses and decrease its over-all deficit by reducing many customer services. Rural residents are being asked to accept reduced service on rural routes and shorter operating hours of local post offices. This has had the effect of some residents being without mail delivery for as long as four days. Therefore I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor):
That the Post Office be instructed to have its officials confer with local residents and business people before any changes in postal service are made, in an effort to provide an equitable distribution of mail in rural areas.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


MINES AND MINING
Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Brian Mulroney, President of the Iron Ore Company, announced yesterday that the company's mine in Schefferville, Quebec, would be shutting down, throwing 285 people out of work and all but destroying the community. He gave as one reason for this the ore being produced in foreign countries and subsidized by foreign governments.
It has since come to my attention that the Iron Ore Company is connected to one of these foreign companies in Brazil, through the Hanna Mining Corporation, an American company which also owns part of the Iron Ore Company. In view of the large profits made recently by the Iron Ore Company which may have left the country to develop iron deposits in places such as Brazil, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis):
That the Government investigate the possibility that Canadian miners are producing profits for Iron Ore and other companies and that these profits are then being used to destroy the jobs of Canadians miners.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
November 3, 1982


COMMONWEALTH GAMES
Mr. Irenee Pelletier (Sherbrooke):: Madam Speaker, the XXII Commonwealth Games were held in Brisbane, Australia, this year from September 30 to October 10. More than 250 athletes from all parts of Canada took part in the games and some members of the Canadian team set Commonwealth records and also several world records.
Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I move, seconded by the members for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid) and Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose):
That the House acknowledge and express its admiration for the courage, discipline and efforts displayed by Canadian athletes during the XXII Commonwealth Games, and that the members of this House congratulate them and wish them all every success in their pursuit of excellence.


Madam Speaker:: The House may wish to show its appreciation with some applause.


HOUSING
Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Last Wednesday the Finance Minister announced that the Canadian Home Ownership Stimulation Program would be extended four months to April 30, 1983, in order to stimulate the construction of new homes in Canada. In my riding in northern Ontario and in all the northern portions of this country, however, it is impossible to begin construction of a new home between November 15 and May 15 because the frost in the ground prevents excavation and pouring of foundations. Northern residents will, therefore, not be able to take full advantage of this program, and its intention of stimulating the housing industry will not be achieved to the fullest potential. Therefore I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
That this House urge the Government to extend the Canadian Home Ownership Stimulation Program a further month to allow northern residents the opportunity to take advantage of the program and to stimulate the housing industry to the fullest possible extent.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
Oral Questions


CANADA SAVINGS BONDS
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a most important and urgent problem. I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke (Mr. Parker):
That this House urge the Minister of Finance to rescind his directive of October 7 restricting certain persons from purchasing Canada Savings Bonds on the monthly saving plan for bond purchases of less than $1,000.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF ITALIAN PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION
Madam Speaker:: I wish to draw the attention of the House to the distinguished presence in our gallery of a delegation of Italian parliamentarians, headed by Deputy Dominico Susi.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. It is widely recognized that improved productivity is the means to improved efficiency, increased jobs, lower inflation, and a better competitive position, which obviously will lead to increased exports. Why did the Minister not direct any Government resources toward improving productivity in the country, in his recent budgetary statement?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I made an economic statement last week. I indicated that I was taking steps to improve the situation in the business sector in particular by not proceeding with a number of taxes and by removing certain administrative burdens from the private sector so they could proceed with all the energy they have to improve economic conditions in Canada at the present time. I think that will lead to increased productivity.
Unfortunately, firms have had to lay off many people in the current circumstances. As the Hon. Member also knows, they

November 3, 1982
Oral Questions
are in a difficult financial situation, and the first effort of business as the recovery comes along will indeed be concentrated on improving productivity.
As far as further medium and long term measures are concerned, I said that I was going to consult extensively with labour and management. I indicated that an increase in productivity was a major issue for the future of Canada. I certainly intend to address this issue in my consultations over the next few weeks with business and labour.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: We have heard these sorts of words from previous Ministers for some time now. The Minister surely knows that Canada's productivity record is the worst of any industrialized country in the world. He must agree that the statements he has made previously about putting all the emphasis on the six and five program are not enough-it deals with part of the problem-and that a key part of the problem is improving output in the country.


STEPS TO IMPROVE WORKER OUTPUT
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. What has the Government done since the 1980 election to improve the output per worker? That is obviously the key to productivity.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, indeed our level of productivity is a source of concern. I would remind the Hon. Member, however, that between 1970 and 1980 the Canadian record compared reasonably well to those of its competitors in terms of productivity.
We have had a serious problem in the last short while, and my approach is to attempt to leave room again for the business sector to invest in more efficient machinery, to improve the efficiency of plants, as well as trying to encourage labour and management to sit down together and hopefully arrive at better labour-management relations in this country than we have known in the past.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I cannot let what the Minister said go without making a comment that-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -the productivity problem in this country began back in the mid-1970s, not in the last couple of years.


SUGGESTED ESTABLISHMENT OF PRODUCTIVITY CENTRES
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, in 1961 the Diefenbaker Government formed the National Productivity Council which was to increase the awareness of the importance of productivity and to develop ways to improve productivity. A subsequent Liberal Government rolled that into the Economic Council in which it has assumed a very minor role. Would the Minister of Finance consider initiating a well-funded program to support national productivity centres across the country, involving Government, labour and the corporate sector, that would increase the awareness and the
need for productivity, develop better information programs on how we can improve productivity, and advise the federal Government and other Governments on their roles in increasing the productivity of the country?


Marc Lalonde: I thank the Hon. Member for his suggestion to increase federal Government expenditures. I will look at his proposal. I recall this particular arrangement that had been set up around 1960. The scheme was abandoned because it proved to be a very inefficient operation. Frankly it ended up being more like a make-believe operation than a real contributor to increasing productivity. I do not want to repeat the same mistake, but 1 am certainly ready to discuss and consider, with our economic partners, the advantages of any continuing institutional changes which might improve productivity. If the establishment of such centres were to be of great benefit, it would obviously be foolish for us to refuse to consider such a proposal. However, I submit to the Hon. Member that it is not necessarily by adding to institutions and to federal Government expenditures that we will succeed in improving productivity in our country.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Gordon Gilchrist (Scarborough East):: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of State for Economic Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology. The Minister knows that the United Nations has been seeking the establishment of a biotechnology centre, a major one in the world, and preferably in a country which is eminently suited to receiving it and operating it. Such a country, of course, is Canada, with its high education levels, with its small but highly intelligent population, and with its other resources in computers and agricultural development which would sustain it. Is the Minister giving active consideration to the establishment of such a centre, and has he taken steps to advise the United Nations that Canada wants it badly and will handle it well?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Minister of State for Economic Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Madam Speaker, I am sure that if the centre comes to Canada, it will indeed be handled very well. There is a great deal of interest in the centre. The City of Montreal, like some other areas of Canada, has expressed particular interests.
We really need further analysis of this particular project. As Hon. Members know, it is primarily directed toward biotechnological research for Third World countries and for the training of Third World scientists in Canada, a very interesting project indeed.
November 3, 1982

We will be sending some representatives to a conference in Belgrade around mid-December, 1 believe, to ask some further questions with respect to the costs, and also to ascertain what other countries might be interested in contributing to the costs if such a centre were to be established in Canada. It is estimated at the present time, as I recall, that the initial capital costs will amount to something in the neighbourhood of $50 million and that the operating costs in turn over the first five years would be approximately the same amount. Therefore, it clearly must be subjected to a cost-benefit analysis. It is under active consideration and we are very interested indeed.


James Gordon Gilchrist: Madam Speaker, that is a very sensible answer concerning a cost-benefit analysis, and I compliment the Minister.


REQUEST THAT TORONTO AREA BE CONSIDERED AS POSSIBLE SITE
James Gordon Gilchrist: Madam Speaker, the Minister knows that it would likely require an annual input of $35 million from other nations to sustain such a centre. He mentioned Montreal, and I am sure he did not mention it because he comes from that area. However, he also knows that the University of Waterloo, which is now preeminent in computer science, in fact surpassing Stanford and other such notable institutions; the University of Guelph, which has always been pre-eminent in agriculture, and the Allelix project, sponsored by the CDC, the Ontario Government and the Labatt Company, are all centred around west Toronto and would form the core of a critical mass, no pun intended, to create such a viable institution. I wonder if he is giving consideration to that aggregation and why he has not yet made application when other countries have already made known their intentions of applying for the project. I would hate to see it lost due to indifference.


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, as I mentioned in my first answer, I know that a number of areas in Canada are interested in this particular project. The Hon. Member, coming from Ontario, understandably refers to the interests of that particular region. I understand there is also interest in the maritime provinces as well. Of course, this is something which would have to be taken into consideration after we have received further information of the kind that I mentioned.
With respect to the application, I understand that it is being handled by the Department of External Affairs. I see the Minister is not here today. However, my understanding is that we are not in the position of having lost this project by any means. We would like to have more information with respect to it, and that is why we are sending a delegation to Belgrade in December.
Oral Questions


SOCIAL SECURITY
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. The Government is currently creating a lot of confusion and anxiety amongst Canadian families concerning its policy on the universality of social programs. Ten days ago a spokesperson for the Minister of National Health and Welfare said that family allowances would remain unchanged. Yesterday the Minister of Finance, in contrast, suggested just the opposite, that the universal aspect of family allowances may have to be discarded.
Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to state unequivocally that family allowances will remain a right for every Canadian family?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I want to state quite clearly to the Leader of the New Democratic Party that I am not considering abandoning the principle of universality. In 1974, as Minister of National Health and Welfare, I sponsored a tripling of family allowances, plus their full indexation, so my record is pretty safe in that regard.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: The Leader of the NDP should know, therefore, my favourite option. However, there is a greater readiness in the population to ensure that Government expenditures are better targeted to those most in need. I have received representations in that regard and my statement is aimed at making sure that representations I receive in the future will be based on a well-informed consideration of the situation, of the pros and cons, and that the suggestions coming from the Leader of the NDP as well as those from others will take place in a context where we will have a rational discussion and careful examination of the issues rather than a knee-jerk reaction as I have seen from some.


UNIVERSAL RIGHT-MINISTER'S POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, that certainly clarifies the situation. I do not know if we were given an ironclad guarantee or not by the Minister on that issue. However, I would like to try for an ironclad guarantee.
Is the Minister saying to the House, and more important is he saying to every working family across this land, that family allowances will remain a universal right to which every family in this country is entitled?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I indicated that this certainly was my favourite option. As far as the working families of this country are concerned, I want to ensure indeed that they would get the largest possible benefits in the form of family allowances. That is certainly my objective and the one I will be fighting for.

November 3, 1982
Oral Questions GOVERNMENT POLICY


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I will try again with what I presume is the real Prime Minister, and maybe he will not switch to his surrogate but will answer the question this time.
The Prime Minister's good friend, the Minister of Finance, just said that maintaining universal family allowances is his "favourite option". Now, a specialist in logic, as I know the Prime Minister is, will have inferred from that that it is a favourite option but it may be the one that he will not choose. Therefore, I ask the Prime Minister quite seriously, will he, as head of the Government, finally clarify the situation and tell the people of Canada that every family in this country will remain entitled to a family allowance?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I am used to hearing arguments from various sides of this House, and even in Cabinet there are sometimes arguments, on both sides of the question. But in this particular case the Hon. Leader of the Opposition knows that it is the favourite option-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Chretien:: 


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, let us say the Leader of the Opposition which brings out its Members when a vote comes on a nonconfidence issue.


Mr. Clark:: On time.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: He knows that the Minister of National Health and Welfare also has universality as her favourite option, so I will be very highly influenced by these options.


REQUEST FOR REFERRAL TO STANDING COMMITTEE
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, I have a brief supplementary for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The Minister of Finance said that he would like to see Members of the House have a rational discussion of this matter. I would ask the Minister if, in the interest of having that rational discussion, she would consider making a reference to the Standing Committee on Health, Wealth and Social Affairs of the total income security programs because of the fact that we are literally spending billions of dollars on these programs and yet, at the same time, there are 2.8 million Canadians living below the poverty line. Obviously something is not working correctly. I wonder if, in light of those facts, she would consider making that reference to the Committee.


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: The fact is, Madam Speaker, that our objective, and I think my two colleagues have explained this quite clearly, is to achieve redistribution within our social programs. Actually,
we cannot isolate family allowances since they are part of a package which may not be as familiar to hon. members and which, for instance, includes a tax exemption for dependent children which goes to the parents, and also the child tax credit, and so forth, and the same applies to the pension component. So the main objective, let us say for the time being and in the years to come for any minister of National Health and Welfare will be that there will be no new funding from other sources, and therefore the problem is one of achieving redistribution within these programs in a way that is socially just.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence, and I think it may also be of interest to the Minister of Supply and Services. The minister is aware that there are all kinds of speculations going the rounds in Quebec regarding the economic spin-offs of the F-l8 purchase. Since the member for Longueuil has said publicly that there was a cabinet commitment that $1.5 billion should go to the province of Quebec, which represents 48 per cent of the spin-offs as initially projected, can the minister give us the assurance today that Quebec will derive all the economic benefits from the purchase, namely the $1.5 billion, and that at the same time, the 48 per cent of total spin-offs is maintained?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, I think the F-l8 and its industrial and economic spin-offs will provide ample opportunity for discussion for a number of years yet, in fact, until 1995, when all aspects of the project will be finalized. However, Madam Speaker, I can assure you that along with the member for Joliette, the entire Quebec caucus on this side of the House and all the ministers concerned have a keen interest in this matter. However, I wish to point out with respect to what the member for Joliette has just said about certain allegations made by the Quebec Minister of Industry and Commerce, that the Minister may not have received all the information he should have had from the Minister of Supply and Services. Quebecers should know that as of September 1982, Quebec has already obtained nearly $1 billion in industrial spin-offs, and I can assure you that I have never had any doubts as to the forecast and guarantees given Quebecers in 1980 when the contract was signed, namely that they would have their fair share of these economic spin-offs, and I am convinced that this part of the project will be a success just as the aircraft itself, as we saw a week or so ago. I am sure that the industrial spin-offs and the aircraft itself will be equally successful.
November 3, 1982


Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Supply and Services, and I hope he will also acknowledge the very important statement made by the member for Longueuil, namely that the cabinet has made a commitment to redistribute 48 per cent of the economic spinoffs. Considering his responsibilities, can the Minister give the House the assurance that he will see to it that Quebec is given the share that corresponds to the cabinet commitment, namely, a minimum of $1.5 billion, and that if the economic spin-offs should exceed the initial forecast, Quebec will receive 48 per cent of these spin-offs? That was my question.


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, I am sure that the member for Joliette listened very carefully to the answer given by the Minister of National Defence, and I am satisfied that he obtained the desired information. I simply wish to add that when the contract was awarded, we had identified the economic spin-offs and the strong likelihood that these would represent $1.5 billion for the province of Quebec. In fact, we have met 63 per cent of the forecast, although we are now only at the 24 per cent mark of the total economic spin-off period. So, as the Minister indicated quite clearly, we only need $600 million to meet our objective, and I am sure that by 1995, economic spin-offs will, we hope, have exceeded the target we had set, and 1 am also sure that the member for Joliette, in this new spirit of co-operation being shown by the opposition, will give us the benefit of this imaginative proposals so that we can meet this objective.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF 1982 CANADIAN MOUNT EVEREST EXPEDITION MEMBERS
Madam Speaker:: I would like to draw the attention of the House to the presence in our gallery today of eight members of the 1982 Canadian Mount Everest Expedition. The members of the expedition whom I will recognize from those heights are as follows: Mr. Bill March, expedition leader.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Mr. Lloyd "Kiwi" Gallagher, deputy leader.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Mr. John Amatt, climber.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Mr. Dwayne Congdon, climber.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Mr. Pat Morrow, climber.


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


Madam Speaker:: Mr. Laurie Skreslet, climber.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Mr. Peter Spear, camp manager.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: It seems I have left one name out, but I was not given that name on my list.
Voice from the Speaker's Gallery: Dave Read.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[Editor's Note: Whereupon the Members rose and applauded.]


AIRPORTS
Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Madam Speaker, it is perhaps appropriate that my question to the Minister of Transport will bring us back to earth, although the question really has something to do with between earth and the sky. I know the Minister has many matters pending on his legislative platter from Chairmen of the CTC, the Harbours Board, VIA Rail, and on domestic air policy. I want to ask him specifically about a report that I understand is on his desk recommending closure of ten of the 60 airport towers across the country. If so, what are the criteria that are to be used for the closure of those ten towers? Are the criteria going to be made public, and when is the decision going to be made?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, my Department tries to be as productive as possible, to follow up on a previous question. We are constantly on the alert to see whether savings can be made here or there without neglecting safety. The possibility of closing air control towers in some airports of Canada is one that is being studied now. The events in the United States a few months ago respecting air control have indicated to the world that there are savings to be made in that particular area of air transportation. We are looking at it in that light, but I want to assure my hon. friend that safety will not be compromised.


PROPOSED CLOSURE LOCATIONS
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, we all know there is quite a difference between this country and the United States. We all know, and the Minister appreciates, that in the Dubin Report it was clearly set out that any airport which handles jets should have a tower, to avoid the unfortunate accident that occurred in Cranbrook.
In view of the onset of winter, and the fact this matter has been sitting on the Minister's desk for sometime, could the

November 3, 1982
Oral Questions
Minister tell this House and the country-to help shed some light on this problem and to show the difference between here and the United States-that some of the airports being considered for closing are Penticton, Charlottetown, Val d'Or, and the fact that a decision has not been made is because Mirabel is also involved because of the lack of aircraft at that airport?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, the question changed at the last moment. The first question was on closure of towers. Now it is a question on closing of airports, but I think the Hon. Member meant towers.
I can confirm, and I say it quite simply, that we are looking at the possibility of making savings in order to pay for other services that are needed more than the ones to which the Hon. Member referred. In some cases it has to do with a possible closing of towers; in other cases it has to do with the elimination of the nightshift in some particular airports, simply because the airports are not being used at night. There are other ways to land aircraft which do not necessitate the presence of air controllers in towers.
We are trying to be efficient. Everybody, every day, talks about productivity. We had a question a moment ago on that subject. But whenever a Minister makes a move to bring about productivity in his department, he is chastised by somebody in the Opposition. So, I am trying to be efficient, and efficiency demands that in order to build adequate air services in Canada, in the instances where savings can be made, we should move and make those savings, but, I repeat, without endangering the safety of anyone.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Lyle S. Kristiansen (Kootenay West):: Madam Speaker, I am glad to hear the Government so concerned about efficiency, because I want to ask a question of the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Over the past few months hundreds of unemployed forestry workers in B.C. alone have been cut off regular UIC benefits. As they enter into the Employment Bridging Assistance Program, they wait without any income for up to six to eight weeks, or more, for the money they have earned. These victims are the latest to be added to the thousands of jobless in B.C., Alberta, Ontario and elsewhere, who have been forced to go on welfare while waiting week upon week to collect their first regular UIC benefits, and the delays go on and on. This is often their only income, apart from family allowances for the families of those breadwinners.
Will the Minister explain to this House just why he has allowed this inexcusable foul-up to go on and on and on within his Department, month after month, to the point where at least
one class action lawsuit has had to be launched by the unemployed?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, to begin with, I am glad the Hon. Member recognizes the fact we had introduced a number of alternative job programs for the forestry workers to provide assistance for them during this period of time. But he is very sadly mistaken when he indicates that no action has been taken to ensure that they are receiving payment, for in those areas we have added substantial numbers of people to the unemployment insurance offices to deal with the very large number of applications for assistance, which he knows have increased in his own province by something like 40 per cent or 50 per cent. We have also assigned a substantial number of overtime hours for our own employees who are now working an average of six to seven days a week to deal with the UIC backlogs and get the cheques out. I can assure the Hon. Member that the staff of the Department are working as hard as they can to provide both the regular UIC backup as well as the money for the new bridging program.


CANADA LABOUR CODE
Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Madam Speaker, as a supplementary, in many areas the waiting period gets longer and longer, and it is not the fault of the employees. It is not just a matter of time. One male construction worker in Vancouver recently-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I cannot allow the Hon. Member to argue in this way. I would like him to ask the supplementary question.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Madam Speaker, there are a number of particular cases. A hardworking E.B.A.P. employee in the Nelson area was fired-


Madam Speaker:: Order. Order. I have just signalled to the Hon. Member that he must go directly to his question.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Madam Speaker, why is it that B.C. employees under E.B.A.P. were removed by Order in Council 81 of the Province of British Columbia from any protection under the Employment Standards Act of that Province? Why do they suffer without first aid facilities? And is that the same case in Ontario, Alberta, and elsewhere, as well, and, if that is the case, how can the Minister justify it, and what is he going to do about it, if he will not justify it?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, if I understand the Hon. Member's question, it is a question more properly addressed to the Government of the Province of British Columbia.
November 3, 1982

[ Translation]


CLOSURE OF GRAIN ELEVATOR NO. 1 AT PORT OF MONTREAL
Mr. Gerald Laniel (Beauharnois-Salaberry):: Madam
Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Given the very real possibility that grain elevator No. 1 in the Port of Montreal will be closed down permanently on December 31, 1982, could the minister delay demolition until the federal government reinstates its farm subsidy program for the construction of co-operative silos, in order to meet the need for storage of surplus grain, particularly this year with the very good crop we had in the East, since prices will drop dramatically if we do not have alternate storage facilities?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, the decision to close down elevator No. 1 in the Port of Montreal was made for several reasons. First of all, the elevator is very old and represents a safety hazard. Second, room must be made for new facilities in the old Port of Montreal. So that is why the decision was made.
Madam Speaker, I may add that Trois-Rivieres, Sorel, Quebec City and other places have grain elevators where grain can be brought in by truck. Therefore, grain producers can go to those facilities.


ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, as the Minister responsible for Atomic Energy of Canada. It concerns the future of the two heavy water plants in Nova Scotia. The failure to sell Candu reactors may well result in cutbacks in heavy water production and possible closure of the two plants. Parts of Cape Breton already have unemployment twice the national average and this plant closure could result in the loss of a further 3,000 jobs, directly and indirectly.
Is the Minister reviewing this massive problem, and what solution does he propose? Has he received any help from his Parliamentary Secretary, or from the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who represents the workers affected by these possible plant closures?


An Hon. Member:: Wake up, Jean.


An Hon. Member:: You are now the Minister of Energy, Jean.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I was in profound meditation.


POLICY ON SALES TO INDIA
Howard Edward Crosby: Madam Speaker, I can try it one more time, but I think the people of Cape Breton
Oral Questions
know the interest the Minister has in their plant closure problems.
I will ask the Prime Minister this question. The workers at the Strait of Canso plant have made a request of the Secretary of State for External Affairs to help in the sale of heavy water to India. The Prime Minister knows this affects an important Government policy with respect to the sale of nuclear materials to certain countries. What I should like to ask the Prime Minister, on behalf of plant workers in the Strait of Canso, is whether, in view of the massive unemployment problem that would be caused by the plant closure, the Government is willing to reconsider its policy with respect to the sale of nuclear materials to India and to modify that policy so that a sale of heavy water could take place and this plant, in the constituency of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, could be saved.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, it was my understanding that the question was put to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and therefore I was also in meditation when the Hon. Member put the question.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I should like to answer the question. I think there is a problem with the production of heavy water in Canada. It is a very difficult problem, and it is not a new one. It is related to the problem of selling Candu reactors around the world. We need reactors in order to use the heavy water. It is a problem that I am working on, but it is a very difficult one at this time. No final decision has been made. On the question of selling reactors, even if we had a buyer tomorrow, it would not mean that we would need the production of heavy water for many, many more years. It is a difficult problem and no final decision has been made on it as yet.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, my questions are directed to the Minister of Finance. He will recall that on October 28, in reply to questions concerning his budget, he said, as reported at page 20122 of Hansard'.
-I left out a number if issues that are still to be considered in terms of the amendments to the Income Tax Act-
Nearly a year has gone by since the egg-laying budget of November 12. There has been massive uncertainty within the country, with the result that people cannot open new businesses because they are afraid to get involved and are afraid to

November 3, 1982
Oral Questions
employ people. That uncertainty is the problem. When is the Minister going to give the Elouse of Commons and the people of Canada the final version of the Income Tax Act so that we can understand what we are paying taxes on in this country, so that business can get going again, and so that we can have some growth and development in the country?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, if my hon. colleague had read the rest of my statement, he would have noticed that I said we intended to introduce a definitive bill at the beginning of December. However, I hope that when the bill is introduced, we can count on the Hon. Member and his opposition colleagues to expedite this legislation in the House so that we will be able to provide business with a substantial degree of certainty as to the specific manner in which the Income Tax Act will apply to corporate income in the years to come.


DATE OF INTRODUCTION
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, the Minister knows that his Parliamentary Secretary and his officials have the full benefit of public hearings that his Department insisted be completed by September 30. He has met with business people and labour people across the country. By December 1 this matter will have gone on for well over a year. Can the Minister give the House an undertaking that no later then December 1 the final version of this income tax mess the Government has created will be presented to Parliament?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I am surprised that the Hon. Member seems to complain about the readiness of the Government to be flexible and to listen to representations from people outside, as well as from parliamentarians. At the end of September I received the report from the Parliamentary Committee, and I thank them for it. I have also had extensive discussions with various groups and organizations during the month of October, covering some of the same subjects. I have reached a conclusion on most of the items that were still under consideration and, in my statement last week, I announced my decision on a large number of them.
We are in the process of drafting the bill. I should like to be able to introduce it before December 1 if that can be done. However, I cannot tell the Hon. Member that if it is not ready by December 1 the roof will fall in, but we will try to produce it for December 2 or December 3; I said it would be introduced for sure in early December. I am doing my very best to ensure that it will be ready even before then, so that the Parliamentary Committee can have the full time to examine it. I hope that, with co-operation, we can pass the bill before Christmas.


PIPELINES
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. It concerns the proposed water pipeline from Lake Diefenbaker to the Buffalo Pound pumping station. The Prime Minister has indicated in the House that the federal Government would be anxious to discuss this project with the Province of Saskatchewan if the Province considers it a priority. Last weekend the Minister met with the Minister of Finance for Saskatchewan. Can the Minister inform us if the pipeline was discussed, if the Saskatchewan Government considers the pipeline to be a priority, and if we can expect an announcement soon that the project will proceed?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, it appears that Members of the New Democratic caucus are asking questions this afternoon that have a very strong provincial overtone.
I can tell the Hon. Member that I met with Members of the Saskatchewan Government on the weekend to talk about the job creation program, the NEED program, in which we are enlisting their co-operation. They raised the matter of the Regina pipeline, which I think is a very important project for the Province. They indicated to me that they have a task force which is examining the feasibility of that but which will not report until mid or late November. My colleague, the President of the Treasury Board, has indicated to them that the federal Government is prepared to sit down and discuss the matter with them as soon as the report is available. I am sure we would like to follow through on that matter. That is where things stand at the present time.


REQUEST FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE
Simon Leendert de Jong: Madam Speaker, that answer is most encouraging. The pipeline and the project are something that community leaders and political leaders in Regina are behind.


An Hon. Member:: And Moose Jaw.


Simon Leendert de Jong: And in Moose Jaw as well, Madam Speaker. Can the Minister give us the assurance that he will convey to the provincial Government the fact that the federal Government is prepared to co-operate in every way possible and to offer reasonable financial assistance for the completion of this most important project?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I think we demonstrate every day that we are prepared to co-operate with the provincial governments.
November 3, 1982


CORPORATE SHAREHOLDING LIMITATION ACT
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I wonder if the Prime Minister could explain this bill introduced yesterday in the Senate, which would prohibit provincial governments from acquiring more than a 10 per cent ownership in any company engaged in interprovincial and international transportation by energy pipelines, railways, airlines, shipping, trucking, bus lines and commodity pipelines. Would the Prime Minister tell us why the Government has taken this sudden action?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I think it is quite clear the government's intention was to introduce draft legislation in order to reaffirm its authority and jurisdiction in areas that are absolutely vital to the economy and unity of this country.


REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION IN SENATE
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister, first, was this legislation discussed in the spirit of co-operation and of trusting a Canadian? Was this legislation discussed with provincial governments before it was introduced in the Senate? Second, why was it snuck into the Senate instead of being introduced in the House of Commons?

Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Madam Speaker, there are two very good reasons why the bill was introduced. First of all, in doing so the government will avoid many problems in its dealings with the provinces-an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. In this case, Madam Speaker, the provinces can hardly blame the Canadian government for wanting to safeguard its jurisdiction. This measure is not aimed against the provinces. It is a Canadian measure for the benefit of the government of Canada. However, I am hardly surprised to see the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party take this stand, since he is rather fond of dismantling federal responsibility for the sake of the provinces.


REASONS FOR GOVERNMENT ACTION
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I have another question for the minister-

-but, I should prefer to get an answer from the Prime Minister-if the Prime Minister knows anything about this.
Will the Prime Minister tell us why this measure was introduced in the Senate-was snuck in rather than brought in here publicly, to the House of Commons?
Oral Questions
Why is the Government of Canada, just weeks after it has spoken about the need to establish a climate of confidence and trust, sneaking around in this way, trying to limit the capacity of provincial governments to act? Why is it doing that without any kind of consultation? Why do its actions always put the lie to its language?


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, I felt it was important to introduce this bill after the closing of the market. And besides, our Parliament has two Houses, and I am therefore surprised at the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party and his lack of appreciation of the Senate. In any event, once the draft legislation tabled in the Senate has been considered there, it will be considered later on in the House of Commons. Furthermore, the opposition knows perfectly well that seventeen bills are being considered in Parliament at the present time, and that we shall have to proceed with these before considering any new legislation. I may add that there was no attempt to do this in a surreptitious or sneaky manner. Tabling draft legislation in the Senate, which is after all a public place, is part of the business of Parliament, and I find the attitude of the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party very strange.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SOCIAL SECURITY
Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, I should like to address one of my questions to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. As a matter of fact, some of us feel very strongly about the way the Minister over the years has endorsed legislation for social development. However, there is one fact of law that is wrong and must be corrected, and I call on the Minister to do it. I refer to the fact that women between the ages of 60 and 65 who have no marital connection, and no income, are denied any pension at all. I ask the Minister to get the law corrected so that provision can be made for these women.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, even if it is not in the tradition of Question Period, I do not think Hon. Members would mind if I recall to all of us that it was about 13 months ago, today or tomorrow, that the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre

November 3, 1982
Oral Questions
went through a very serious health problem which many other Canadians share with him. Obviously we are pleased that he has recovered and is with us today.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Monique Bégin: It is worth giving him our best wishes. He is an example of hope for many Canadians that they too can recover.
Of course the serious problem the Hon. Member has defined in his question is a priority. However, it is not the first priority. The Government's first priority is to target assistance whenever possible to those single pensioners, mostly women, who are 65 years of age and older and who are still below the poverty line. In that respect the other problem becomes a second priority.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Canada Packers, Inc., Prince Edward Island's largest private sector employer, has just announced that it will close its doors next fall, thereby throwing hundreds of people out of work. In view of the fact that on P.E.I. such a plant closure is equivalent to a lay-off of some 2,000 or 3,000 workers in Quebec or Ontario, is the Government open to the idea of exploring with the owners of the plant, with the provincial Government, with the union and with other interested parties, every possible option for keeping the plant open and maintaining those jobs?


Mr. Andre Maltais (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for his question. As soon as the company has informed the government of its intentions regarding shutdowns and lay-offs, at that time we shall do what is now being done for other eastern regions and Ontario and Quebec, namely, we shall meet with the union, the company and government officials in order to decide what programs to implement so as to provide direct aid for workers who may be laid off.


ALLOCATION OF NEED PROGRAM FUNDS
Thomas Michael McMillan: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration, if I may have his attention. He has indicated that he does not yet know how the Government will allocate funds to the various provinces under its new job creation program, NEED. If the Canada Packers plant cannot be kept open with the help of the federal Government, the
Province and others, in any allocation of funds for Prince Edward Island will the Government consider not only current unemployment statistics on P.E.I., which God knows are bad enough, but also the fact that within a few months' time P.E.I. may well be facing the worst employment crisis in its history?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I should like to tell the Hon. Member that we are just about finished meeting with different provincial governments to discuss how we can put in place the final details of that Program. I hope to be in a position to bring those details forward in a matter of about a week's time. Also I indicate to him that we take into account regional differences in looking at the allocations, and that is one reason we have spent so much time talking in different regions to determine the best form of allocation. As well, I would remind him that there are other forms of assistance which we could provide to communities particularly hard hit by closures or lay-offs. I would be very glad to sit down with him or to have people from my Department do that, so that we could outline the range of options which might be helpful in this particular case.

[ Translation]


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table the reports of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Tuesday, November 2, 1982, and finds that the petitions meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Pinard:: Madam Speaker, I would like to draw your attention to a number of agreements that have been reached concerning Bill C-137 which we are to consider later today. There are four agreements. The first one concerns a change in the motion for second reading so as to provide for referral of the bill to a committee of the whole as opposed to a standing committee, so that the bill will remain before the House a little later today. The second agreement is on the time limit for speeches. With the exception of the first spokesman for each party, both on second and third reading, speeches will be limited to a maximum of twenty minutes each. A third agreement was reached on extending today's sitting beyond the usual time of adjournment, if necessary, in order to finish third reading of the bill later today. Finally, the fourth agreement
November 3, 1982

concerns suspending the sitting of the House after third reading to wait for royal assent to the bill later today. Those, Madam speaker, were basically the four agreements that were reached. We shall not necessarily have to sit past six o'clock, but there is a possibility, and if we do, the other agreements I just mentioned will take effect.


Mr. Nielsen:: Yes, Madam Speaker, that reflects accurately the agreement which was reached. It should be clear for the record, however, that our agreement to send the matter to Committee of the Whole will occur after second reading.


Mr. Deans:: Madam Speaker, we also agree that those are the terms that we set down, discussed and agreed upon earlier today.


Madam Speaker:: Therefore, does the House agree to the proposals of the Hon. President of the Privy Council?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


OBSERVANCE OF REMEMBRANCE DAY-TWO-DAY ADJOURNMENT
Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, as next week's Remembrance Day is most important-and this year it falls on a Thursday- and since many Members will want to leave to be in their constituencies on Thursday, we have discussed and agreed that we will not sit next Friday, provided the time will be recouped. Therefore, I think there is unanimous consent for the following motion:
That on Monday, November 8, 1982 and Tuesday, November 9, 1982, the provisions of Standing Order 6(1) shall be suspended; and
That when the House adjourns on Wednesday, November 10, 1982, it shall stand adjourned until Monday, November 15, 1982.
The effect of the motion is obvious. The House will sit between six and eight o'clock next Monday and Tuesday evenings, but it will not be sitting next Thursday and Friday.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, that accurately reflects our agreement.


Madam Speaker:: Therefore, it is agreed and so ordered.
Motion agreed to.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 2,561, 4,171, 4,300, 4,309 and 4,520.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Crosby: 1.	(a) Was Corporal Cyril House a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and did he resign in May, 1981 or at any other time (b) what were the reasons stated in his resignation document and (i) does the Commissioner of the RCMP agree the reasons were a true and correct representation of the facts (ii) does the Commissioner think the reasons were false and vexatious?
2.	Did Cpl. House apply for a position with a company or entity owned or operated by the Irving Oil Group in the Province of New Brunswick in 1980 or 1981 while he was a member of the RCMP and, if so, was the application consistent with the rules and regulations applicable to members of the RCMP?
3.	Was Cpl. House charged with a violation of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act during his term of office and, if so, was he found guilty of any violation or was he otherwise punished or disciplined under the rules and regulations applicable to members of the RCMP?
4.	Was Cpl. House charged or found guilty of insubordination or of violating the rules and regulations governing members of the RCMP by virtue of (a) providing secret documents or reports to members of the media and, in particular, to Mr. C. Arnold Patterson, President of Dartmouth Broadcasting Company operating Radio Station CFDR (b) improperly disclosing information provided to him on a confidential basis to the media and, in particular, to Mr. Patterson (c) issuing derogatory, defamatory and untrue statements about officers of the Bank of Nova Scotia and other chartered banks?
5.	(a) Does Cpl. House have any legal training and, in particular, does he have any educational qualifications or training that would qualify him to give opinions or make judgments on matters of law (b) which persons in the RCMP are authorized under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act or are otherwise authorized to make judgments on matters of law?
6.	Was Cpl. House at the time of his resignation the victim of any debilitating disease or other sickness affecting his mental or physical capacities or capabilities, including alcoholism or addiction to drugs?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: 1. (a) Corporal Cyril House was a member of the RCMP, and he resigned July 3, 1981. (b) The reasons for Corporal House's resignation would be considered personal information under Part IV of the Canadian Human Rights Act. (i) and (ii) There are no comments on Corporal House's resignation document by the Commissioner of the RCMP.
2. Force management is not aware of Corporal House having applied for a position with Irving Oil Group or any of its subsidiaries in the Province of New Brunswick while he was a member of the RCMP. In such an event, he would not have been in contravention of any RCMP regulation.
3.	No.
4.	(a), (b) and (c) Corporal House was not charged with any violation of the regulations governing members of the RCMP, and we have no reason to believe he was responsible for any of the allegations suggested here.
5.	(a) Corporal House's educational background would be considered personal information under Part IV of the Canadian Human Rights Act. (b) All members of the RCMP are making judgments on matters of law in the course of discharging their daily duties. However, legal decisions or opinions are made by agents of the provincial Attorney General or the federal Department of Justice.
20350

November 3, 1982
Order Paper Questions
6.	The state of Corporal House's health at the time of his resignation would be considered personal information under Part IV of the Canadian Human Rights Act.


Mr. MacKay: 1.	Did Mr. Fred Kearns, President of Canadair, confirm in February, 1982 that some 50 Challenger aircraft were sold for about $4.5 million each as mentioned in the Montreal Gazette dated February 6, 1982 and did the Supplementary Estimates (E) for the year ending March 31, 1982 contain an item of $13.56 million for the purchase by the Department of Transport "of a 'Challenger' aircraft and assorted parts" and, if so, in detail, what accounts for this difference in price?
2.	For what purpose is the $13.56 million "Challenger" aircraft going to be used?
3.	What kind of oxygen system was originally specified for the $13.56 million "Challenger"?
4.	Was the oxygen system which was eventually installed in the $13.56 million "Challenger" a system requiring obsolete oxygen bottles and the use of surgical masks or an up-to-date system used in modern passenger aircraft?
5.	Did the Government commit itself to purchasing two Dash-7 aircraft at a cost of some $20 million and, if not, has the Government any plans to do so?
6.	Has the Government any further plans to be "the purchaser of last resort" for aircraft produced by de Havilland of Canada and, if so, what are the funding plans?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: In so
far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned: 1. Yes. Mr. Kearns, President of Canadair, did confirm that Challenger aircraft were sold for about $4.5 million each as mentioned in the Montreal Gazette dated February 6, 1982.
It was originally intended that the first 50 aircraft be sold at a fixed price of $4,375 million to initiate the sale of the Challenger aircraft at an attractive but competitive price. In fact, only 26 aircraft were sold at $4,375 million, 15 of which were in Canadian dollars and the remainder in U.S. dollars. The aircraft has subsequently been sold at prices ranging from $4,975 million fixed price (March, 1977) to U.S. $8.5 million plus escalation (July, 1981) for the CL-600 (Lycoming) Challenger and U.S. $9.5 million plus escalation for the CL-601 (GE) Challenger. The prices quoted are for aircraft without finished interior (protective zinc chromate (green) finish on bare structure only). It is the customer's responsibility to arrange for interior completion. Most of the price increase has been inflationary and consistent with similar price increases for competitive aircraft.
The "$13.56 million Challenger" purchased by the Department of Transport was purchased on resale from Canadair, fully equipped with executive interior, for $10.8 million Canadian dollars plus $972,000 tax for a total of $11,772,000. Under separate contract $750,000 worth of spares were purchased and additional costs were incurred to modify the aircraft to Department of Transport's commercial airliner standards (flight data recorder procurement and installation, etc.).
2.	The aircraft is to be used in executive flight operations as a replacement for the now antiquated Jetstar I aircraft.
3.	An airline standard oxygen system was originally specified for the Challenger. The present system is superior to airline standards.
4.	The system installed in the Challenger includes the standard airline oxygen system (automatic drop-down face masks) good for 15 minutes, auxiliary stowed two passenger, walk around cannister packs good for 30 minutes and portable theraputic oxygen unit with surgical mask good for 30 minutes for on-board medical emergencies. Crew oxygen with quick access masks is good for I'h hours.
5.	The Department of National Defence purchased 2 Dash-7 in January, 1979 for $8,573 million, each.
6.	No. The Government only procures aircraft when there is a clearly defined need for them.


Mr. Patterson: What amount is owing to the Government by foreign nations and which, if any, of the loans are forgivable?


David P. Smith: In so far as the Canadian International Development Agency is concerned: The total amount owing to the Government by foreign countries as of December 31, 1981 is $2,313,170,151.68. All the loan agreements with foreign countries include repayment clauses.
In so far as Export Development Corporation is concerned: EDC makes loans to foreign customers to finance export sales of goods and services by Canadian exporters. Such loans may be made to sovereign and commercial borrowers. As of December 31, 1981, the amount of loans receivable due to EDC from borrowers abroad, net of participation by other lenders, was Can. $3.66 billion. None of those loans are forgivable.
In so far as the Department of Finance is concerned: The Department of Finance is responsible for government loans to foreign nations totalling $792,572,283 as of March 31, 1981. These loans are recorded in detail on page 6-28 of Volume I of the Public Accounts of Canada 1980-81. It is not the Government's policy to forgive loans to foreign nations, though from time to time it has renegotiated their terms.


Mr. Robinson (Burnaby): Since the Report of the Commission of Inquiry Relating to Public Complaints, Internal Discipline and Grievance Procedures Within the RCMP, otherwise known as the Marin Commission, was published in 1976 (a) how many and which of its recommendations were accepted by the Government (b) of the recommendations accepted, how many were implemented (c) on what date will the other acceptable recommendations be implemented (d) how many recommendations were rejected and for what reasons?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: (a) All but 14
recommendations have been accepted. Thirty-seven were accepted without reservations and 84 were accepted with modifications.
November 3, 1982

(b)	Eighty-five of the 121 recommendations accepted have been implemented through policy.
(c)	The remaining acceptable recommendations will be implemented following enactment of Bill C-69.
(d)	Fourteen recommendations were rejected:
COMP 24	Implementation would result in duplicate investigations
and an unnecessary inconvenience to witnesses.
COMP 25	Judged to be impractical.
DIS 3	The familiar expressions of counselling, cautionings and
warnings are to be retained.
DIS 7(1)	Judged to lack significant meaning and application.
DIS 9, 10, 11	Considered inappropriate in personnel administration.
DIS 13	Members will be required to answer questions relating to
the matter under investigation if the member is alleged to have contravened the Code of Conduct. Answers given will not be admissible in any criminal proceeding or disciplinary hearing except to prove a false statement.
DIS 23	Not applicable-tribunal is one officer.
GRIEV 2	Considered inappropriate in personnel administration.
GRIEV 7	Redundant-by reason of provision in GRIEV 4, which
has been implemented through policy and is proposed for Bill C-69. Sub-Section 31(5).
GRIEV 10	If a grievor chooses another member for assistance, then
no cost attaches. If he chooses counsel, then it will be at
his cost.
GRIEV 18	Division Staff Relations Representatives (DSRR) are
elected by the membership of the Force, and the presence of the DSRR on all Boards will ensure that the interests of the grievor are always protected.
GRIEV 30	The present DSRR system is felt by the RCMP to be a
suitable vehicle for bringing collective concerns to the attention of the Commissioner.


Mr. Fennell: 1.	How many copies of the game "Explorations", marketed by Southam Printing Co. and available from the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, have been distributed by the Commissioner?
2.	What is the total distribution?
3.	How long has the game been available?
4.	What is the total cost?


David P. Smith: The Commissioner of Official Languages reports directly to Parliament and not through a Minister. Questions can be made directly to him.
Motions for Papers


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notices of motions for the production of papers No. 107 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) and No. 112 in the name of the Hon. Member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Ellis).


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 107-Mr. Mazankowski:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that we will cause to be laid before this House a copy of the Canadian Dairy Commission report called "Improvement in the spreadability of butter" by Dr. A. Boudreau.
Mr. Marcel Dionne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, the answer to Motion No. 107 is as follows: The study concerned, which was started in February 1982, will not be completed until February 1984. The report will be available after that date. I therefore ask the Hon. Member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Mazankowski:: I ask that the motion be transferred for debate.


Madam Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


Mr. Paproski:: Transfer for debate.


Madam Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 112-Mr. Ellis:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of any publications or items published as a result of grants given by the Canada Council to Mr. Bill Bissett.
Mr. Jack Burghardt (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, the publications of items published as a result of grants given by the Canada Council to Mr. Bill Bissett are listed in the reply to question No. 4,420 answered on October 28, 1982. These publications

November 3, 1982
West Coast Ports Operations Act
are available to the public through publishers and bookstores. I would, therefore, ask the Hon. Member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Ellis:: Transfer for debate.


Madam Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I ask that the other notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of Labour: that Bill C-137, to provide for the resumption and continuation of longshoring and related operations at ports on the west coast of Canada, be read the second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House.
He said: Madam Speaker, in entering this debate I would like to say first that the role of Minister of Labour is one which holds many challenges and rewards in a country as economically and geographically diverse as Canada. On this particular occasion, I am faced with a situation which evokes mixed feelings on my part. On the one hand, I regret the necessity of having to introduce legislation to restore longshoring operations at Canada's west coast ports. On the other hand, I accept my responsibility to bring about a conclusion to a work stoppage which has brought the export of western grain to a virtual standstill and has caused hardship to the business community and its employees dependent upon water transportation for shipment of their goods and resources. It is a situation in which the parties to the dispute are able to inflict more damage on others than on themselves.
As well as conferring rights upon the parties to bargain collectively and arrive at acceptable terms and conditions of employment for the employees, the industrial relations framework, set out under Part V of the Canada Labour Code, clearly places the responsibility for resolving any labour-management disputes on the parties themselves. Unfortunately, there are occasions where the Government, as custodian of the economic and public interests of Canadians, must assume the responsibility entrusted to it and act in a firm and responsible manner to ensure that the interests of all those parties affected by a particular work stoppage are protected.
The contract negotiations to which this particular piece of legislation apply concern the renewal of a collective agreement
involving the British Columbia Maritime Employers Association and the International Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union, Canadian Area, which expired on December 31, 1981.
The notice of dispute was filed by the union, representing some 4,000 regular and casual longshoremen in ports on the Canadian west coast, on January 7, 1982. Prior to this, the parties had been meeting in direct negotiations over a three-month period without reaching agreement on a new contract. A conciliation officer was appointed on January 19 of this year but was unable to assist the parties in resolving their outstanding differences. Following receipt of the report of the conciliation officer, I subsequently appointed Mr. H. Allan Hope, Q.C., of Prince George, British Columbia as Conciliation Commissioner in the dispute on March 3, 1982.
Following his appointment, Mr. Hope arranged conciliation meetings with the parties towards the latter part of March. In the course of these meetings, the Conciliation Commissioner convinced the parties of the merits of returning to direct negotiations, and in this regard the parties met in direct bargaining several times during the month of April and the first half of the month of May. Mr. Hope again entered the talks on May 20 and held a series of meetings with the parties throughout the month of June. Again, at the Conciliation Commissioner's urging, the parties returned to the process of direct bargaining on several occasions during July. With negotiations deadlocked and no prospect for a settlement in the dispute, the Commissioner filed his final report with me and it was subsequently released to the parties on August 13, 1982.
In his report, Mr. Hope made recommendations dealing not only with wage increases but also several contentious issues, such as container handling, shift differential premiums, training of casual longshoremen and the employer's right to institute continuous operations. The Conciliation Commission-ner recommended a three-year agreement with wage increases of 12.4 per cent in the first year, 10.6 per cent in year two and a wage reopener in the third year of the contract. The current hourly base wage rate for west coast longshoremen is $12.55.
In the area of container handling, Mr. Hope recommended that there be a one-year moratorium on the application of the container handling provision in the collective agreement with an automatic reinstatement of the provision at the end of that time.
The Maritime Employers Association has maintained that the container handling clause, which provides the union with jurisdiction over the staffing and destaffing of consolidated cargo containers which are destined or come from any point within the Vancouver local area or the Prince Rupert port area, placed the Canadian ports at a competitive disadvantage with other major ports such as Seattle.
The employer felt that the removal of the limitations provided within the clause would sharply increase the amount
November 3, 1982

of traffic and the amount of skilled work available to the union. From its point of view, the union has viewed the employers' claim with skepticism and is concerned that if the forecast of increased traffic predicted by the Employers Association is wrong, the union will then have surrendered jurisdiction over a substantial part of its present work with no hope of retrieving it.
Conciliation Commissioner Hope proposed recommendations to deal with the problems experienced in adequately manning the Monday to Friday day shifts in the port. In an attempt to make the day shift more attractive for the longshoremen, Mr. Hope recommended a reduction in shift differential premiums for both the night and graveyard shifts. The report recommended a reduction in the night shift differential from time and a half the base rate to time and a quarter the base rate over the first two years of the new agreement. The report also suggested that the graveyard shift premium be reduced from two times the base rate to one and three-quarters times the base rate over the same two-year period.
As an additional measure to deal with the problem of insufficient manpower during the regular weekday shift, the Conciliation Commissioner recommended that the employer have an unfettered right to train casual employees in all categories in numbers sufficient to meet the many needs of the ports as assessed by the employer. After carefully weighing the requirements and concerns of both parties on the issue, the Conciliation Commissioner recommended that a provision be incorporated in the collective agreement permitting the employers, through their association or an individual basis, to institute continuous operations after full consultation with the union and the institution of rules that would protect against the potential abuse of inadequate relief for the employees. The recommendation also provides that the parties would have the right to submit any dispute in this area to arbitration under the existing provisions of the collective agreement. In addition to increases in the skill differential premiums, the report also called for increases in the employers' contributions to the pension, welfare and supplementary unemployment benefit plans.
The Employers Association indicated a willingness to accept the report of Mr. Hope as terms of settlement for the contract dispute but the union rejected the total report as an unacceptable package, indicating some willingness to negotiate further on those items where it was not prepared to accept the recommendations put forward by the Conciliation Commissioner.
The parties acquired legal rights to strike or lockout on August 21, 1982. Over the next six weeks, the parties met several times in direct negotiations with little in the way of progress being made toward the final settlement of the dispute. The union held a series of one-day port closures to inform their members as to the progress of negotiations. In addition, it instituted what it termed a work monitoring program which effectively slowed the loading of ships to the point where several major shipping consortia began diverting their vessels to the Port of Seattle.
West Coast Ports Operations Act
On October 18, the Employers Association advised the union that unless the work slowdown was brought to a conclusion, it would stop the dispatch of labour to all terminals except for grain, effective at twelve noon on October 19. On the following day, when the union did not meet the employer's demand, the employer instituted a lockout at all west coast ports with the exception of the grain operations. However, the union then refused to allow its men to report to the grain loading operations, thereby closing down all longshoring operations on the west coast.
On October 25 I sent the following telegram to the Presidents of the Employers Association and the union:
Once again all commerce through West Coast ports has been halted as a result of a labour dispute between the BCMEA and the ILWU. The history of labour relations between your organizations over the last thirteen years and resultant work stoppages is a dismal record to those who advocate and defend free collective bargaining. The BCMEA and the ILWU have always expressed a distaste for government intervention yet seem incapable of resolving their disputes without such intervention. The record indicates that not once in the past thirteen years, except during the A.I.B. regime, have you been able to arrive at a collective agreement short of intervention of high-level mediation from Ottawa or Parliament itself. The punishment inflicted on other Canadians and the economy generally is a matter of urgent concern in the best of times but in today's grave economic circumstances such action is intolerable. Grain export, an economic life-line of this country, is strangled and already massive layoffs of railway workers has taken place. I am a firm believer in collective bargaining and rights established by the Canada Labour Code. However, I feel compelled to say that such rights do not establish our West Coast ports, which belong to all Canadians, as the private poaching ground of any employer's Association or union. You have exhausted, as usual, conciliation provisions of the Canada Labour Code and now with all shipping from and to the West Coast halted apparently remain aloof not talking to each other. I strongly advise you to immediately resume negotiations. Failing an early settlement of this dispute the government will accept its responsibility repugnant though it might be to bring about resumption of vital shipping operations.
That is the end of the telex, Mr. Speaker.
Following receipt of the telegram, the parties did initiate direct negotiations on October 27. Despite these efforts on the part of the two sides, Mr. Speaker, negotiations have once again failed to result in a settlement of the differences between the parties, and I therefore stand before you today to introduce this legislation which translates this strongly worded message in my telegram into action.
Again, I must reiterate that, as Minister of Labour, I do not relish the idea of interference of this nature in the bargaining process, but I have only to weigh the economic and social consequences of this cessation of longshoring activity on the west coast to justify the action taken here today.
An official of the Port of Vancouver indicated that as of October 28 70 ships were waiting at British Columbia ports for loading or unloading purposes. Over 2,000 workers in other industries which rely on port operations have been laid off. CN and CP Rail, with a normal schedule of some 36 trains a day into the B.C. docks, have laid off over 1,800 workers between them. Grain companies which handle a million metric tons of export grain a month are also facing the prospect of laying off upwards of 300 workers. Mining and lumber companies, already facing depressed markets because of the current

November 3, 1982
West Coast Ports Operations Act
economic situation, are talking of even further lay-offs and shutdowns.
Perhaps the most important consequence, however, is the long-term damage being done to the reputation of Canada's west coast ports and the ability of Canada as a major world trading partner to meet its export commitments. As I indicated earlier, prior to the lockout of union members by the Employers' Association, twelve major shipping consortia had already begun to divert general cargo carriers to the Port of Seattle, Vancouver's major competitor for Pacific container traffic.
I do not think any Hon. Member will deny that a critical and urgent situation exists in western Canada as a direct result of this cessation of longshoring operations in the west coast ports. Damage to the economy of Canada is readily evident and will mount at an increasing rate the longer the ports are closed.
The Bill before Hon. Members today, namely the West Coast Ports Operations Act, 1982, orders the immediate resumption of longshoring and related operations in the west coast ports and further provides that, if a settlement is not achieved through direct negotiations between the parties, the employees covered by the bargaining relationship will be brought under the provisions of the Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act. I emphasize that the first order of business contained in this legislation is to bring about an immediate resumption of the vital shipping operations on Canada's west coast, and this will come about upon the coming into force of this piece of legislation. The inclusion of the west coast longshoremen under the Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act is to come about on a day to be fixed by proclamation, and as I have suggested, the Government is prepared to allow the parties one final opportunity, over the next five days, to exhibit the faith which they place in the free collective bargaining process and in doing so remove the need for the Government to proclaim Section 4 of this particular Bill.
I am sure that there are some Hon. Members of this House who would consider this piece of legislation currently before them as a Draconian measure. However, I suggest to those Hon. Members who possess such sentiments that neither they nor the parties to the dispute should be surprised by the action now being taken by the Government. It is not without warning.
In his report, the Conciliation Commissioner made the following observation:
I consider that the existence of high unemployment and low national productivity has generated a public mood that would find a disruption of our ports intolerable. I consider it likely that national policy would reflect that mood and that intervention would be swift in any dispute that tied up the waterfront.
Mr. Hope further warned the parties:
I pointed out in particular that national policy now anticipates a diminished expectation in wage negotiations with guidelines recommending increases limited to six per cent and five per cent over the next two years.
I have recommended wage increases that exceed those guidelines. I made those recommendations in response to the move by the Employers to achieve significant concessions from the Union in terms of working conditions and job jurisdiction. I speak particularly of the training of casual employees, the expansion of container traffic, the introduction of continuous operations, the control of regular work force rotation and telephone dispatch. The Union has
made considerable concessions in those areas but only in the expectation of acceptance of its wage package and the introduction of a day shift premium. I consider it essential that those concessions be recognized in my recommendation as to wages. The Union proposal is beyond reasonable expectations in the current climate but significant recognition must be given to what the Union is being asked to accept in other aspects of the Agreement.
In addressing the issue of intervention I emphasized the possibility, if not the probability, that the guidelines would be imposed to the detriment of the selfinterest of both parties. In the application of the guidelines one would anticipate maintenance of the status quo on all issues except wages with wages limited to six per cent and five per cent for the guideline period.
I repeat, I did not purport to speak on behalf of the Government, simply to point out the obvious, that the restraint program of six per cent and five per cent with no change in other terms and conditions was a possible result of any imposed settlement. My purpose was to urge the parties to continue to negotiate a settlement within the industrial relations milieu as the surest means of achieving their goals in some form of acceptable compromise.
This government has faced up to its responsibility by introducing this legislation which will bring about an immediate resumption of longshoring activities in Canada's west coast ports. The parties now have until midnight, November 8, again to reflect on the wisdom of the Commissioner's report and demonstrate, through action rather than rhetoric, that collective bargaining does work and, if left to their own devices, they can reach a collective agreement.
In closing, I ask Hon. Members for an early and speedy passage of the legislation, to bring about resumption of shipping operations and prod the parties to get on with the negotiation of a new collective agreement.


Hon. David Crombie (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, despite the long and very detailed presentation of the Minister with respect to the background to this Bill, it might be useful if I pointed out at the outset that the Bill is a fairly simple one in terms of what it intends this House to do.
I think the two important principles involved are easily understood. The first principle or issue concerns whether or not the Government should intervene to restore confidence on the west coast. That is the first issue, the first question.
Since Parliament opened a week ago, our party has been pleading with the Government to bring in a bill to do just that. Make no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker; getting the work going again on the west coast is of fundamental importance to the whole of the country, not merely the west coast. It impacts on farmers, railways workers, on the whole of the general economy. Indeed, it seems to us that this should have been done long before today, so we support this Bill in relation to ending the work stoppage and getting the port back to work by the end of today.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, there is a second issue. The first is whether or not the Government should intervene. We want the Government to intervene. The second is the method and mode, the way in which the Government has chosen to intervene. That we have some considerable quarrel with.
November 3, 1982

First of all, I think it is fair for me to say that we find the Government's method of intervention both weak on the one hand and dangerous on the other. I want to explain both of those words because I think they are worth listening to. First of all, this legislation will do absolutely nothing to deal with the fundamental problems which have been festering on the west coast now for 13 years. The Minister himself felt it necessary to articulate all the problems because after 13 years the Government has not been able to solve any of them. The Minister went through the whole Commission report, but it is worth pointing out, Mr. Speaker, that the specific issues which have to be faced are not going to be solved by this legislation. The Government has not created an environment by which those very specific matters can be dealt with.
We had the problems in 1969-70. We had them later on in the mid-1970s, 1975, problems such as premium shift differentials, training of casual workers, destuffing container clauses. Those things are fundamental to a long-term solution not only to the west coast situation, but indeed the whole western Canadian economy. And the Government, be it noted, after 13 years is still simply articulating the problems. That is why it is weak. This intervention will not solve any of those longstanding problems.
What is also dangerous, Mr. Speaker, is the specific way in which the Government chooses to intervene. This is not the first time in the history of this country that the federal Government has had to intervene to bring about industrial peace because a dispute affected the general economy of the country. Because the Bill was just brought in last night, I had only a short time to look at some of the debates in the past 30 years, in 1950 and in 1960, throughout the whole period since World War II, where the Government has on a number of occasions had to intervene to bring about industrial peace. If you look at those debates, they involve expressions of opinion from the then CCF Party, the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party, some Members of which represented a variety of interests and walks of life. They agreed on two things when it came to federal Government intervention. First of all, I was proud to read from all sides of the Flouse in those old debates that people were interested, while they were intervening, in protecting the rights of all people involved in the dispute. There was a lot of articulation about the rights of people. I have not heard anything about the rights of people so far today from the Government.
Secondly, there was direct Government intervention to get the work going again, but then they appointed arbitrators. They adopted the principle of arbitration. There were two reasons for that, Mr. Speaker. First of all, it allows an opportunity for some of the specific problems to be dealt with. Secondly, it disallows the politicization of the process. This Government is now going to intervene directly in terms of a solution, in terms of all of those matters, and is going to politicize the process.
The mechanism the Government is going to use, Mr. Speaker, is the Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act. That Act was not meant for this purpose. That Act was meant
West Coast Ports Operations Act
for the Public Service. It was meant to be used for the purpose of financial restraint. It was not to be an instrument by which the Government now directly controls the traditional rights of the private sector, both workers and management.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Edward Crombie: That is why it is dangerous. Make no mistake about that danger.
I think I have to make a plea to the Minister because I am going to be moving an amendment and I want him to consider that amendment in a moment. Sometimes, Mr. Speaker, in the heat of the needs of the time, when we have to do something unusual, whether in time of war or apprehended insurrections or in times of economic and social stress when the Government has to act, in the rush to act great harm can be done and people's rights and freedoms can be trampled on. Losing rights is easy to do. Gaining rights and keeping rights is very, very difficult.
The reason that using this Act is dangerous is that we have nothing less than the unilateral imposition of the Government's will on individuals and groups. If the Government, Mr. Speaker, can impose unilaterally and by direct action its will on individuals and groups such as the workers in this industry, why not workers in any industry? Indeed, if it can do it in this industry and to workers in any industry, why just workers? What holds the Government back? What holds this Parliament back from unilaterally imposing its will on individuals and groups?
That is why, Mr. Speaker, the tradition we have respected in this country has been the tradition of arbitration. It allows third party intervention and allows for some opportunity to deal with the root problems. More importantly, it does not politicize the process. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I am going to be proposing a series of amendments in committee, and I am going to be proposing that we adopt those amendments so that we can begin the arbitration process.
Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, our position is this: we must support the Bill in order to get commerce moving on the west coast today. Secondly, we want the process of arbitration to begin so that the final solution and settlement between the parties will be determined by the traditions of this country and not by the unilateral imposition by this Government of its will on rights and freedoms which the traditions of this country have always upheld.


Sidney James Parker: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate this afternoon. I would like to first of all comment on the Minister's remarks with regard to what has taken place and the necessity for this legislation. I want to reaffirm to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Caccia) that we pinpointed this very, very serious flaw that the Government was following with the introduction of Bill C-124, and the process of the Canada Labour Code and his involvement. We tried to have him appear before the committee to discuss those very serious problems, but we were unable to do so.

November 3, 1982
West Coast Ports Operations Act
Now, this is a prime example of what has happened with regard to labour relations in Canada. And then he stands in this House and has the gall to tell us that he believes in free collective bargaining. I want to ask the Minister of Labour, why in goodness name did it take from January until November for the Government to come forward with some constructive proposals with regard to this dispute? Where, may I ask the Minister of Labour, was the process of mediation? Mediation did not play any part in this dispute solely because the employer decided it was to his advantage to sit back and wait. This was at the expense of the farmers, business people, railway workers and others in western Canada. The port employers decided to lock out the workers. It is important that we identify the fact that those workers were not on strike but were locked out by their employer.
It is unfortunate that we did not go through the mediation process whereby the port management would have called for a mediation officer and the workers would have called for a mediation officer. Those discussions and negotiations would have carried on without any interruption until such time as the mediation officer helped to resolve that dispute. I criticize the Government very strongly on the attitude it has displayed here.
There is another area of very deep concern. I want the western farmers, the railway workers and those in the port areas to recognize that, while this dispute is going on, the port at Roberts Bank with its coal facilities is carrying on uninterrupted. There is a long-term agreement whereby the workers, port management and railways work together to facilitate the movement of commodities.
There have been years of confrontation with the federal Government. There has not been a strong feeling of understanding between the workers, grain growers and railway workers. There should be a proposal that management and labour come forward with programs protecting the rights of everyone. Our ports could carry on in a strong and efficient manner in co-operation with everyone concerned.
It is sad today that the Government has chosen to bring in legislation that will send the workers back to work. We agree the port facilities must be opened and work must resume. However, we all recognize the need to protect the rights of all those concerned rather than bring in this kind of legislation. This legislation does not deal specifically with the dispute. What it does is order the workers and management to reopen the port under their existing agreement. If an agreement is not reached by Monday next, the Government will arbitrarily bring in the provisions of Bill C-124, the six and five program. If the workers do not co-operate and carry out their duties in a responsible way, they will be subjected to jail sentences. We in this House of Commons have a responsibility to see that everyone is treated in a fair and equitable manner. The farmers of western Canada do not want to see the workers legislated back to work.
I want to talk for one moment about 50 railroaders in Revelstoke, B.C. who were ordered back to work because of a
slowdown. This legislation will respond to the question of a slowdown. A slowdown will be considered an illegal strike. Who will determine whether there is a slowdown if products do not move in a smooth and efficient way? The company will call upon the Government and the Government will appoint a judge to hear both sides. This is what happened in the dispute at Revelstoke where 50 railroaders were find $500 and ordered back.
If we believe in free collective bargaining and co-operation, especially during these tough economic times, and in moving our commodities in a swift and efficient way, we must work together, not in a spirit of confrontation but co-operation. We should discuss bringing forward not just short-term but longterm proposals to protect the interests of everyone.
In his remarks the Conservative Member advocated arbitrary compulsion. That is what he suggested. The Government should look at a more positive way of dealing with the situation. The problems in the Great Lakes dispute were resolved through the normal negotiating process and productivity increased by 15 per cent. That should be a lesson to show us that there is a way. The workers on the west coast are just as concerned about the movement of goods and productivity.
We have a serious problem. The Labour Code is not serving us because of legislation being brought in by this Government. The Minister referred to his telegram of October 25. This was sent while negotiations were taking place. The Minister of Labour knows full well that when negotiations are taking place it is a very vital time and he knows the importance of the two sides dealing in good faith. I want to quote a portion of his telegram because it shows the antagonism this Government has created:
The history of labour relations between your organizations over the last 13 years and resultant work stoppages is a dismal record to those who advocate and defend free collective bargaining. The BCMEA and the ILWU have always expressed a distaste for government intervention yet seem incapable of resolving their disputes without such intervention. The record indicates that not once in the past 13 years, except during the AIB regime, have you been able to arrive at a collective agreement short of intervention of high-level mediation from Ottawa or Parliament itself.
Surely that is a message that the Minister of Labour has failed dismally in trying to bring about the positive approaches to the problems on the west coast. I urge the Minister to meet with representatives of all parties in this House so that we can dedicate our time and efforts, meeting with labour, management and the grain growers, in an attempt to resolve this very serious problem so that people can live decently. This legislation will seriously set back labour relations on the west coast. Government, the grain growers and everyone else concerned should get together to deal with this problem in a responsible and orderly manner.
I wish to point out another area where the Conservatives were also brave. They are pretty brave when it comes to threatening other governments with grain produced by our farmers. When they were in Government, the first thing they did was bring in their grain embargo on the wheat we produced. Their External Affairs critic now wants to do the same
November 3, 1982

thing. I notice there is no talk of embargoing anything produced by their pals in big business. Perhaps the saddest thing is to see how easily the members of the Liberal and Conservative Parties are willing to give up basic human rights and basic rights of workers. I know we are in difficult economic times, but the vicious attack on workers by the Liberals and Conservatives are destroying rights it took 100 years to build.
The saddest fact is that even in simple economic terms, these kinds of actions were unnecessary and just plain stupid. What does the Government think is going to happen if it legislates those workers back with a bad contract? What do you think those workers will do when they see the companies making giant profits and they know none is being passed on to them?
The Leader of the Conservative Party (Mr. Clark) was so anxious to see the workers legislated back that he stood up in this House and unequivocally stated: "Get the bill on and we will pass it through in a hurry without even seeing the legislation". That is the kind of concern the Conservative Party has for the working people and grain growers of Canada.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) spent three nights on national television whining about how everybody was responsible for our problems and talked a lot about productivity. I can show him an example of productivity, Mr. Speaker. Last year there was a two-week labour dispute in the grain facilities in Thunder Bay. The two sides in that labour dispute settled their differences. They were permitted to do so without the Government stepping in on the side of the employers. There was, of course, some loss of shipping because of the dispute. At the end of the seventh week of the shipping season last year, only about 24,000 cars had been unloaded in Thunder Bay, compared to about 44,000 the year before. This is a lot of grain. But by the end of the 20th week the 20-car unloading shortfall had been made up. By the end of the year the port had moved 17.1 million tonnes as compared to 15.0 million tonnes the year before. That shows that with co-operation between labour and management, they can and will do the job, and will meet the needs of all of us across Canada.
My party, Mr. Speaker, is opposing this legislation not because we do not want the grain to move at the docks; we oppose it because it is stupid legislation that in the long run will only make sure that labour relations on the west coast docks continue to fester. We oppose it because it is another patchwork solution to a problem that requires a long-term solution. Most of all, we oppose it because it is another vicious attack on working Canadians by people who cannot understand there is a difference between power and leadership.


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


Some Hon. Members:: No, no.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) rising to contribute to the debate?


Some Hon. Members:: Filibuster.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Yes, I am, Mr. Speaker. I find it very interesting that the bill was introduced less than an
West Coast Ports Operations Act
hour ago, I am the second speaker for our party, and we hear from Hon. Members to my right that this is a filibuster. We have before us a House order saying that this Bill will be passed before we adjourn. For them to now say that we cannot speak shows what they think of democracy in this country. Yesterday in this House the Leader of that party got up and said: "We'll pass the legislation. We don't have to see the legislation; we will pass it today. We don't care what the Government presents, we will pass it."
It appears, Mr. Speaker, that one of the Members of the Conservative Party does not believe that is what the Hon. Leader said. Perhaps he was one of those 24 Conservatives who were not in the House the night before, and he was not here yesterday as well. I quote the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), who said as reported at page 20280 of Hansard:
We on this side of the House would be prepared to deal today with legislation brought in today, and to deal with it in all stages.
This is important legislation. As somebody who represents Churchill with its port facilities, as somebody who comes from a Province which depends very much on the economic contribution of agricultural regions, I recognize the importance of this legislation. But I do not want to see this House railroaded by either the Government or the Official Opposition into passing legislation that is a mistake. The previous speaker, our labour critic, pointed out the very real danger that exists if we pass this legislation now. He pointed out we are creating trouble for ourselves and for people who will depend upon the grain handling facilities in this country in the future.
This Government, through a bill which is supposed to be introducing back-to-work legislation, is sneaking in its six and five regime. We are not asked just to order people back to work; we are being asked to again approve an extension of the Government's six and five program.
Normally, what happens in a dispute of this nature is that the Government will look at the conciliator's Report and will use it as the basis of any imposed settlement. It may not take the exact pay scale or the exact items that are listed in that report, but will use it as the basis of any imposed settlement because the conciliator was there to hear from both sides, to study the economic situation of the company, the situation of the workers and the comparable contracts of people working in similar jobs. So that a conciliation report, at least in some respects, is a realistic report. It is a report which may not be liked by either party, but it is probably much closer to what is really needed to ensure that we have peace in the future.
The Government, through its dogmatic insistence on imposing the six and five regime, is asking for trouble in the future, not only in terms of grain handling, but with respect to workers doing similar work in other parts of Canada.
There is another aspect to this legislation, this sneaking in of the six and five, which must be considered. That is that every

November 3, 1982
West Coast Ports Operations Act
employer or group of employers subject to federal legislation, now know that if they can stall negotiations, if they can refuse to come to an agreement with their workers and there is public outcry as a result, the Government will step in and impose a six and five solution. What in God's name is going to make employers in this country come to a reasonable agreement in negotiations? The Government has now told them, through this legislation, that they do not have to negotiate as it will impose six and five. That means the whole collective bargaining process is being destroyed.
Last June, July and August we sat in this House and were told by the Government that six and five was only going to be enforced against employees in the Public Service, employees of Crown corporations, employees of CP and other rail lines. Now there is legislation before us imposing six and five on the longshoremen. Who is next?
I do not trust the Government. This Party will not give a blank cheque to the Government. Unlike the action of the Leader of the Official Opposition yesterday, this Party will not give the Government a blank cheque. That Party calls itself the Opposition Party but its members act like members of the Supreme Soviet.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Rodney Edward Murphy: The actions of the Polish Government toward the Solidarity union are much better than the actions of the Conservative Party in its dogmatic subservience to the Liberal Government.


An Hon. Member:: Tell that to the farmers.


Rodney Edward Murphy: As I mentioned earlier, I represent a western rural riding. I am very concerned about the movement of grain in this country and what we do to make sure of increased grain shipments. That is why, as the Member for Churchill, I have often talked about increasing the export of grain through that Port, unlike the Hon. Member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta) who has called the Port of Churchill a luxury that we cannot afford, and unlike the Hon. Member for North Vancouver-Burnaby (Mr. Cook) who has said we should close the Port of Churchill. I understand, and western Members in this Party and in the Conservative Party understand, that the amount of grain shipped through all ports must be increased. I am concerned about the shipment of grain. I am concerned that what the Government has done and is doing today is not going to help that process.
What should happen is what Members of this Party asked for last week when it became obvious that the two parties in this dispute could not come to an agreement. At that time we should have sent a senior officer of the Department of Labour-or even the Minister if he felt competent-to meet with management and labour and to sit with them until they came to an agreement acceptable to both parties. That is the role of the Department of Labour; it is not the role of the Department of Labour to hide when there is conflict.
This whole issue raises some questions, Mr. Speaker. It raises the question of the competence of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Caccia). It also raises the question of whether the employers knew or expected the Government to impose the six and five regime, and for that reason did not want a settlement of the dispute and therefore locked out the workers. It also raises the question of how the Government can expect trust and co-operation from longshoremen and other union members, not only for the six and five regime but in increasing the productivity of all sectors of the economy.
In his three-part soap opera of a couple of weeks ago the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said we should be ready when the economic upturn finally comes. But that readiness is going to depend on the co-operation of management, farm groups and labour. I would say that the action the Government has taken today not only in ordering people back to work but in sneaking in the six and five regime as part of the imposed package will only ensure that there is no trust in the Government by the various sectors of the economy.
Despite the trust the Conservatives have for the Liberals, other sectors of the country do not trust the Government. Until that trust exists, whether as a result of another election or whether the Government can improve its image now and show that it is concerned about the plight of ordinary Canadians, then legislation of this sort is only going to create more and more division in the country.
In its attempt to pit farmer against worker, worker against farmer, port handler against grain handler and so on, legislation of this kind is going to destroy any unity or any spirit of willingness to solve the problems we face. That is why we cannot support the legislation. In the past this Party, with great reluctance, has supported back-to-work legislation. We did so with reluctance but we cannot do it today.
In the past, much to the chagrin of some people, the Conservative Party has voted against putting grain handlers back to work. I wonder why that was? I suspect that in 1974 they thought the salary increase was too much and would hurt the employers. We did not hear any speeches from Conservative Members at that time about the plight of the farmers. These great defenders of the western plains did not shout that the workers must be ordered back to work. They voted against it because they were after the workers, not the employers. They forgot all about the plight of the ordinary farmer.
It is with some regret that we cannot support the legislation before us. I do not like supporting back-to-work legislation. In this case we certainly could not support it because it is going to destroy the Canadian economy and the willingness of Canadians to work together.
What we have said ever since Parliament convened in April,
1980 is that we need real trust, real co-operation, if we are to make the country work, if we are to have Canadians working together and if we are to avoid the divisive forces that the Liberals and Conservatives are creating.
November 3, 1982


Mr. Chuck Cook (North Vancouver-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I represent a British Columbia riding in which one-third of the Port of Vancouver is located. I talk to a great many people in that port constantly. I am delighted to speak on behalf of my Party as a representative of British Columbia and someone who is most concerned with the particular dispute and labour injustice which is taking place.
Why is it that even when the Liberal Government does something right, it does it so wrong? That is exactly what this legislation is. Don Garcia, head of the longshoremen's union on the west coast, stated yesterday that he thought this piece of legislation was the worst since 1800. With the greatest respect, he is wrong; this legislation is probably the worst since the Roman empire. The Government's settlement as proposed could lead to wildcat strikes, slowdowns in productivity, and even possible civil disobedience on the docks of the ports of the west coast. As one labour official said yesterday, "Six and five per cent means six and five production." Free men should not be legislated into a straightjacket, which is what the legislation proposes.
The Hope report suggested a raise of $1.55 in the first year and 23 per cent over two years. The British Columbia Maritime Employers Association offered 18 per cent over two years. Now the Government proposes to legislate 11 per cent for these people over the same period of time. There is one fact which the Minister of Labour (Mr. Caccia) seems to have overlooked. Because of a potential settlement of the strike and retroactive pay back to the first of January, maritime employers have been building up a fund to meet that retroactive pay. It now amounts to between $4 million and $5 million. This legislation does not indicate what it will do to that fund whatsoever.
The bludgeon and blackmail in the Bill makes it the most disastrous labour legislation as far as the ports on the west coast are concerned. The docks must operate, but the Bill only preserves and enhances the lingering cancers of the west coast dock situation.
For 13 years-in 1969-1970, 1975 and 1979-we have had the same issues and problems and there have been no solutions from anywhere. Why? I think there are some answers for what can be done and must be done on the west coast.
On the one side we have the British Columbia Maritime Employers Association. It is comprised of 64 employer companies and was formed in 1966, and we have not had peace on the waterfront since. There are two basic groups involved. We have the shippers who can move away, and many of them have. Then we have the port users and terminal operators who cannot move away. Destuffing of container cargo has been a major issue on the west coast for many years. It does not affect bulk loaders at all, outside of the fact that they are shut down, which is one of the major issues in the dispute. The British Columbia Maritime Employers Association had better reexamine itself because built within it are dilemmas and conflicts of interest among the 64 companies in regard to the usage of the port. Westshore Terminals is not part of the British Columbia Association at all; it has its own contract. As
West Coast Ports Operations Act
a result it has a permanent work force. It has not had any strikes and is doing quite fine. It is not part of the management group which bargains on behalf of far too many users of the port with different interests.
Let us look at the union side of it-the International Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union. The contract is binding on locals 500, 502, 503, 505, 506 and 508 of the ILWU. It affects Vancouver, Prince Rupert, New Westminster and Vancouver Island. It affects only longshoremen. It does not include, I might add, ILWU foremen who will be bargaining very shortly. I hope the Minister of Labour keeps that in mind with this proposed settlement.
Also the Employers' Association must deal with the Canadian area, not the locals of the union. What does this mean? It means that any settlement must be approved by a 19 member executive, many of whom have different ideas and different desires about the settlement of the labour dispute. With that type of thing going on, is it any wonder that in 13 years we have not had labour peace on the west coast and that we have not had settlement of these long outstanding issues? An overwhelmingly large employer group with conflicts of interest and a union organization with an executive of 19 members must all be involved in any decisions made. This is one of the major problems.
How do we address it? Well, we get the destuffing clause, this business of breaking up the containers on the dock or stacking them there. Union representatives say that if they give that up it will reduce work on the docks. Management representatives say that the ports are losing business to Seattle as a result of it. I rather favour management's view on that because a typical example is that the Government of British Columbia brings in all its liquor supplies and spirits through the Port of Seattle. Why? It is $200,000 in terms of charges, but at least it does not walk off the docks. The Alberta Liquor Board brings in its stocks through Texas as a result of the difficulties on the waterfront in Vancouver. Department stores import something like 170,000 tonnes a year from the Far East. Approximately 60 per cent of it was going through Seattle three years ago; today 75 per cent is going through there. Western Assembly Ltd. of Vancouver has told me that the reason for this is again the question of breaking up containers on the docks.
I am not suggesting that the union is wrong or that management is right. I am asking why one or the other of them has not done marketing surveys to examine the exact facts. If it means more work on the docks as management claims, then the union should be glad to give it up. If it means less work, management has a different problem for which it must compensate in some other way. It is something that can be determined as a fact.
Turning to the questions of full crews and the training of casuals, the situation on the docks is that full crews for the day shift are not available on many occasions. Longshoremen would sooner work afternoons at time and a half or the midnight run at two times. I do not blame them; I would too. But

November 3, 1982
West Coast Ports Operations Act
there must be more casuals or more people to fill those gaps so that the ports operate efficiently. Work scheduling, shift differentials, coffee breaks and money are other issues, but there are two unwieldy groups attempting to bargain with each other and not once in 13 years have they been able to do it.
The port must operate. I have to vote for the port to operate. It is a hemorrhage to all Canada, particularly the west coast. Clause 4 of the new Bill suggests 6 and 5 per cent. As one outstanding maritime operator on the west coast told me on the telephone this morning, "If the Government brings this in, it will lead to open warfare on the west coast". And it will.
The National Harbours Board has a great deal to answer for in this regard. There are three container cranes in Vancouver and 24 in the Puget Sound area and long decision time from Ottawa, sending cargos elsewhere on the west coast. We hope the new Canada Ports Act will give Vancouver a chance to compete and a chance to have a great many more jobs for longshoremen on the west coast. Is there a solution? Yes, there is one and it is quite simple. It is to allow collective bargaining to continue after the port is open.


An Hon. Member:: Vote that way.


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: Let us have an industrial inquiry commission set up on the west coast. This should have been done years ago. This is absolutely necessary in order to determine the facts, to look at the management group, its bargaining tactics, whether it can really bargain properly in the best interests of the west coast and in its own best interests. As well, this type of commission should have a look at the union. Why should the Port of Vancouver not be dealing with Local 500 rather than the whole of the Canadian section of the union? Those are factual matters which an industrial inquiry commission could determine.
I say to this Liberal Government that we must have back-to-work legislation for the good of all Canada. We must have collective bargaining. We can have arbitration if absolutely necessary but we should have very definitely and as soon as possible an industrial inquiry commission set up with terms broad enough so that the facts can be brought out and we can have an end to 13 years of labour unrest in all of British Columbia's ports.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with care to my colleagues, the Hon. Member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) and the Hon. Member for North Vancouver-Burnaby (Mr. Cook). I feel much as they do. I suspect that Members on all sides of the House feel similarly that this is a very difficult occasion and a very difficult thing for Members of Parliament to do. It is difficult for a government to legislate workers back to work. It always has been. Governments of every political stripe, both federally and provincially, have had to bring in this kind of legislation. It does not matter whether it is a Liberal, a Conservative, an NDP, a CCF, Social Credit, or whatever kind of government. A move such as this has
always been done with restraint and forbearance in the hope that collective bargaining would succeed.
I want to point out to my colleagues on all sides of the House that since July, 1972, this is the twelfth occasion when we have been faced with back-to-work legislation. On five of those occasions, the legislation passed with all-party support. There were six times when my party supported back-to-work legislation and there were six times when we opposed back-to-work legislation, trying as best we could to judge each one of these instances on the basis of the merits and the demerits of the particular case.
There was an occasion, and I felt for them, when my good friends in the Official Opposition opposed back-to-work legislation while the Liberal Government and the New Democratic Party supported it. It was a tough time for the Conservatives. They had to agonize and struggle. I am referring to the grainhandlers' dispute in 1974.
Of these 12 occasions, this is the fifth time we have had to deal with longshoremen and the ports. That has to tell you something about the situation in our ports from coast to coast. We legislated the longshoremen back to work regarding the St. Lawrence ports dispute in 1972. We legislated the longshoremen and the grain handlers on the west coast back to work in 1972, once in July and again in August. We legislated the ports dispute in Quebec in April, 1975. We legislated the port of Halifax dispute in October, 1976. We legislated the resumption and continuation of shipping services on the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence Seaway in 1978. Now we are dealing again with the longshoremen on the west coast.
As I recall the debates on other occasions when we dealt with ports disputes involving port employers and longshoremen, Members from all sides of the House repeatedly asked the Government-as my colleague, the Hon. Member for North Vancouver-Burnaby has just done-to set in process by whatever method an inquiry or a Royal commission to bring about a resolution to the problems that face us every time these contracts are up for renewal.
The Hon. Member for Rosedale and the Hon. Member for North Vancouver-Burnaby both made, I thought, good speeches and gave some good reasons for voting against the legislation. I appreciate this matter is not easy for them. They are going to vote for it. I understand that, because excellent arguments can be made on either side. Something that all Hon. Members in this place strive for, and I believe we succeed most if not all of the time is the achievement of sincerity, consistency and integrity.
The six and five proposal was fought tooth and nail by my colleagues and I. It caused Members of this House to sit extra time in the summer. We continue to oppose and fight the six and five kind of law. I believe even though my colleagues in the other parties disagreed with us, they at least respected us for the position we took. I believe also that we would be the worse off, either in my Party or any other, if we were to cease or deviate from the whole matter of consistency or integrity whether or not our constituents, the public, or for that matter the press, agree or disagree with us.
November 3, 1982

We also agreed that this debate should be expedited. It will serve no purpose to drag it out for days. It will not help the farmers, the railroaders or the small-businessmen. It will not help the workers directly affected because the law is retroactive. That is why we agreed to expedite this legislation.
1 hope the Minister will have paid attention to what was said by the two speakers from the Official Opposition and my two colleagues and I when he is dealing with the Bill in Committee of the Whole. I hope the Minister will recognize what the Hon. Member for Rosedale talked about when he referred to hitting at the rights of individuals and groups and the unilateral imposition of something that is patently inequitable and unfair. I hope the Minister of Labour (Mr. Caccia) and his colleagues will recognize that and will make appropriate amendments or support appropriate amendments which may or may not come from this side of the House. Let me illustrate what is probably the most glaringly inequitable and unfair imposition.
The National Harbours Board approved and awarded to the Maritime Employers Association on the west coast a 14 per cent increase in their rates in handling containers effective last January 1. I see nothing in this bill that would roll back that increase. This was done with the understanding and knowledge of the National Harbours Board and the Employers' Association that the employers would propose a 10 per cent increase in wages for the longshoremen. That was the main reason for the 14 per cent increase for the employers on their rates for the handling of containers. Now the Bill proposes that if there is no agreement reached between the two sides by next Monday, the employees are subject to six and five. What about the employers being subject to six and five on the 14 per cent increase they received? As the Hon. Member for North Vancouver-Burnaby pointed out, it is just another example of contributing to continued strife and industrial relation wars in our ports.
The Minister's Bill deals with slowdowns. It will be interesting to see who will interpret what is and what is not a slowdown and when and how a slowdown is initiated. When a company has a good, conscientious employee who works to and obeys all the rules laid down by his employer, and the Government has the nerve to call it a slowdown, 1 suggest that the Government and the employees are admitting that there is something wrong with the rules. I find it passing strange to criticize an employee because he works according to the rules of his employment. That logic escapes me completely. Both the employer and the employee can work to rule. This occurs on occasion because it is sometimes the only mechanism that one or the other has to convey its position to the other.
I suggest as well that the record will show that my colleagues and I, my friends in the Official Opposition and on the Government side, are fighting and working for workers, farmers, pensioners and all average Canadians. That is on the record and cannot be denied. I know better than most and as much as the remaining Members in this place that no matter what any single Member of Parliament or Party in this place says about a measure such as this, someone will be hurt.
West Coast Ports Operations Act
Surely it is incumbent upon all legislators who believe in trying to meet the best test of sincerity, integrity and consistency, to practise fairness and equality with regard to both sides affected by this legislation. When we are faced with a situation such as this for the twelfth time in ten years, we must go to extraordinary lengths to ensure equity. Without that equal measure of fairness and equity, we are defeating the objective of every Hon. Member.
We want the ports to be in operation but we do not want the employees to be handed a six and five situation at the bargaining table by a third party-namely the Government of Canada-when, in fact, the employer offered 10 per cent and 8 per cent, the employees wanted 13 per cent and 10 per cent and the conciliator recommended 12 per cent and 9 per cent. I do not believe there is much argument over monetary matters.
The intervention of the third party-the Government of Canada-was also faced by the grain handlers, and I was about to say that we may be back in the House dealing with this same situation concerning the grain handlers who have been in a position to strike for the last month or two. However,
1 have just received word that they signed an agreement last night. Hon. Members can breathe a sigh of relief that we will not face that situation in a couple of weeks. We have seen that collective bargaining does work. However, one of the reasons that it took so long for the grain elevator operators and the grain handlers to reach an agreement was that when the conciliator's offer was accepted by the union, the companies were faced with a 6 per cent regime on their handling, elevation and storage charges. While the companies agreed to a 10 per cent pay raise in the second year of the contract which the companies insisted on having, the intervention of the third party at the bargaining table, namely the Government, with its six and five program put the employers in an impossible position in terms of what they were willing to accept as pay raises for the grain handlers.
Surely this situation applies to the matter we are concerned with today. The employers offered 10 per cent, the conciliator recommends 12 per cent and the union wants 13 per cent. In comes the third party and messes it up.
Back to work legislation, as distasteful as it is to all Members of the House, to all parties and to all Governments, is less distasteful if it is fair and equitable and treats each side equally. If this does not happen, you can mark my words, Mr. Speaker, that one or two years down the road we will once again be dealing with a longshoremen's port shutdown, if not on the west coast, then on the St. Lawrence River or the east coast. As sure as we are sitting here, it will happen again.
The time to seriously deal with problems faced in our ports must begin tomorrow so that we will not have to face today's situation once again. I can call it nothing more than incompetence or indifference on the part of the Government. It has known of these problems and has been faced with them time and time again, year in and year out. However, it will not deal with these problems.

November 3, 1982
West Coast Ports Operations Act
I agree with the Hon. Member for North Vancouver-Burnaby when he says that the employers are not 100 per cent right and the employees are not 100 per cent right. I have yet to meet anyone who is 100 per cent right. The Government must get together with both sides to deal with matters such as containers and shift differentials. This should be done either through a Royal Commission, judicial inquiry, conciliation or mediation.
These problems cannot be dealt with unless job security is also dealt with. Do not ask a worker in any occupation in this country to agree to more job insecurity because he will then be all the harder to bargain with. Who can blame them? All of us would act in the same manner. No one in this place can stand up and point fingers with any kind of a holier than thou attitude except concerning what I just said about the failure to act on what has been causing these difficulties. This has happened for the fifth time in ten years over our ports. It must be dealt with and it can be dealt with. No one says it will be easy. However, if none of us want to face this kind of situation again, and I include the Minister of Labour, if he lasts long enough in his portfolio, then he is the one who must take the lead. He and this Government must take the lead, and I am sure they would have the blessing of Hon. Members on this side of the House if they were to get together with the longshoremen, employers and harbour authorities to arrive at an equitable solution to the difficulties which arise whenever contracts are up for renewal, no matter how long it takes, whether six months or a year.
I do not want to oppose the legislation, but because of what is in it and, more particularly, what is not in it, and because of my desire of myself and that of my colleagues and, I am confident, that of Hon. Members in the other two parties, we should continue to strive not only for sincerity but also for consistency and integrity, for our previous actions mean that we must vote against the legislation. I hope my remaining colleagues will understand because they have also been in the same position at one time or another and we will probably be there again on another occasion over another dispute. Who knows? But that is what we are facing. I cannot support the legislation. Much as I would like to get the ports operating again and elevator agents, railroaders and farmers going again, the legislation flies in the face of what we said and did over six and five, and also hits co-operatives and wheat pools, which are already under the six and five regime on the handling charges for country elevator systems, in the face of rising costs-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. I must inform the Hon. Member that the time allocated for his speech is now exhausted. He may continue only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: There is not unanimous consent.
Is the House ready for the question?


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I will not be very long but I think it is important to put some thoughts on the record with regard to what we have before us today. What we are seeing from the Government is another example of the way in which it approaches the economy of Canada. Over the past number of years and, in particular, over the last two years, the Government has shown that it is a government of crisis management, that it never does any advance work, that it never considers the long-term implications of its actions, that it never involves itself in problems as they arise in an effort to avoid their reaching the crisis level, that it is constantly trying to patch together the results of its own lack of understanding, the problems resulting from its own lack of understanding of many of the conflicts which have arisen across the country.
I want to say to the Government that some eight or ten days ago it was suggested to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Caccia) that he should go to Vancouver to sit down with the parties involved in the dispute and that he should make a personal effort to bring them together. I want to suggest that that is not out of character with what other ministers of Labour have done in the past. However, this Minister of Labour chose not to do it. I wonder why he did not choose to go. Was it because he felt that he was incompetent or perhaps did not have the knowledge or expertise in the field of labour relations to be of any particular value? Was it because he felt that the parties involved in the dispute would perhaps not take kindly to a minister who really had no background in the field forcing himself into the dispute, or was there a reason which was even worse? Did he fail to go to Vancouver because those in the Cabinet and Government thought in the back of their minds that they wanted to impose the six and five regime? Did he fail to make the effort when it might well have resulted in success because the Government carefully considered the possible implications and came to the conclusion that, if it did not take part in finding a solution, it would be able to impose on this part of the private sector that which it was imposing on the public sector? I do not want to try to guess what was in the Minister's mind, but it is not unreasonable to think that that may well have been in the minds of some of the members of the Cabinet.
I can recall that last week the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) stood in his place and was putting his financial statement before the House of Commons. In the middle of it he stopped and inserted certain paragraphs which were not contained in the original document. Those paragraphs directly related to the labour dispute which was going on in the Port of Vancouver. On Wednesday, the House resumed sitting, he said that if this dispute were not resolved "by Monday midnight next, the Government will move in and solve it". I know that your own experience in labour relations, Mr. Speaker, will allow you to understand that if one were somewhat reluctantly sitting at the negotiating table and either management or
November 3, 1982

oneself were having some considerable difficulty in arriving at an agreement-and at the point in time when the Minister made his statement the Government was in fact at the negotiating table-if one were unable to see exactly where the negotiations were leading, it would not be an incentive for an outside party to say, "Do not worry about it. If you do not get it solved, we will impose something which will be far less than you have already offered". Would that be an incentive to continue with negotiations and find a satisfactory resolution to the dispute at the bargaining table? I am sure that Hon. Members opposite can see the rationale. They can understand what was in my mind as I listened to the Minister. As I heard him speak, I thought to myself, "That is the end of negotiations in Vancouver. He signalled to the company that it is all right, the Government will fix it all up at six and five on Monday next". Of course, I was absolutely right. That is exactly what happened. From the moment the Minister of Finance made it clear that the Government's intention was to impose six and five, in whatever form, and to settle the dispute on their behalf, negotiations ceased to all intents and purposes. This is what makes this Bill so odious and unacceptable. The fact is that the Government did not attempt to resolve the dispute nor find a way to bring the parties together. It did not go into that last minute, long-term operation, that overnight tough bargaining which brings about a resolution of a dispute in the final moments.
This Government decided a week before that it was going to impose six and five, it was not going to allow the settlement to occur. Therefore, for that reason if for no other, it would be impossible for me to bring myself to support the Government's action in this regard. It would be impossible for me to lend my support to this scheme cooked up in the back rooms of the Cabinet offices to further inflict the six and five regime on the public and private sector after having imposed it in the public sector. That makes it for me a relatively simple decision on the face of it.
There are, however, many other considerations, one of which is of course the one raised by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), who made it quite clear that there were conflicting problems here. The Government should have seen that there were problems other than simply the longshoreman and their employers. The Government should have understood that this was having a widespread effect on the economy of western Canada. It should have understood that the farmers were under severe distress as a result of the negligence of this Government. The Government should have been involved weeks ago in trying to find a way to solve the problems in order to move the grain, open the ports and force the employers to accept their employees in their place of work and allow them to do the job they had been willing to do all along. But, no, no, no. The Government had made a decision. You see, it made a decision that it was going to allow this to reach that crisis level and then it was going to intervene, and intervene it did. That is why we on this side of the House find this kind of measure so unacceptable.
West Coast Ports Operations Act
It happens over and over and over again. What we are seeing today being supported, I suspect very willingly, by all the Liberal backbenchers and with obscene haste by the Conservatives is only the thin edge of the wedge. It is going to be gradually imposed, little by little, all across the country in ways similar to this. Not openly, not above board, but slowly imposed in every sector little by little. The end result of that would be to undermine severely the collective bargaining system.


Mr. McDermid:: Exactly what David said.


Ian Deans: I want to say that the collective bargaining system in this country, notwithstanding those who speak out against it, has worked extremely well. It has worked from any perspective you want to take. It has provided a satisfactory means of resolving 90 per cent or more of the disputes between management and labour, without any work stoppage and without any confrontation. So the difficulty now is that as Government begins to use the instrument of back-to-work legislation to impose its economic policy, we can see the gradual erosion of the collective bargaining system as it has applied across the country.
What will be the end result? It will not be labour peace. Because if you take employees and employers who have outstanding issues which they know they must resolve, and if you force them by law to go back to work with those issues still unresolved, there is an accumulation of problems which ultimately will result in a blow-up and serious problems in the workplace. Therefore, if you did not believe in collective bargaining even as a safety valve, it has provided such a measure of opportunity to resolve problems which otherwise may well have totally destroyed the manufacturing sector and the employee-employer relations of this country. So I really do worry about the way in which this has been approached. I worry about the way the Government has, in my judgment, abused, its power. I worry about the way the Government moves in a heavy-handed and uncompromising way to settle things that it knows little about, that it has paid little attention to and that it has made no effort to resolve in any other way. I worry, too, when I hear the Tories talk of their desire to return to free enterprise. They want to get Government out of business, but the first time there is a problem between management and labour they are prepared to intervene on behalf of management every time. Every time!
It interests me, Mr. Speaker, that when companies open and subsequently close the Tories and Liberals tell me that this is management's prerogative. A company can set up a plant, sometimes with Government grants, operate the plant for a time and then close it down. It can destroy an entire community in the process, but that is seen by both Liberal and Conservative Party Members as management's prerogative. They can disrupt and ruin the futures of families, but they do not see a responsibility on the part of Government to move in and try to rationalize those situations and act on behalf of the community and the people in the community, the employees who have worked there and who may have put in many, many

November 3, 1982
West Coast Ports Operations Act years of service. When a company decides, as the Iron Ore Company of Canada did, to take all the profits that it has made, all the benefits it has received from Canada, and move it away to another part of the world and set up a new operation, when the President of that company finally makes his decision to close it down and disrupt an entire community and throw people out of work-a President, incidentally, who may well be a leadership candidate for the Tory Party-when he decides to do those kinds of things, I do not hear screams and shouts from the backbenches of the Conservative Party demanding equity and fairness for the employees, demanding that the company be forced to live up to its obligations to Canada and to its employees. When International Nickel rapes an entire community for years and takes money off to South America and other places, money made in Canada, and then cuts the prices which normally would be received by the Canadian operation, and then gradually reduces the work force by 25 per cent, 30 per cent, 35 per cent and 40 per cent over time to the point where it will shut down totally, I do not hear the Tories or the Liberals standing up and saying: "By God, we expect that company to live up to its obligations and provide employment for those people and safeguard those communities." But when some employees, acting in their own best interests, decide that they must withdraw their services, the economic consequences of which they are prepared to accept, then, by God, the Government and the Tories together are quick on their feet to send them back to work.
I say to the labour critic for the Conservative Party that I would like to see where the Tory Party policies are which say that companies have no right to shut down plants and throw people out of work. I would like to see them talking about the obligation those people who have taken from this country have to put something back into it. I would like to see where the Tory Party's obligation is concerning a guarantee that there will be no dislocation of employment as a result of management decisions taken in the best interests of a few to relocate in another part of the country or the world, this without any concern for the interests of the workers or their communities. No, all I can see is the obscene haste on the part of both these Parties to pick on the working people of Canada constantly as though somehow or other they were there simply to be picked on. I see both of these Parties failing to put in place the proper procedures to encourage collective bargaining, failing to provide the necessary support, which is absolutely fundamental to good collective bargaining. I fail to see the position of the Government and the Conservative Party with regard to the fact that if employers are going to have the right to lay people off, shut things off and close things down in their economic interest, employees concurrently should have the right in their economic interest to decide to withhold their service until they are able to find a reasonable and satisfactory resolution to their dispute. This has not happened.
O)
I truthfully cannot blame the Tories for not intervening in this dispute in western Canada, but I worry about the haste with which they want to pass the legislation. It is the Government that set up the scenario. The Government decided to impose the six and five regime. The Government made the decision that collective bargaining should not work. The Government decided it would say to the employers, "Don't bargain, you do not have to, we will solve it for you", and that is why we reject it.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Call in the Members.


Madam Speaker:: 


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Blaker in the chair.
Roderick Blaker: Order. House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-137, to provide for the resumption and continuation of longshoring and related operations at ports on the west coast of Canada.
Shall Clause 2 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Carried.
Clause 2 agreed to.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I believe that the Government has an amendment. I am not too sure whether it applies to Clause 2 or a later clause.


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I have a motion to propose to amend Clause 6 of the Bill.


Roderick Blaker: I thank the Minister for advising the Chair of his proposed motion. I had understood that possibly other amendments may be coming shortly.
Shall Clause 3 carry?
On Clause 3-Resumption of operations and work.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to Clause 3 carrying, but we do have an amendment to Subclause (2), paragraph (b) which is consequential on an amendment that we have to Clause 4. I would ask the indulgence of the Committee to stand Clause 3(2)(b) until after the Committee has dealt with our substantive amendment to Clause 4.


Roderick Blaker: If the House is agreeable, we will stand Clause 3 until consideration of the amendment under Clause 4. That will achieve the same effect as the Hon. Member suggested.
Clause 3 stood.
On Clause 4-


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Chairman, in Clause 4 I have a motion to propose which would involve, as my friend says, a consequential amendment to Clause 3 and perhaps to Clause 5 as well. The amendment I propose with respect to Clause 4 reads as follows:
That Bill C-137, an Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of longshoring and related operations at ports on the west coast of Canada, be amended by deleting Clause 4 thereof and substituting the following therefor: 4(1) The Minister of Labour shall, after the coming into force of the Act,
(a)	within 14 days appoint an arbitration board consisting of three members, of which Business, Labour and Government would each nominate one member, and refer to that Board the further extension of the term of the collective agreement to which this Act applies to include the period referred to in subsection 2(a) and all the matters relating to the amendment of the collective agreement that in the opinion of the arbitration board, at the time of its appointment, are in dispute between the employers association and the union; and
(b)	provide for the form in which the decision of the arbitration board in respect of all matters referred to it shall be set forth.

November 3, 1982
West Coast Ports Operations Act
(2)	The arbitration board has, with such modifications as the circumstances
require, all the powers and duties of an arbitrator under Section 157 of the
Canada Labour Code.
(3)	Notwithstanding any other provision of the Act or of the Canada
Labour Code, the arbitration board shall be required to decide all matters
referred to it under this Act within sixty days of its appointment.
Mr. Chairman, that is the amendment to Clause 4. I would like to now explain what the purpose of that amendment would be. In my remarks with respect to second reading of this bill I indicated that it was far more favourable, in our view, for all sides and, indeed, for precedents with respect to industrial disputes that we stick with the tried and true, traditional Canadian way of settling disputes through the process of arbitration. That should be the form that the intervention takes. We feel that it would hurt all sides and precedents for the future of industrial peace in the country to have this direct, unilateral intervention by the Government.
The specific wording that I have used comes directly from an intervention made by the Government in 1978 in the dispute under the Shipping Continuation Act in October, 1978. During a strike with respect to Great Lakes shipping, the Government decided that what it would do is not resort to this direct kind of unilateral intervention but indeed use the traditional arbitration process. That measure was brought in by the Liberal Government to deal with the strike on the Great Lakes in 1978. I have used exactly the same wording that the Government used in 1978.
I might say that it is worth while looking at the remarks of Government Members at that time to see whether or not it was preferable to use the arbitration procedure rather than this novel departure from our traditions. It was better to have arbitration as the way to solve our disputes rather than unilateral Government intervention.
The Government Minister of Transport of the day, Mr. Otto Lang, said this when dealing with that particular legislation:
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.
The Minister of the day, Mr. Lang, was confronted with exactly the same situation on the Great Lakes that the Government today now has on the west coast. The Government of that day decided that it would stick with the traditions of this country that allow for the protection of all parties to the dispute, that they would go back to work and a final settlement would be decided by arbitration and not by direct Government intervention.
Indeed, the principles stated by the Minister at the time are certainly worthy of the consideration of Governemnt Members. He said this:
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 that restraint in the collective bargaining process is necessary.
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-
And I underline this.
-the liberties of individuals and to assure that we move in a careful and guarded manner.
Mr. Chairman, this mechanism of reaching a final settlement between the parties does not deal with the root causes, as many people indicated earlier, of a 13-year long dispute. It was weak in that way and it is dangerous to substitute the traditional Canadian practice of having our disputes settled by arbitration and substituting in its stead direct unilateral Government intervention.
There is more at stake here than only the current problem. We have to get the people back to work. We will do that, but in our rush to do that we should not give up what Canadians have depended upon for generations when it comes to this kind of Government intervention in industrial disputes. That is why I hope the Minister and the Government will recognize the wisdom, at least, of their own move four years ago when Otto Lang brought in, in exactly the same circumstances, this legislation that I am proposing today.


Roderick Blaker: The Chair has a procedural problem. The Hon. Member for Rosedale or other Members may wish to address themselves to this.
The amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for Rose-dale essentially deletes Clause 4 of Bill C-137. There is some question in the minds of the authorities as to whether or not the entire deletion of a clause can be considered an amendment or whether the proposal which interests the Hon. Member for Rosedale ought to be presented after a vote has been taken on Clause 4.
The Chair would be pleased to have suggestions from any Hon. Member who may wish to pursue that matter. However, the indications so far would indicate that the authorities would oppose the submission of an amendment that deletes a complete clause.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, I would like the Chair to indicate more specifically what authorities the chair has in mind to support the contention that amendments cannot be moved for the purpose of deleting a Clause and substituting the wording that, in this case, has been substituted. In order to guide us in intelligently discussing the question that the Chair has raised, we should at least have the benefit of the basis for the Chair raising the question at all.
With respect to the second point made by the Chair, that the Committee should first deal with Clause 4 and then consider an amendment, I would respectfully suggest to the Chair that the authorities are quite abundant in prohibiting an amendment to a Clause which has already been adopted by the Committee. Once Clause 4 is adopted there is no way that the
November 3, 1982

Chair can properly entertain an amendment to that Clause. If the Chair would indicate specifically the authorities it has in mind, perhaps I might answer his reservations more fully.


Roderick Blaker: The Chair has been referred to two copies of the House of Commons Debates which have been placed before me. The first reference is to page 5385 of the Debates for December 3, 1963, and I will read the relevant sentence only in order to guide Hon. Members. The second reference is to page 4219 of the Debates for October 31, 1963. In both cases, just to summarize the matter, the issue was whether or not the amendment was relevant to the Clause which it proposes to amend. Clause 4 of the Bill before us proposes to establish the control of the Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act, and the Hon. Member's amendment proposes to delete that Clause altogether and to provide for arbitration proceedings. There does not necessarily seem to be a relation between them.
I refer the Hon. Member for Yukon to Beauchesne's Fifth Edition at page 233, wherein Citation 773(1) states:
An amendment is out of order if it is irrelevant to the bill, beyond its scope or governed by or dependent upon amendments already negatived.
I would also refer to Erskine May's Nineteenth Edition at page 521, wherein subparagraph (1) states:
An amendment is out of order if it is irrelevant to the subject matter (d) or beyond the scope of the bill (e), or if it is irrelevant to the subject matter (f) or beyond the scope of the clause under consideration (g).
The issue is whether or not the amendment goes beyond the scope of consideration under Clause 4, which relates to the Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, I thank you for enlightening me as to the reasons for the reservations of the Chair. I thought that they would be far more serious. My submission is that the rule as to relevance really is not applicable in this instance at all. That rule certainly does not apply to these circumstances.
What we are dealing with here is a Bill, the principle of which is to put the ports of British Columbia back to work. The manner in which those ports are put back to work is something else again. Clause 4, in its present form, deals with the manner in which the Government intends to put those ports back to work. We are dealing with that matter in a different form, indeed a radically different form, which would preserve the rights and freedoms of the workers of this country, which the Government seems to want to destroy in one fell swoop while at the same time intruding on the private sector through the six and five program.
I have a much deeper reservation with respect to Clause 4, one which I will certainly not raise here as a means of knocking it out, one which I draw to the Chair's attention in the form of a caveat.
The question is whether or not the words of Clause 4 in the form they are used are intra vires the process at all. It raises the question as to whether the Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act itself must be amended by an amending section to that Act rather than through an attempt to smuggle it in
West Coast Ports Operations Act
through an amendment in a brand new Bill in Parliament. I simply raise the caveat, but I do not raise it as an objection at this stage.
I do suggest that the amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for Rosedale is in order under Citation 425, which will be found at page 153 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition. It states:
The object of an amendment may be either to modify a question in such a way as to increase its acceptability or to present to the House a different proposition as an alternative to the original which must, however, be relevant to the subject of the questions.
I would therefore submit that this amendment falls squarely within the meaning of Citation 425, it being the objective of the amendment put forward by the Hon. Member for Rosedale to modify the question in such a way as to increase its acceptability, certainly to all Hon. Members on this side of the House. And, more strongly, the amendment indeed modifies the Clause in such a way as to present to the House, to use Beauchesne's words, "a different proposition as an alternative to the original". In my respectful submission, that does not mean that the amendment must be relevant to the proposition set forth in the existing Clause 4. Indeed, Beauchesne goes on to use those words. One can make a proposition quite different from the one we find in Clause 4. Beauchesne states "but it must be relevant".
If the Chair interprets that phraseology in Beauchesne to mean that a different proposition is only acceptable if it conforms to the wording of the existing Clause 4 of the Bill, then those words in Beauchesne have no meaning at all. The relevance is relevance to the Bill and not to the Clause. I see some doubt expressed on your face, Mr. Chairman. Consider those words and I think the Chair will agree that an amendment can put forward an entirely "different proposition as an alternative to the original". The original proposition here is that the Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act will apply to the workers going back to work in the ports.
What the Hon. Member for Rosedale is doing in his wording is putting forth an entirely different proposition, as Beauchesne sets forth. Beauchesne goes on to say that the proposition must "be relevant to the subject of the questions". The subject of the questions, I submit, is not the subject of the Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act. It is the subject, the question, the principle, of the Bill itself.
This amendment does not negate Clause 4 whatsoever. It proposes a different method of dealing with the bargaining process. The Government wants to treat it in a mandatory, unilateral way and impose a wage ceiling upon the workers. We want to treat it in a different way, one which will give the collective bargaining process a chance to work and, failing that, after 14 days to implement arbitration proceedings.
The Chair made one other point when citing Beauchesne and Erskine May. I believe the phrase used by the Chair was that "no amendment had been negatived yet". That is not a necessary precondition of the Chair's acceptance of this amendment. One must not negative an amendment before it

November 3, 1982
West Coast Ports Operations Act
finds acceptability by the Chair. I presume the reason that citation was mentioned by the Chair was in support of the proposition that perhaps we should pass Clause 4 before dealing with our amendment. But I respectfully suggest to the Chair that the authorities are quite abundant-if the Chair is not prepared to concede that point I will turn them up for him-that it is improper to entertain an amendment to a Clause once it has passed. For those reasons, Sir, knowing that we are all here to vote on the matter, I would suggest if the Government is not prepared to accept the amendment, we should vote on the matter now.
I would add my encouragement to the Government and urge the Minister to accept that approach. It was an approach adopted by a predecessor Liberal Government in office. The wording the Hon. Member for Rosedale has put in his amendment is, word for word, verbatim, the wording that the Government of that day put forward in order to end the Great Lakes shipping strike. I seldom commend any Liberal Government, but certainly the Government of that day was to be commended for the efforts it made to preserve the collective bargaining process which will be utterly and completely destroyed if the House accepts the approach of the Government unilaterally to impose a settlement, which it has given a clear indication it intends to do next Monday unless a collective bargaining agreement is reached between the parties.
What the Government is doing is using this device as a club over the heads of the workers. It is saying to the workers in British Columbia: you guys get back to the bargaining table. If you do not, and if you do not reach an agreement by next Monday night, we are going to impose a ceiling of 6 per cent on you, far less than the last offer by management. It seems to me that is a very iron-fisted approach, and the Government would not want to take that approach in view of the destruction which would be caused to the process of collective bargaining in this country.
Failing Government acceptance of that very reasonable proposal, Mr. Chairman, I urge you to find the amendment in order for the reasons expressed.


Roderick Blaker: I see the Hon. President of the Privy Council rising to contribute to the point of order. I wonder if I can reduce the amount of time spent on the issue by pointing out some options available to Hon. Members and the House as to how to proceed.
Quite obviously the amendment presented by the Hon. Member for Rosedale seems to have the support of a considerable number of Members, and presumably his party. Nothing prohibits the Hon. Member from attempting to amend the Bill with the contents of that motion, and I would refer again to Ersking May, Seventeenth Edition, Page 549, which says that amendments which are irrelevant to the clause under consideration should, as a general rule, if they are within the scope of the Bill, be moved as new clauses.
So having offered that as one option on which the Hon. Member and others may wish to proceed, the Chair still has some difficulty, despite the arguments of the Hon. Member for Yukon, as to whether this proposed amendment may or may not be in order.
The Chair would be pleased to listen to other contributions on the subject.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Chairman, I just want to refer you to citations 426 and 428, Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, Fifth Edition. Citation 426 emphasizes that every amendment must be relevant to the question on which the amendment is proposed. Citation 428 explains the amendment procedure, and it certainly does not provide for removing an entire clause. The citation is as follows:
428. (1) A motion may be amended-
-either by-
-(a) leaving out certain words-
-certain words and not every single word-
(b)	leaving out certain words in order to insert other words;-
-or by-
(c)	inserting or adding other words.
That is the amendment procedure.
There is also citation 436 which I think is quite relevant and which reads as follows:
436. (1) An amendment proposing a direct negative,-
I submit that is the case we have here.
-though it may be covered up by verbiage, is out of order.
Therefore I submit that the verbiage indulged in by the opposition is being used to camouflage a direct negation of a clause of the bill, and we fully agree with the Chair when it says that the correct procedure is not to request removal of one clause in order to substitute an entirely new proposal, something which is against the Rules of the House and against parliamentary procedure, and that the Chair should be asked to rule whether it is appropriate to add a clause to this bill.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, we all know that you can prove anything with figures and you can get almost any argument you want out of Beauchesne to prove a point. But surely, Mr. Chairman, using your own words and trying to reduce this to basic common sense so we can get on and vote on the issue without getting tied down in the paralysis of procedure, as I understood it, the Chair mentioned that there could not be anything irrelevant to the Clause. Surely, as I read this Bill, the amendment being attempted amends Clause 4, which adopts by reference, in effect, the compensation which is going to be paid under the imposition of this Bill. The title of the compensation itself in effect refers to Section 3 of the Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act. It is by reference to that
November 3, 1982

Bill that you come to the compensation which is the other part of this Bill. One is to put them back to work; how do they go back to work? This is one of the conditions.
Surely, Mr. Chairman, the amendment of the Hon. Member for Rosedale is most relevant, again to use your word, because the amendment does not refer to the Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act, adopting that by reference; it is adopting, admittedly, another procedure. It is adopting the arbitration procedure, which is relevant because instead of having the Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act adopted as a condition to these people having to go back to work under this law, we are trying to substitute and use the age-old words "deleting and substituting therefore", which is quite acceptable, and I must say I was surprised when the Chair wondered why the amendment was even being made.
Again, to try to simplify this, because of the hurried way the Bill was drawn up, surely if the Hon. Member for Rosedale does not succeed at this stage, then perhaps we should go right back to Clause 3. Again, in talking about terms and conditions, of going back to work, which are in Clause 3, in effect the same amendment could be, for all practical purposes and under the rule of common sense-not the bureaucracy of Beauchesne-adopted in Clause 3 to put the same amendment as to the conditions. You either have a collective agreement under paragraph (a) or you have the amendment put by my friend, the Hon. Member for Rosedale, paragraph (b). Then, again to use the words of the Chair, voting on that amendment would thereby negative the existing paragraph (b), so you would not have to worry about Clause 4.
Now, surely with common sense you can do it either through the front door or you can do it through the back door. Surely there must be some procedure whereby we can have a mechanism of arbitration to substitute, without getting perjorative as to what I might think about the Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act, for the six and five procedure.
So I certainly lay that on the Table. You cannot do it now because of some of the hurdles from Beauchesne which you have raised, and we have not passed Clause 3, which clearly states the terms and conditions-one term is the collective agreement, which we all know became impossible once the Government disclosed it is going to impose six and five. So the next term is paragraph (b). Subclause (4) refers to Clause 4. Our amendment there could refer to the amendment moved by the Hon. Member for Rosedale which is not Clause 4, that is, the public restraint bill six and five. It is the artibration procedure which must be, I submit, most acceptable to the Chair.


Ian Deans: Mr. Chairman, I am following this debate with great interest. Just so that we might have it more clearly before us what the issue is, I wonder if maybe the Official Opposition could provide us with a copy of the amendment.


Roderick Blaker: There are other Members to my left who may wish to rise, but may I repeat a point, particularly in
West Coast Ports Operations Act
view of the remarks made by the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants. I quote again the reference in Erskine May. It reads:
Amendments which are irrelevant to the clause under consideration should, as a general rule, if they are within the scope of the bill be moved as new clauses.
It seems to me that the Chair has provided an opportunity, particularly to the Hon. Member for Rosedale and the Hon. Member for Yukon to consider whether that might be a convenient way of dealing with the matter. The advice the Chair has received from the Table is consistently that the amendment is not consistent with the Clause that is out of order. I have to recognize other Hon. Members for a few moments.


Mr. Howie:: Mr. Chairman, I just have one small point to make. It is that if the amendment is moved as a separate clause, I submit it will by implication amend Clause 4 of the Bill. The Bill before us does not seek to amend the Public Services Restraint Act. Clause 4 seeks, instead, to incorporate some provisions of that Act by direct reference. They are the monetary provisions.
I submit that the relevance of the amendment is that it too deals with remuneration by setting out a formula, and that we are not here looking at an amendment to the Public Service Restrain Act. We are looking at a brand new act which simply by reference sets out the formula in part of this Act, the six and five formula.
What our amendment does is to deal directly with that formula in this Act only. It does not come in conflict with the Public Service Restraint Act. Whether we deal with this amendment by proposing to wipe-out Clause 4 and substitute it or whether we propose it as a separate clause is not really relevant. If we propose it as a separate clause, we will by implication also amend Clause 4. I submit we are looking at a distinction without a difference.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, I was ready for the observation that you made, that an amendment is possible in another way. I had that process all ready for you but I considered this to be the simplest method of approach because it is in precisely the same words that the Government used in its legislation in the Great Lakes shipping strike.
Logically, there has to be a follow-up on the amendment which we propose to Clause 4 by moving an amendment to Clause 5. Once the arbitration process has been concluded, what does the arbitrator do? What happens to the collective bargaining agreement? My friend from Rosedale has a copy of our proposed amendment to Clause 5, and will provide it immediately to the Government.
Those words are exactly the same as the words that are used in the Act which ended the Great Lakes shipping problem which was assented to on October 24, 1978 and which are to be found in the Revised Statutes of Canada for that year, commencing at page seven. The words that are used in our amendment to Clauses 4 and 5 commence on page 9 under the

November 3, 1982
West Coast Ports Operations Act
heading "Arbitration", Clause 6 in that legislation and going on to page 7, Clause 7 of that legislation. The words are exactly the same, the proposal is quite different.
It would, in my submission, be much simpler for the Government to reject, as is their wont, the amendments that we propose now that they have had a full explanation of them. Indeed, they were the authors of those very two sections.
I suggest it would be much simpler to accept the amendments in their present form, vote on them and get them out of the way. The Chair in its wisdom does not propose to do that. As I indicated, I am ready to propose an appropriate amendment which would probably give rise to more procedural arguments and delays. We could dispose of these very quickly and simply, if the Government does not accept their own principles of 1978.


Mr. Gamble:: Mr. Chairman, I listened with considerable interest to your suggestions about the addition of entirely new paragraphs that conceivably might have the same effect. Let me draw your attention, if I may, to the kind of process that would be involved.
What we would do is suggest that Clause 3(2) be amended by adding a further subparagraph which would be (c). Subparagraph 3(2)(c) would provide for the full provisions of the amendments that have been added by the Hon. Member for Rosedale. We would then provide under a new clause, which would be Clause 6, a provision which would say that the provisions of Clause 3(2)(c) shall be immediately imposed by the Government prior to the proclamation of Clause 4. If I may analyse mechanically what that would do, it is this. Having regard to the fact that Clause 3(2)(c) would now provide that of three provisions, the first one that applies should be the one that governs. Those would now be, if I may suggest it, a revised collective agreement as the Clause now provides, the proclamation in force of Clause 4 or, adding the new amendment, the establishment of binding arbitration.
We would have provided that the Government must indeed establish the binding arbitration mechanism before it prob-laims Clause 4, which has the effect of bringing within the ambit of this entire Bill the provisions of the Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act.
Let me suggest that, upon reflection, what we have here is not a negatived provision. We do not have an irrelevant provision. If we analyse what the Bill intends to achieve, it is surely one thing, the establishment of peace on the waterfront in the western ports.
The issue as to compensation is but ancillary to the main purpose of the Bill. If I may take you through an analysis, Mr. Chairman, if the Government were to invoke the provisions of Clause 4, for someone who was earning currently $30,000 a year, the effect would be an $1,800 increase. If the provisions of the amendment are brought into effect, what this amendment does is to replace that sum with a sum to be determined. Accordingly, a mechanism of determining that sum is but ancillary to the main purpose of the Bill and, accordingly, should not be regarded as being irrelevant or negative to the main purposes of the Bill.


Mr. Caccia:: I do not speak on a point of order, I speak on the substance of the amendment, whether or not you are accepting it.


Roderick Blaker: The subject matter on the floor of the House at the moment is the question of whether or not the amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for Rosedale is in order. I have to dispose of that issue before we can have debate on another matter. I do not see any other Hon. Members seeking the floor.
I want to indicate that the Chair has obviously listened to the argument of several members. The advice the Chair has received, as I indicated earlier, is consistent. It seems to me, I am faced with the proposition that the Hon. Member for Rosedale would like to see the proposals contained within his amendment brought before the House, given consideration and possibly voted upon. I have offered Hon. Members an option by which that might be done; that is, rather than by way of amendment of Clause 4, a new clause could be brought in on a motion by the Hon. Member, or by some other Hon. Member.
I am concerned that the Hon. Member and his supporters not be deprived of the opportunity to bring the matter to a vote, but I am satisfied that he can bring the matter to a vote, so I will proceed.
I have already listed Citations of Beauchesne and Erskine May. I do not think it will benefit the House by taking up any further time. Accordingly, the motion to amend Clause 4 of the bill as proposed by the Hon. Member for Rosedale is ruled out of order.
Shall Clause 4 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: No, no.


Roderick Blaker: The Hon. Member for Yukon on a point of order.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, in the hope that we can save some time, and in order that the issues which the Member for Rosedale wants to be placed before the committee can be discussed, I am going to propose that the committee accept the procedure of discussing the substance of the amendments to be proposed by the Hon. Member for Rosedale to Clause 4 and Clause 5, which are going to be combined in one new Clause, Clause 6, with existing Clauses 6 and 7 renumbered 7 and 8. The amendments dealing with the creation of an arbitration board, and the function of that board after it has performed its function, will be dealt with together. That will be done by submitting an amendment to existing Clause 5 of the Bill, making Clause 5 subject to the operation of the new Clause 6.
The wording of that amendment would be that Clause 5 be deleted, for the sake of expediency, and new Clause 5 substituted, subject to renumbered Clause 6 of the amended Bill. Clause 4 of the measure shall come into force on a day to be fixed by proclamation. In other words, what the whole process is concerned with is that Clause 5, the power to proclaim Clause 4, will not operate until after the arbitration process has been exhausted. What I am asking for now is the consent
November 3, 1982

of the committee to proceed in that way; otherwise, we would have to let Clause 4 and Clause 5 pass before we could get to our amendments.


Roderick Blaker: The Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Vancouver East on the same point of order.


Mrs. Mitchell:: Mr. Chairman, it was on Clause 4, but my colleague has a point of order.


Ian Deans: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is becoming extremely confusing. We are dealing with Clause 4 of the bill. I would ask, if you would not mind, that you allow us to deal with Clause 4 of the bill. If the Hon. Member for Yukon then wants to subsequently move another amendment, he may do so. But, surely, we can deal with Clause 4 which is now before us.


Erik Nielsen: If that were to be done the operative amendment could not be considered. I would suggest that in order to ease the confusion, we stand Clause 4 and then get right into Clause 5. We will then move the amendment.


Roderick Blaker: Does the House agree to stand Clause 4? The Hon. Member for Vancouver East.


Some Hon. Members:: No, no.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: I wish to speak to Clause 4, Mr. Chairman.


Roderick Blaker: I have to ensure that the Hon. Member's rights are not diminished in any way. The Chair sought the consent of the House to stand Clause 4. That consent would have to be unanimous and it is clear that there is not unanimity. Accordingly, the Chair will have to recognize the Hon. Member for Vancouver East on Clause 4.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This party strongly opposes the application of the Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act which is proposed in Clause 4. We strongly oppose the six and five settlement because we feel, of course, this is no way to settle disputes. In fact, it will exacerbate problems on the waterfront.
I would like to make two or three points, Mr. Chairman, related to this. We all know this is a very serious situation in the Port of Vancouver, and as a member representing a good portion of the riding containing that port I think I can speak about this firsthand. It is a problem that concerns every sector of our economy. Not only are the longshoremen and their families very concerned about settling this dispute and getting the port open, we know that farmers, railway workers, grain handlers and people in almost every sector in society are equally concerned. There is no question but that we want the lockout in the Port of Vancouver settled. We want an end to it, and get our port operating again. This is essential to the economy of the West Coast.
Having said that, I want to spend a moment talking about the victims of this six and five cutback proposal being imposed by the Government. The longshoremen in Vancouver and, indeed, all people who support collective bargaining and the rights of trade unionists, seriously resent the kind of union
West Coast Ports Operations Act
bashing that has been going on. I think it is very important that people like the Prime Minister know enough to refer to this in the correct term as a "lockout" rather than a strike. It would be very helpful also if our Central Canada media did the same.
We know, if we look back into the history of this dispute, that longshoremen did not want this lockout. They have had no settlement since the beginning of January. They work in very difficult situations. I think it is important for Members of the House to know this. It may seem they receive a fairly good hourly rate, but I think most Hon. Members should realize that many longshoremen spend three hours of unpaid time travelling to and from the hiring hall and the dock where they work. They also work in very bad weather, on nightshifts and on weekends, and safety on the docks is a major concern.
The union has been very adamant that there must be no changes in the basic contract, particularly regarding shift differentials and container destuffing.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I think it is extremely important to look at the Government's role in this dispute. We know the Government could have intervened earlier in a positive way. The Minister himself could have been much more constructive in his approach, instead of sending a very insulting and, in fact, a very intimidating kind of telegram which called both parties in this dispute dismal failures. What a way for a new Minister of Labour to start his career. The Government could also have moved in earlier, before Parliament came back, having a Government official try to settle the dispute. I am inclined to agree with union members who feel very strongly that the timing of the lockout was very convenient for employers, being just one week before Parliament resumed.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, if the Government had to intervene in the interests of the total economy, surely we could have had an end to the lockout and a resumption of negotiations without the six and five rollback. We oppose the six and five because we think it is grossly unfair to the public sector, and particularly unfair in the longshoremen's dispute. This is private sector employment. Bill C-152 was drafted for the public sector but now a precedent is being set by its application to the private sector.
I should like to point out that I have documents to prove that employers in Vancouver, supported by the head of the National Harbours Board, have charged 14 per cent tariffs to all customers using the Port since last January. This action was based on the anticipation of a 14 per cent increase in wages. The employers have been pocketing a 14 per cent profit all this time. How must a longshoreman feel who has been told by the Government that he is not going to receive any increase between January and July, while the employers have been charging an extra 14 per cent to cover that increase and then, after that, that he is only going to have a pay increase of 6 per

November 3, 1982
West Coast Ports Operations Act
cent? What is going to happen to those profits? What kind of equity and fairness is that?
We oppose this Bill very strongly, Mr. Speaker. We also oppose the blackmail tactic implicit in the timing of this and the way it is being imposed. To delay several days, saying, "Okay fellows, you can finish your negotiations and we will not impose it" is ridiculous. It is intimidating. It is saying, "All right, employers, you don't have to worry. We are going to give you a drastic decrease in wage increases and you can keep the difference between that and the 14 per cent." It is saying to the unions, "You are supporting the employers on those basic contract clauses, the container clause and the shift policies." These are absolutely not negotiable from the point of view of the workers. They have been there since the docks were opened on a 24-hour basis. They are there to protect their jobs. If the clause is changed, the union estimates that close to 300 jobs will be lost.
There is no way we will support the imposition of a six and five wage increase. We believe that this Bill symbolizes the unwillingness of the Government to support free collective bargaining. It is obvious that the Government is moving in favour of intimidating, police state tactics.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Chairman I should like to speak briefly on this matter and then ask a question of the Minister. I represent a British Columbia riding of working people, in Vancouver-Kingsway. Many of these people are unionized. There are some longshoremen in my riding and there are also retired farmers from Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba.
I have tried in this House to find a national point of view. I know that Canada is a very difficult country to govern. This Bill and this problem indicate how difficult it is to govern. I have tried to take a national point of view. Any Member who says there are not competing interests in this Bill is kidding himself or herself. This problem is difficult to resolve, but the Bill itself is not difficult to deal with.
I do not want to spend my limited time attacking other Members, although I will have one comment to make later about the Hon. Member for North Vancouver-Burnaby. I will point out some inconsistencies in his view.
It seems to me there are two competing principles at work here, and one is the right to free collective bargaining. One of the reasons for our opposition to the Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act was that this clause we are now discussing interferes with and takes away collective bargaining. Many Canadians who are watching this debate on television tonight may ask why we are so much in favour of collective bargaining. Mr. Chairman, we are in favour of it because it is what has kept our country working and what has kept our country free.
People in Poland are prepared to give up their very lives for the right to collective bargaining. I think every Canadian can understand that. When Pope John Paul or Lech Walesa speak about Poland, they are speaking of free collective bargaining. This principle is at stake here.
Another principle that is at stake is the common good of getting an industry going, specifically the grain industry. It is probably the only industry in the country today that is working to capacity. My colleagues from the prairies have been explaining the situation to me. They tell me that farmers can lose up to $8 million per day and that they will not get it back.
There are two competing principles here, Mr. Chairman, that of free collective bargaining and the Government not interfering with that, and the principle of legislating for the common good of the country. I sometimes wish we could put the farmers in the same room with the unions and employers, but I know that is difficult in a country as large as this. I say that apropos the position I was prepared to take, to keep an open mind on this legislation.
The Hon. Member for Regina West in a very careful, articulate and good speech, set this out clearly when he said that this Party has not been hung up on the rigid proposition that because this Bill legislates people back to work we automatically must say we are against it. That is not the case at all. I think the Hon. Member said that we are prepared to consider each problem on a case-by-case basis.
The public must understand, and I think it will, that what has happened is that the Government has thrown in a kicker in Clause 4. It has said that the Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act will apply; in other words, the six and five will apply. They sneaked the six and five into the Bill. It would have been better not to have done that, but to treat this Bill as bills have been treated in the past. In that case, this Party might have been able to look at this in a different way.
I should like to turn to some remarks made by the Hon. Member for North Vancouver-Burnaby. I agree with him when he said that this legislation is the worst labour legislation since the time of the Roman Empire. I am not familiar with the legislation that existed in the days of the Roman Empire but I gather he meant it was bad. Why is he voting for the legislation if it is the worst since legislation of the Roman Empire? I see the Hon. Member in the House. He is my good friend and comes from the same area of the country. If this legislation is so bad, and I agree with him,-Clause 4 shows that-why does he vote for it?
He went on to say that free men should not be legislated into a straightjacket. I agree with that, Mr. Chairman. Free women ought not to be legislated into a straightjacket either. The Hon. Member said that, and then he voted for the Bill. I think we must be consistent here. It seems to me that the Hon. Member might be trying to have his cake and eat it too.
I want to conclude by making two points on this particular Clause; one is a comment and one is a question. Some of my constituents might ask, "If you are opposed to this Bill, why are you letting it go through today?" I want to answer that question. It seems to me that some bills should be delayed. There are reasons for delaying bills, but I do not see the sense of it in this case for a very practical reason. The reason is that
November 3, 1982

I understand the unfair wage provisions in the Bill are retroactive. If we dragged the Bill out for two or three days, which I was quite prepared to do, where would it get us? It would still get us into a position where we would have unfair wage provisions being retroactively enacted, and the workers would be in the same position.
We fought the six and five for six weeks. We have fought the fight on that and I think the people of the country know it.
I say to my constituents as well as to Hon. Members of the House that with respect to the six and five one of the reasons I was elected to the House of Commons was that working people in my riding did not like wage and price controls because they saw them only as wage controls. 1 say to the working people of Canada that again Clause 4 applies the six and five, but this time to the private sector. It may be longshoremen today, but it will be other workers tomorrow. We will get into a situation where the wages of all workers are controlled, but not prices or profits.
Ordinary Canadians have a gut feeling for justice. They are prepared to co-operate and sacrifice for the country because they all love the country. It is a great country, but the problem is that they see the sacrifices being made by the wrong people. They do not see these sacrifices as being just or across the board. The Government is sneaking in the six and five with this Clause.
I am not sure whether I am permitted to ask the Minister of Labour a question at this point, but I will ask one. If I am not permitted to do so, then it can be considered a rhetorical question. If I am permitted to do so, perhaps he could answer it.
Why should the employers settle before next Monday? In fact, why should these employers return to the bargaining table if the Government has already said that it will be six and five? That is a good deal for employers. Why should they return to the bargaining table and deal with the conciliator's report which suggested about 12 per cent? Why would they go back with this Clause in the Bill? The Minister does not want them to go back; that is the answer. He wants to slip in the back way the Government's six and five program to make some political points for what Keith Davey read in the public opinion poll instead of bringing in a bill-and I agree with the Conservative Party on this-that would at least face the issue squarely so that we could decide the issue on its merits and decide the dispute on its merits.
This is why people from the Prairies, people from my Party and people from all over Canada are against the Bill. The Government sneaks in other unfair clauses. I echo the words of the Hon. Member for North Vancouver-Burnaby, that free men should not be legislated into a straightjacket. Indeed, it is the worst legislation we have seen in a very, very long time. If I am permitted to ask that question, I should like the Minister to respond to it.


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Chairman, not being an employer it is difficult to answer on behalf of one. If I were an employer with a concern for the long-term competitiveness of my harbour,
West Coast Ports Operations Act
and looking south of the border with increasing competition coming from Seattle, I would be very keen to come to a settlement which would improve the productivity and the competitiveness of my harbour. Therefore, I would be very anxious for a settlement in the dispute.


Mr. Yurko:: Mr. Chairman, my remarks will be very brief. When we discussed and passed Bill C-124 last summer, the Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act, many of us supported it. I supported it because it was based on the understanding that the wage and price controls in that Act were to apply only to the public sector and that voluntary collective bargaining was still the process to be used in the private sector. That Act, C-124, is being applied selectively to a new piece of legislation dealing with the private sector, and 1 wonder about the legality of such a practice. Because that legislation, C-124, is strictly limited to the public sector, I wonder about the legality of applying it to the private sector in such a selective manner.


Miss Carney:: Mr. Chairman, I am speaking to this issue at the moment because my riding of Vancouver Centre embraces much of the Port of Vancouver and I want to emphasize the dangerous precedent which this legislation, as proposed by the Government, would create.
I would like to tell the Minister, who is justifying the imposition of six and five on the basis that it would encourage employers to improve productivity versus the Port of Seattle, that I was told in Vancouver this week that if they impose the six and five on employees, they are likely to get six and five productivity. It does not solve the basic problem of the port, and it works against the traditional Canadian method of dealing with these kinds of disputes. The basis of our amendment is to send people back to work tonight and then send the issue to arbitration.
In particular, I would like to point out the danger of imposing this kind of program in the most unionized province in the country, British Columbia. At the moment that Province is suffering enormously from the impacts of recession, the lack of jobs in the resource sector and the effects of the Liberal Government policy. There is an element of fear, concern and worry about the whole status of collective bargaining in the Province throughout all resource industries. The imposition of this band-aid measure and the imposition of an Act which was never designed for such a situation could be very, very dangerous. I would like the Minister to tell us why he does not feel he could support our proposal-send the longshoremen back to work tonight, get the grain moving tonight, get the ships moving tonight, get the docks working tonight, and send the issue back to arbitration.


Ian Deans: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I have consulted with certain Members and I was wondering whether it is required that we notify the restaurant that we will be sitting later, because I know a number of Members are hoping to eat at some point.


Mr. Thacker:: That is an important point of order!

November 3, 1982
West Coast Ports Operations Act


Ian Deans: Mr. Chairman, I do not care. I was not going to eat anyway.


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: Mr. Chairman, I felt I should rise for one moment only. I was asked by the Hon. Member for Vancou-ver-Kingsway, who agreed with me on some matters, why I am voting for the Bill. I will tell him why I am voting for it. It is for the very reason that all of us are here tonight-to get this ruddy Bill through and, in the interests of Canada, to get the ports open.


Some Hon. Members:: Let's go, let's go!


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: I only hope we could stop having long speeches by Members of the New Democratic Party which are delaying consideration in Committee of the Whole and delaying the entire procedure of getting the ports open in the best interests of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Chairman, in spite of those provocations, which I do not take very seriously, I want to ask the Minister a very simple question but one which goes to the essence of the problem facing us.
I think Hon. Members on all sides of the House would agree that the principles at stake-not just money, time and jobs- are important ones. If we are to be asked to consider a piece of legislation which transgresses on certain fundamental freedoms that are held very closely by many people, we should know exactly what it is we are considering and what we are either voting for or voting against. I do not think that is too much to ask. Therefore, I ask the Minister-his officials are here and other Members of the Government are present-are we dealing with legislation that will put into place 6 per cent and 5 per cent increases, or are we dealing here with legislation which will provide a 9 per cent increase for the first six months and then the six and five formula will apply, or what is it we are dealing with?
I would like a clear answer to that question. It is the Government's law. The Government is asking us to transgress on certain people's rights. I think we have a right and a responsibility not only to ask that question but to get an answer to it. If we cannot have a very clear answer, then I think the Government has absolutely unmitigated gall to place such a proposition before us.


Pat Carney: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. Before the Minister answers the question put by the Hon. Member for Kootenay West, could he answer my question, which is: Why can he not support the traditional methods of dealing with this kind of problem through arbitration rather than the imposition of a Bill which is not designed to cover labour-management disputes in the private sector?


Roderick Blaker: Hon. Members will realize that is not an effective point of order, but I do think there is a courtesy in that it may be recalled that the Hon. Member had a question earlier.


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Chairman, as to the first question asked by the Hon. Member for Kootenay West, the Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act will prevail. He will recall that for agreements expiring before June 28, 1982 increases of 9 per cent, 6 per cent and 5 per cent will apply. As I understand it, a 9 per cent increase will apply for the portion of this year which precedes June 28.
As to the question of the Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre, and I am sorry I did not sense she had a question in her intervention earlier, otherwise I would have replied, but I think she is posing the substance of the amendment put forward by the Hon. Member for Rosedale. I would be glad to deal with it but it is not before us. I was waiting for the Chairman to rule at which point we would be dealing with it. For the sake of saving the time of the House, I was waiting for that matter to be before us so we can debate it. I will deal with it when the matter is before us.


Mr. Taylor:: Do it now.


Roderick Blaker: The Hon. Member for Kootenay West is rising on a point of order?


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: No, not on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I am rising on a point of clarification.


Roderick Blaker: Then I will have to recognize other Hon. Members who have not yet spoken.


Mr. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for the Minister. However, first I want to make a couple of points with respect to the particular Clause that is before us. In my view, this Clause and the imposition of the six and five formula on the private sector and on these particular employers and employees constitutes the most serious assault on free collective bargaining that we have seen in this country for many, many years.
We have heard from representatives of the Official Opposition and we have heard from my colleague, the Hon. Member for North Vancouver-Burnaby, that this action is a mistake. Yet what utter hypocrisy! On the one hand, the Official Opposition support the six and five formula for the public sector, yet when that formula is being applied to the private sector suddenly we hear the Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre, for example, suggesting that this action will reduce productivity. What hypocrisy! If such a formula is good enough in the minds of the Official Opposition for the public sector, presumably it is good enough for the private sector as well.
What does this legislation do to the principle of free collective bargaining and to the freedom of association, which supposedly this Government and this Parliament guaranteed in the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms? What we are saying is that people have the right to free collective
November 3, 1982

bargaining until such a time as our economic interests are jeopardized and then they will be sent back to work.
I have a number of constituents in my riding of Burnaby who are being ordered back to work as a result of the provisions of this bill. They are being told that if they do not work or if they engage in any form of work slowdown, the work to rule, for example, that is referred to in Clause 2, the federal Government may bring an application before the Federal Court for contempt of court. The implications that over 3,000 working men and women in the Province of British Columbia will be thrown into jail if they demand that this Government respect their fundamental freedom of association and not ram a settlement of six and five down their throats.
Is the Minister seriously asking this Parliament to pass legislation which tells these 3,000 men and women that unless they go back to work and work to full capacity they will be thrown in jail? It was pointed out earlier by the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway that this principle of free collective bargaining and the right to withdraw their labour, which through the provisions of Standing Order 43 we stand up and demand on behalf of trade unionists in Poland, should not be jeopardized. Yes, we are very free to speak up for trade unionists in Poland. But when it comes to trade unionists in the Province of British Columbia, they are being told to take a real cut in their standard of living.
At the same time the employer has been banking significant amounts of money each month on the assumption that an increase would be made which would keep up with the cost of living. A government conciliator has recommended an increase well beyond the so-called six and five formula. Is the Minister telling my constituents that they will go to jail if they tell him they are not prepared to accept this assault on their freedom of association?


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Chairman, I have every confidence that the men involved in this dispute will obey the law of the land as passed by this Parliament. As to the question raised by the Hon. Member that the men are being forced to go back to work, may I draw to his attention that we are dealing here with a lockout and not a strike.


Roderick Blaker: Shall Clause 4 carry?


Ian Deans: On division.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. Could I at this stage say that we do not intend to put up any further speakers on this Clause. We do feel that the Committee should divide on the principle which the Hon. Member for Rosedalc wants to put forward. He cannot put that amendment forward if Clause 4 is passed because the amendment is in direct conflict with Clause 4 as passed. The rule is quite clear that one cannot amend if that be the result.
I ask for the indulgence of the Committee to stand Clause 4 until my friend from Rosedale has the opportunity to put his
West Coast Ports Operations Act
amendment which would add a Clause containing the collective bargaining agreement and amend Clause 5 to make the operation of Clause 4 subject to the intended new Clause 6.


Roderick Blaker: The Chair has no difficulty with what the Hon. Member proposes. I did think another Hon. Member must be recognized, however.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: I have a very short supplementary question to the Minister about his earlier answer. In answer to that question as to whether Clause 4 meant six and five, or nine and six and five, the Minister said-I think I am quoting him relatively accurately-that it is his understanding that it will be 9 per cent to June 29 of 1982 then 6 per cent and 5 per cent for the appropriate periods after that. I believe the Minister is a good man, an honest and understanding man. However, I want more information, before I decide on a question like this, as to whether it is simply his understanding. Do I understand that it is a commitment of the Minister and the Government that what the Bill before us means is 9 per cent to June 29, 1982, then 6 per cent, then 5 per cent? Is that a commitment or an understanding?


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Chairman, I welcome the question by the Hon. Member. As I understand the Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act, the answer is that it would be 9 per cent in the first year and 6 per cent and 5 per cent in the two subsequent years.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Is that what it means? Never mind the understanding. Is that a commitment; will you back that up with your office?


Charles L. Caccia: It is my understanding of what the Act means, Mr. Chairman.


Roderick Blaker: It is moved by the Hon. Member for Yukon that Clause 4 be stood. Is that the agreement of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Roderick Blaker: Is there unanimous consent to stand Clause 4?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Roderick Blaker: There is not unanimous consent.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I am really surprised that the NDP would adopt that position-


Ian Deans: What is the point of order?


Erik Nielsen: -when we, as well as the Government, have already given the assurance that we have no intention of having any other Members speak on this side. We merely want to enjoy the democratic right of dividing on a principle. All that we want to do is have a vote. We cannot have a vote on

November 3, 1982
West Coast Ports Operations Act
the amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for Rosedale if we accept Clause 4 at this stage. All that we are doing is asking to stand it so that we can put our amendment and then vote on it. Then we would get back to vote on Clause 4.


Ian Deans: Mr. Chairman, it is also our intention to attempt to divide on a principle. The principle which we want to divide on is the principle of the six and five regime being imposed on the workers on the docks of Vancouver. We want to do that now.


Erik Nielsen: Once again, Mr. Chairman, I appeal to the Members of the NDP. They will have the opportunity to divide, as we already have on second reading, on that principle. We will be dividing at the report stage. We will be dividing at third reading.
Unless they consent to allow us to put the principle of arbitration before this Committee, we will never divide on that principle. All that we are asking the NDP is to allow us to divide on the principle that arbitration is far more acceptable than the imposition of the six and five. It is that simple.


Ian Deans: Mr. Chairman, 1 appreciate the concern expressed by the Hon. House Leader for the Official Opposition. However, there is quite clearly a way that the Official Opposition can, in fact, test its theory with regard to compulsory arbitration. It can, if it is able to get sufficient support to defeat the six and five proposal by the Government, replace that with what it proposes. We would like to vote on the six and five proposal in Clause 4.


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Chairman, I think it was about an hour and a half ago that I first moved the motion which was intended to amend Clause 4. At that time 1 put forward the principle that was involved behind the motion. I clearly understood the views of the Government, at least as stated by previous speakers. I had not yet heard from the spokesman from the NDP on the question.
I would like to make a comment before you make your final decision, Mr. Chairman. My difficulty is that I am now dealing with a procedure which was totally in order four years ago. Exactly the same words came from the Government. The words I have used are exactly the same words that the Government put in order to solve the same problem on the Great Lakes that is occurring on the west coast. It is exactly the same but because of the arguments made by Members of the Government to the Chair, I found that I could not put, or was having difficulty putting, that motion in form.
At least as a matter of courtesy by the Members of the New Democratic Party-


Ian Deans: Do not talk to me about courtesy.


David Edward Crombie: I would like to have the opportunity to have the House deal at least with what I consider to be an important principle.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Talk to your House Leader.


David Edward Crombie: They had the opportunity during second reading to divide-and I agree with them on the question of principle that the House should divide. They had that opportunity in second reading. They will have the opportunity to vote at third reading. They will have the opportunity to vote on Clause 4. That is three opportunities to vote on their principle. They will not give me or anyone in the House the courtesy to deal solely and clearly with the question of arbitration. That is despicable.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Get yourself a new House Leader.


David Edward Crombie: All that is being asked is for the right of Members to have a vote on the question of compulsory arbitration. I think that it is not a difficult matter in terms of democratic process. Some Members may want to divide and not support that principle but I, and I am sure others, will certainly remember for a long time what the NDP has done. I, myself, have displayed that courtesy to all those Members during the Constitutional debate, I gave them opportunities when they asked me. I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, that I now understand. The next time they ask me, it had better be important.
All that I want is the right of this House to be able to choose whether or not the west coast people involved in this dispute have the right to decide whether they will have compulsory arbitration or unilateral intervention by the Government, which will have consequences for industrial peace for a long time to come. They have denied it with their own phony politics.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: Worthy of a Shakespearian award, Mr. Chairman.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: I want to make our position quite clear. Clause 4 of the Bill is before us. It is a clause that we are opposed to. We have already stood in the House and voted against Clause 4. The Conservatives, of course, joined with the Liberals and voted for it. They voted for the six and five regime when they voted on the principle of the Bill.
I am now unprepared to stand in my place again, together with my colleagues, and vote against Clause 4. If Clause 4 is defeated, as I hope it will be and as the Hon. Member for Rosedale hopes it will be, as I understand him, he can then introduce his amendment. His amendment can then be voted upon. If Clause 4 is not defeated, then the proposal before us in this Bill which contains the six and five regime is open to a further vote. If the Conservatives are opposed to six and five as contained in Clause 4, let them rise and vote with us against the Government.


Erik Nielsen: One last effort, Mr. Chairman. The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain obviously does not under-
/

November 3, 1982

stand the effects of what will happen. I can tell him that if he insists on withholding, as he is doing, unreasonably, consent to allow us to divide on the question of arbitration in preference to unilateral imposition of a wage ceiling, we will be voting against Clause 4 ourselves. The Government has a majority. It will win the vote. Therefore, our amendment will be precluded from future proceedings and we will be denied the opportunity-


Charles Joseph Clark: And the workers.


Erik Nielsen: -and the workers will be denied, through their Members, of choosing whether they would prefer a ceiling imposed on their wages by the Government or whether they would prefer the process of arbitration. In fact, what the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain is saying on behalf of his Party is that his Party is against the principle of arbitration because that will be the result of their conduct. In effect, by their conduct they deny the principle of arbitration, a principle well rooted in our treatment of the workers of this country as one of their fundamental rights and freedoms. They not only deny the workers that right, but they also state that there is a preference that the Government impose six and five on the workers. That is the result of their conduct. Why are they so frightened of dividing on the principle of arbitration? The Government has already indicated its willingness to allow us to do that. We want to do it. The only hold-outs are those Hon. Members down there in the corner. The only conclusion that can be reached by the workers of this country, particularly in B.C., is that they are against the principle of arbitration and want the Government to impose six and five. That is their preference.


Roderick Blaker: I think it would be reasonable for the Chair to suggest that while a point of order was possibly involved-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Roderick Blaker: -somewhere in this matter, the Committee may wish to consider that the contributions to the subject have been made.


Ian Deans: With respect, Mr. Chairman, I will not engage in silly talk with the Hon. Member for Yukon. It is quite clear where the Tory party stands on six and five.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: We all understand the indecent haste with which the Tories supported the Government in the attempt to impose it in the first place. We understand that they are prepared to impose it on all the workers of Canada. We understand those things and so do the workers of Canada. We do not have to tell them. The problem is that Clause 4 would impose the six and five regime upon those workers. We want to vote in opposition to it now.


Roderick Blaker: Shall Clause 4 carry?
West Coast Ports Operations Act


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
Clause 4 agreed to: Yeas, 98; nays 89.
On Clause 5-Coming into force.


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move the following amendment to Clause 5:
That Bill C-137 be amended by deleting Clause 5 thereof and by substituting therefor the following:
"Subject to Section 6 of this Act, Section 4 of the Act shall come into force on a day to be fixed by proclamation".
It would be my intention to move a further motion which would essentially combine my original Motions Nos. 4 and 5. I am trying to follow what I took to be the instructions of the Chair that I should find a way in which to add a clause. I am trying to do that. Therefore, following the motion concerning the deletion of Clause 5 and the addition of fixed proclamation, I would further move:
That Bill C-137, an Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of longshoring and related corporations and ports on the West Coast of Canada, be amended by adding the following clause as clause 6 and renumbering clauses 6 and 7 of the said Act as clauses 7 and 8 respectively:
6. The Minister of Labour shall, after the coming into force of the Act (a) within 14 days, appoint an arbitration board consisting of three members, of which business-
Would you like me to dispense with reading it, Mr. Chairman? The point, of course, is to add what was originally part of an amendment to Clause 5 dealing with what would happen to the decisions of the arbitration board once they had been made. Therefore, I am taking the original parts of Motions Nos. 4 and 5. That is my amendment to Motion No. 5, which will allow me to deal with the principle of arbitration.
I take it, Mr. Chairman, as I have tried to follow your own instruction, or suggestion, that that is in order, because if it is not-I am getting smarter-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Edward Crombie: -if not on the procedure, of course the principle has always been clear, and that is that the working people of this country like to have free collective bargaining and when the Government must intervene, they like to have the traditional rights which they have known for many generations. Many people, including the parents of many people in this chamber, have worked very hard to ensure that when the government intervenes, it does so through the imposition of arbitration procedures which protect the rights of people. That is the principle. It is not complicated. It is clear and obvious to everyone.
I know when I look across at the Government benches, when I look at those eyes, that those people know what I am saying and they agree. In the past 13 years this Government has used exactly this motion each time. Do not forget that. These words are not mine. They belong to Otto Lang who brought them

November 3, 1982
West Coast Ports Operations Act
into the House at a time when we had the same kind of industrial strife on the Great Lakes.
I hear a Member saying: well, it did not have the six and five. That is precisely the point. We did not have the six and five and it was never meant to be used here. I am glad to hear the Hon. Member raise it again because there is great danger that Members opposite are forgetting. That Act was never meant to be a vehicle to solve industrial peace. And you are going to create havoc for years to come.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Edward Crombie: It is always easy when you think that the heat of the moment requires that you act, but I am telling you there are rights people have had that are going to be interrupted by the fact that the Government, and the New Democratic Party-unbelievable-are now saying no to arbitration and yes to six and five, with all the loss of collective bargaining rights which they talked about not only on this Bill, but-on Bill C-124.


Charles Joseph Clark: Shameful betrayal.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Chairman, the Government is doing this for political reasons, trying to breathe life into six and five in the private sector, and it is going to create great problems. People know them because they live in the world of expediency. The Members of the New Democratic Party, when they go home tonight and recognize that what they have done is oppose the arbitration process and supported, indirectly, unilateral Government intervention on individuals, and groups of working people in this country, they will wonder about their own leadership, 1 can tell you.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roderick Blaker: 1 have to ascertain with a little more certainty precisely what is the motion being put forward by the Hon. Member for Rosedale. Obviously the Hon. Member is deleting Clause 5 and putting in the words he proposes, which makes Clause 5 subject to Clause 6. My problem then is in relation to what happens to currently numbered Clauses 6, 7 and 8. I presume they are renumbered seriatim and the new Clause 6 is the motion made by the Hon. Member. I thank the Hon. Member.


Ian Deans: Mr. Chairman, it is difficult to replace one bad procedure with another.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Beatty:: No doubt you will do your best.


Ian Deans: The problem with what is being proposed, and I think with all good intentions, by the Hon. Member for Rosedale is this: arbitration was available to both parties all the time. Arbitration is even yet today available to both parties if they want arbitration. The parties have said quite clearly they do not want arbitration. We are therefore not prepared to
impose on them the arbitration they have said they do not want.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: I say to the Hon. Member for Rosedale that I think in his naivete with regard to matters relating to collective bargaining he believes that to put that in place, the compulsory arbitration process, is somehow protecting collective bargaining. It is in fact not protecting collective bargaining. I suggest to the Conservatives that they consider this and consider it carefully.
As Hon. Members know, we in this party have steadfastly stood against the six and five regime because we believe it to be unfair. They also know that we have steadfastly stood up on behalf of the collective bargaining process because we believe it works almost all of the time to the advantage of the country as a whole. We have paid particular attention to the parties involved in this dispute and we have attempted to seek out whether or not the parties involved in the dispute are desirous of having arbitration available to them. They have said no. We are not, therefore, prepared to impose it upon them.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order.


Roderick Blaker: The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard), on a point of order.


Yvon Pinard: The amendment is in my view out of order for all of the reasons we discussed earlier. Clause 4 carried and the motion is a clear negation of Clause 4. I also think that it would be useful for all members to look at Citation 773(9), Beauchesne, 5th Edition, which indicates that in the circumstances, the hon. member may not substitute a new clause for Clause 5, as he is doing now. So for all these reasons, it seems to me that in the circumstances he cannot try to repair, as I believe he said himself, the damage caused by the refusal of the New Democratic Party to give unanimous consent a few moments ago.


Erik Nielsen: I think I can deal with that very quickly and very easily, Mr. Chairman. We are not at all attempting to substitute a new Clause. It was simply for the purpose of neatness that we took the Clause out and reworded it. We could just as well have amended the Clause by adding a proviso: provided that no such proclamation shall be fixed until Clause 6 has been complied with. We could have done it that way. I can do it that way now if the committee wants to be delayed. The Government House leader very graciously agreed with the process of allowing us to put our amendment. The NDP did not. Surely for the sake of allowing us to divide on the principle of arbitration he could agree to accept this amendment in that spirit of co-operation his Prime Minister and Cabinet Ministers-indeed all Members on that side- have been requesting of us since this session resumed. We now
November 3, 1982

ask for the same co-operation and grace which he evidenced a few moments ago when we were seeking ways and means of causing division on this principle of arbitration.
In that sense, and in order that the matter might be better understood, perhaps I could get agreement at this stage to stand Clause 5 so that we can amend, by adding Clause 6, renumbering existing Clauses 6 and 7 to become 7 and 8, and have the divison on the principle of arbitration which we have been so desperately seeking to obtain.


Yvon Pinard: A while ago we were prepared to agree to a procedure that was regular and in order. The member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) had presented a motion to stand consideration of the clause, which was entirely according to the rules, and we said yes, we agree with this motion. But if we are subsequently asked to agree to some irregular procedure or something that is not in accordance with the rules, that is not the same thing. The Hon. Member will remember that when he reacted earlier to the refusal of the New Democratic Party to stand Clause 4 before proceeding with a division, he said that it was no longer possible for his party to propose an amendment for compulsory arbitration as opposed to applying the 6 and 5 policy. So now he is trying to present an amendment which, as he said earlier, could no longer be presented. He knows perfectly well that we cannot agree to an irregular procedure, and that is why the situation is entirely different from the one we had earlier, when we were ready to agree with a motion that was in order.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, obviously, in the words of the Chair, the Chair does not share that view. Hence, I do not propose to deal with it. I am proposing something that is very simple and is in order. I am proposing at this stage that we stand Clause 5.


Yvon Pinard: Agreed.


Roderick Blaker: I will take it that the previous motion made by the Hon. Member for Rosedale has been withdrawn. Is that correct?


Erik Nielsen: The Hon. Member for Rosedale will withdraw that proposal and stand Clause 5.


Roderick Blaker: We will assure there is consent to the withdrawal of the motion to Clause 5. The question now before the Committee, put by the Hon. Member for Yukon, is, shall Clause 5 stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Roderick Blaker: Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
West Coast Ports Operations Act


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Roderick Blaker: I have to put the question once more because I require unanimous consent in order to stand the clause. Shall Clause 5 stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Roderick Blaker: The question has been put three times. I am certain that I heard "no" to that proposition.


Erik Nielsen: There appears to be unanimity, Mr. Chairman. I will make the motion formal, that we stand Clause 5-


Roderick Blaker: I think the Hon. Member may have misunderstood. I put exactly that question three times, and on each occasion I heard "no".


Erik Nielsen: I move:
That Clause 5 stand.


Roderick Blaker: The Hon. Member for Yukon has put a motion that Clause 5 stand. In my view, we require unanimous consent in order to stand Clause 5, under Standing Order 75(1). The Standing Orders require that we proceed with each clause in its proper order. In order to deviate from that process of proceeding with each clause in its proper order, I have been seeking unanimous consent to stand the clause. If my recollection is correct, we stood Clause 3 by unanimous consent.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, with no disrespect to the table, I often think of advisers in relation to my recollections of investigations by the police into forged handwriting. They always start with the premise that they have to find a valid comparison and proceed from that base. I say that without intending any reflection.
Either we are allowed to divide on that question, or we will be put to the trouble of adding an amendment by way of a proviso to Clause 5, providing that Clause 5 be allowed to stand or providing that Clause 5 be not now voted upon, but be stood until a later time in the consideration of this Bill.


Roderick Blaker: As is obvious to Hon. Members that the Chair has taken the opportunity to consult with officers of the table. For reference, Members may wish to see Section 775 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition. The motion that Clause 5 stand has been put on the floor. The Chair declared a moment ago that it was deemed that the motion put by the Hon. Member for Rosedale had been withdrawn and the Committee indicated its acceptance of that. The motion by the Hon. Member for Yukon that Clause 5 stand is deemed by the Chair to be in order. Debate may follow. Shall I put the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Roderick Blaker: Shall Clause 5 stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

November 3, 1982
West Coast Ports Operations Act


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Roderick Blaker: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Roderick Blaker: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Roderick Blaker: In my opinion the yeas have it. 1 declare Clause 5 stood.
On Clause 6-Definition.


Jean-Jacques Blais: 
Roderick Blaker: The amendment proposed by the Minister of Supply and Services is deemed to be in order by the Table.


Erik Nielsen: I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if we should not, before dealing with that amendment, deal with the new proposed Clause 6, and the renumbering of Clause 6 and 7, and divide on that?


Roderick Blaker: The House has heard the amendment proposed by the Hon. Minister of Supply and Services. Shall the amendment be carried?


Some Hon. Members:: Carried.
Amendment (Mr. Blais) agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move:
That Bill C-137, an Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of longshoring and related operations at ports on the west coast of Canada, be amended by adding the following Clause 6 and renumbering Clause 6 and 7 of the said Act as Clauses 7 and 8 respectively, and Clause 8 as Clause 9. Clause 6(1) would read:
"6(1) The Minister of Labour shall, after the coming into force of the Act, (a) within 14 days appoint an arbitration board consisting of three members, of which Business, Labour and Government would each nominate one
member, and refer to that Board the further extension of the term of the collective agreement to which this Act applies to include the period referred to in subsection 2(a) and all the matters relating to the amendment of the collective agreement that in the opinion of the arbitration board, at the time of its appointment, are in dispute between the employers association and the union; and
(b) provide for the form in which the decision of the arbitration board in respect of all matters referred to it shall be set forth.
6 (2) The arbitration board has, with such modifications as the circumstances require, all the powers and duties of an arbitrator under section 157 of the Canada Labour Code.
6 (3) Notwithstanding any other provision of the Act or of the Canada Labour Code, the arbitration board shall be required to decide all matters referred to it under this Act within sixty days of its appointment.
6 (4) When the arbitration board decides all matters referred to it, the collective agreement to which this Act applies is deemed to be amended by the incorporation therein of such decision and by the incorporation therein of such other amendments as may have been agreed to by the parties thereto prior to the decision of the arbitrator, and the collective agreement, as so amended, constitutes a new collective agreement that shall be deemed to have effect on and from the date of that decision.
6 (5) Nothing in subsection (1) shall be deemed to limit or restrict the rights of the parties to the collective agreement to which this Act applies to agree to vary or amend any of the provisions of the collective agreement as amended by or pursuant to this Act other than a provision relating to the term of the collective agreement and to give effect thereto."
That is the whole of the amendment, Mr. Chairman. It combines the two motions which I originally moved some two or three hours ago. I hope this time the Chair and the House will see fit to accept it so we can have a vote on the matter.


Roderick Blaker: Since Hon. Members do not appear to find any issue they wish to raise as to the procedural acceptability of the proposed amendment, the Chair will proceed to put the question on the amendment. Shall Clause 6, as amended, carry?


Some Hon. Members:: No, no.


Roderick Blaker: That is what I was inquiring about. Is it a new Clause 7?


Erik Nielsen: Clause 6, with existing Clauses 6, 7 and 8, being renumbered 7, 8 and 9.


Roderick Blaker: I thank the Hon. Member.
Shall new Clause 6 as proposed by the Hon. Member for Rosedale carry? Those in favour, please say, yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Roderick Blaker: Those opposed will please say, nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Roderick Blaker: In my opinion, the nays have it. Amendment (Mr. Crombie) negatived: Yeas, 72; nays, 126.
On Clause 7-Order to comply.


Mr. Kilgour:: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for the Minister of Labour with respect to Clause 7. If this Clause should pass, can the Minister tell us whether the Government
November 3, 1982

may, by a subsequent amendment, such as Clause 4, make Bill C-124, which is an Act dealing with the public sector of Canada, applicable to all of the private sector which falls within the jurisdiction of the federal Government? If that is the case and we pass Clause 7, would all private agreements such as this one not then be subject to contempt proceedings?


Charles L. Caccia: The answer is definitely no, Mr. Chairman.


David Kilgour: I appreciate that the Minister of Labour is not a lawyer, but I see the Minister of Justice is here. Would somebody on that side who knows something about administrative law reply to the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Chairman, I would say to the Hon. Member that each case would be dealt with separately.


David Kilgour: I should like to submit to the House and to the Minister that tomorrow the Government could bring in a new Clause 4 and make it applicable to every agreement in the private sector that falls within federal jurisdiction. If it is made a matter of contempt of court, then any group in the private sector in banking, the railways or whatever would be subject to contempt proceedings for breaching it.


Mr. Fraser:: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. I take it from what has happened tonight that when we have another dispute which is not settled effectively by the parties and Parliament has to intervene, this will be the pattern of legislation. Can the imposition of six and five be expected in such disputes?
Would the Minister of Labour answer that question, please? Is this Bill a precedent? Is the Minister going to be bound by this? What are the signals the Minister is giving to the public, to labour, to management, where disputes fall within federal jurisdiction, as a result of what is being done tonight?


Charles L. Caccia: If the Hon. Member wants a frank answer, the signal to the world outside is that it is much better to settle things by themselves.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Chairman, I have a brief question for the Minister concerning the drafting of Clauses 7 and 8 and the interpretations in Clause 6. In Clause 6 there is a definition of "employee organization" which is precisely the same as the definition of "union" in Clause 2. Similarly, the term "employer" is used and it means exactly the same as the term "company", which is defined in Clause 2. Why has this been changed half way through the Act?


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Chairman, the Hon. Member is dealing with an amendment that has already been adopted.


Dave Nickerson: These terms are referred to and defined in Clause 6, which has been dealt with very quickly and without any explanation, except to say that these were technical terms. The first opportunity we have to find out why the changes
West Coast Ports Operations Act
were made is in considering Clause 7, which is the first time the terms are actually used.


Charles L. Caccia: I will give the Hon. Member a more comprehensive answer than the one that was given when the amendment was moved. This is an amendment of a technical nature. I have difficulty understanding the substance of the Hon. Member's question. That Clause is not before us at the present time. The main point is that we made an amendment of a technical nature which is required for clarity of the Bill.


Dave Nickerson: The technical amendment was made in Clause 6. Why is the term "employer" used in Clause 7 when it means precisely the same thing as "company," which is defined in Clause 2 and is used substantially in Clauses 3 and 4? Why has that been done?


Charles L. Caccia: It is because the definition of "employer" in Clause 7 is compatible with the definition in Clause 6 as amended.


Dave Nickerson: 1 should like to point out that the Minister of Labour is not making any sense whatsoever, Mr. Chairman. He has obviously not considered this matter. I do not know about my colleagues, but it would satisfy me if I could get an explanation of this fuzzy drafting. It appears to be a cut and paste job, as if some sections were taken from one Act and some sections from another, and then put together. If the people responsible for drafting the Bill wish to make an explanation to me privately, I would be satisfied; that is, if the Minister cannot do better.


Svend Johannes Robinson: I should like to put a question to the Minister, Mr. Chairman. Can the Minister clarify for Members who do not have a legal background precisely what is meant by "punished by the court as for other contempts of court". Would the Minister tell us precisely what the punishment is for such a contempt of court? Will he confirm that any employee or any officer of a trade union who does not give notice under Clause 3(3)(a) to the members of a union that they are to return to work, or any individual person ordinarily employed in longshoring who does not forthwith return to work, will be thrown in jail if an application is brought by the federal Government? Will the Minister explain to the House, very clearly, what is intended as the ultimate sanction for violation of this legislation?


Charles L. Caccia: This Clause refers to "employer or employee organization". I understand that the court sets its own punishment. In other words, there is no specific punishment involved in this Clause. The court sets its own punishment.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Would the Minister indicate to the House what the maximum punishment is which the court can set for violation of this Clause?


Roderick Blaker: Shall Clause 7 carry?
20382

November 3, 1982
West Coast Ports Operations Act


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the Minister did not hear the question. Would he indicate and confirm to the House, if I could have his attention, that working men and women are subject to terms of imprisonment under the Clause which is presently being debated? Is that the intent of the Minister?


Charles L. Caccia: I do not think it is the Minister's role to interpret the law. The Bill is before the House. Once passed, it will then be for the court to implement it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Svend Johannes Robinson: The constituents we represent are entitled to know, in dealing with this legislation, precisely what are the sanctions contained in it. This is a very serious question because if one looks at the provisions of the Bill under Clause 2, for example, any slowdown in work, any failure on the part of the union to forthwith notify and any failure to comply with an order or request made pursuant to the collective agreement, leaves the individuals in question open to punishment for contempt of court.
What precisely does the Minister of Labour intend by this provision? Does he intend to give the courts of the country the power to throw those individuals who have violated these sections in jail? If not, he should make that clear. If that is his intention, the people of the country, and particularly Hon. Members of Parliament, have a right to know it. What is the Minister's intention? Is imprisonment intended to be one of the sanctions which will be imposed for contempt of court?


Charles L. Caccia: Again, the court has the power to set its own penalties for employer and employee organizations in cases of contempt.


Svend Johannes Robinson: I ask the Minister to answer a very simple question. Under the powers accorded to the court, is it the Minister's intention that those powers should include the power of sentence to a term of imprisonment, either definite or indefinite?


Charles L. Caccia: In some cases this would be within the discretion of the court.


Roderick Blaker: Shall Clause 7 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
Clause 7 agreed to, on division.
On Clause 8-Order against employer.


John Albert Gamble: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. He will recognize that the words "agent of the employer" appear in Clause 8(1) on three occasions. Also he will know that it is not defined in the Bill and, accordingly, we are thrust back on the general law of the agency in determining who these people are. Also I suspect that he will know that this liability concept is not new to federal statutes, but it is new to the extent that it applies to agents rather than to officers and directors of corporations.
What troubles me-and I wonder whether the Minister has directed his attention to this issue-is that an employer may be liable where an offence apparently has been committed and where the employer has failed or refused to comply with the provisions of the Act, whether or not the director, officer or agent is identified. While it is quite permissible not to identify the officer or director, surely the employer should be entitled to know the identity of the agent who is neither an officer nor a director of the employer. The one defence which surely must be available to the employer is the defence of "he was not my agent". How can the employer say, "he was not my agent" when under the terms of Clause 8 the Crown need not identify the name of the alleged agent?


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Chairman, the advice that I am receiving is that this would not be imposed on a person who could not be established to be the agent of the employer. This would not be a question of identifying the person by name, if I understand correctly, but of identifying the function of that individual.


John Albert Gamble: This is a serious matter because of the penalties involved. It does not say that he is not to be identified by function. It says whether or not the officer, director or agent is identified. Having regard to the process of the issuing of a summons or an indictment, the person allegedly acting as an officer, director or in this case agent, is generally named in the instrument which gives rise to the commencement of the court proceedings. I quite understand, as I have indicated, how it is possible to leave out the name of the officer and director and specify the office that the person may hold or the fact that the person may be a director, but how can the Minister simply say that an agent of the employer failed to do something? The obvious defence in all these cases is surely-"he was not my agent". But very clearly, if one has regard to the particulars of the defence, the Crown need never identify him. Surely if it is the intention of the Government to identify at least the name, then let it be spelled out where the word "identify" is placed in the section. The Clause should read that the function of the agent need not be identified but the agent must be identified by name, because that is what the Minister is telling the House.
I pause to comment about the fact that this is an extension of the general provisions of liability imposed upon corporate entities by the Crown where the actions of the directors or the actions of the officers become the responsibility of the employer corporation, but here we are starting on a new path of vicarious liability without giving to the accused so much as an opportunity to say, "that was not my agent", a defence which, quite frankly, is very common in civil matters.


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Chairman, may I defer to the most distinguished legal adviser available in the Chamber tonight.


Mr. MacGuigan:: Mr. Chairman, I hesitate to rise after that introduction, but it seems to me that when we look at the words closely, " ... to show that an officer, director or agent of

November 3, 1982

the employer," it is clear that the fact that he is in that relationship with the employer would have to be proved if this were a matter of dispute at trial. What does not have to be proved is his name. He does not have to be pointed out as a particular individual, but the fact that he is related to the employer could surely be challenged and could surely be a matter for proof at the hearing.


John Albert Gamble: I wonder if the learned legal counsel relied upon by the Minister of Labour could point out one other single federal statute which imposes this kind of liability upon corporations as a consequence of there being an act undertaken by an agent in the fashion of this Bill.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Chairman, I am not in a position so to indicate. I think the important point here is that these events may be taking place in fast-moving circumstances in which it is not easy to identify a particular person involved. But it may, nevertheless, be clear that the person is acting on behalf of the employer.


John Albert Gamble: Mr. Chairman, in the light of what I conceive to be serious and substantial departures from the practice of drafting statutes imposing liability upon corporations through these words, and in light of the fact the Minister of Justice has been unable to confirm to this House that there has been another single case of a federal statute of which he knows drafted in this fashion, accordingly I move:
That the word '"agent" as it appears in the seventeenth, nineteenth and twenty-first line of Clause 8( 1) be deleted.


Roderick Blaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?
All those in favour will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Roderick Blaker: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Roderick Blaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
Amendment (Mr. Gamble) negatived.
Shall Clause 8 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Carried.
Clause 8 agreed to.


Roderick Blaker: May I now put Clause 3 before the House? Clause 3 had been stood earlier. Shall Clause 3 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Carried.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Schedules I and II agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
West Coast Ports Operations Act
Roderick Blaker: Shall the Bill as amended carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Yes.


Ian Deans: No.
Bill as amended agreed to on division.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I am advised by the Clerk that the procedure will be to suspend the House to the call of the Chair because I understand the Senate is considering the same Bill. Accordingly, this House stands suspended to the call of the Chair.
At 8.38 p.m. the sitting was suspended.


SITTING RESUMED
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 12.10 a.m.
Charles James Mayer: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer) is rising on a point of order.


Charles James Mayer: Madam Speaker, I should like to raise a few issues tonight that concern me about the debate, particularly the conduct of the NDP as it relates to this matter. I would have thought there would be some Members of the New Democratic Party in the House. They get a lot of their support from the western part of the country, the areas that are most affected by this debate. My concern is that some of these Members should be present tonight, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: I think the Hon. Member is debating something. He does not have a point of order.


Charles James Mayer: I am rising on a point of order if I may, Madam Speaker. I understand that is in order. What I want to talk about is the conduct of the NDP and, as far as I can determine, that is in order. I think it is deplorable. It is unfortunate that the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) is not here. He comes from an area that is affected by this strike, so it is unfortunate that he is not here this evening to see the Bill through, and signed. It affects an area of the economy about which he should be most concerned and which is going to be looked after as a result of this legislation. I should like to know where he is and why he is not here this evening.
There are Members of this party present who come from the Maritimes, from Ontario and from the west. This party is well represented and I think I can say the same for the Government Party. It is unfortunate that Members of the NDP did not see fit to show up.


Madam Speaker:: I wonder if the Hon. Member realizes that there is nothing before the House. The session has been suspended and I am just waiting for a message from the

November 3, 1982
Royal Assent
Senate. There is nothing before the House, so the Hon. Member cannot have a point of order.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, with great respect, this situation arises very rarely, but having arisen I believe the Hon. Member is in order as was the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) in a similar situation. He rose on a similar point of order which raised a grievance, and that is exactly what the Hon. Member is doing now. I suggest he is perfectly in order. The precedent has been set and I know the Chair always follows precedent and did so as occupant of the Chair, in recognizing the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton when he was doing precisely the same thing as the Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette is doing now. I suggest it was quite in order for him to continue.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker-


Madam Speaker:: I have to answer the Hon. Member for Yukon. The sitting has been suspended. We are just waiting for a message and, therefore, this is not the same situation as to the one to which the Hon. Member referred, when the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton took advantage of a situation which was not similar to this one. He raised a grievance, and that was in order. We have a different situation now, where we have suspended the sitting.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, to make intelligent use of the time, I seek unanimous consent so that we may adopt without debate all the bills pending on the Order Paper.


Madam Speaker:: I think it is time for the Speaker to be productive. I have a few things to read to the House.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Madam 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-137, to provide for the resumption and continuation of longshoring and related operations at ports on the west coast of Canada, without amendment.

General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today,, the 4th day of November, at 12.15 a.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to a Bill.
I have the honour to be.
Madam,
Your obedient Servant,
Edmond Joly de Lotbiniere Administrative Secretary to the Governor General


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I have a further point of order. I suggest that the Chair was premature in reading both those notices to Members since the House is not seized of the legislation referred to in either notice. The Senate has not yet reported, through Black Rod. I suggest that while it is perfectly proper to cut corners within the rules, it is not when we do not have the Bill reported back from the Senate.
With respect to the analogy between the situations, I certainly agree that the session was suspended. As soon as you. Madam Speaker, took the Chair that ended the suspension of the session, however, and we were once more properly formed. We have a solid precedent where Your Honour recognized the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton once you had returned to the Chair. Now the Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette is doing exactly the same thing.
I would suggest that if we are following precedent in this place, he should be recognized and allowed to continue, until Black Rod arrives.


Madam Speaker:: To begin with, it was not premature because I had the message and the confirmation of the message in this letter. So I did not act prematurely. I had the message and it was my duty to read it to the House.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, on the point made by the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), since the House is sitting and is not adjourned, I think under Standing Order 18(2) it is up to the Government to choose the order of business. I have just sought the consent of the House to deal with pending legislation, in order that we be productive and show good faith. I should like to have the reaction of the Hon. Member for Yukon to that suggestion.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Madam Speaker:: 1 have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Rideau Hall Ottawa
Government House
November 3, 1982
Madam,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Antonio Lamer, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, certainly the Government House Leader tried exactly the same ploy in the circumstances that gave rise to the situation that obtained with respect to the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton. At that time the Chair said it was out of order for the Government House Leader to intervene at that stage, because the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton had the floor. He was allowed to continue until Black Rod came in.


Madam Speaker:: I want to make it clear to the Hon. Member that I could hear the Hon. Member for Portage-

November 3, 1982

Marquette on this particular point now. It would be proper now for me to recognize him. Before this time we were not sitting and I could not recognize him because there was nothing before the House.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I want to take a moment, since there is a moment available to us, to raise another matter-



[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Royal Assent
Accordingly, Mr. Deputy Speaker with the House went up to the Senate Chamber.
And being returned:
Madam Speaker:: Order. I have the honour to inform the House that when the House did attend His Honour, the Deputy to His Excellency the Governor General in the Senate chamber, His Honour was pleased to give in Her Majesty's name the Royal Assent to the following bill:
Bill C-137, An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of longshoring and related operations at ports on the west coast of Canada- Chapter No. 126.
It being 12.30 a.m., the House stands adjourned until 2 o'clock this afternoon, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 12.29 a.m., the House adjourned, pursuant to Standing Order.


Thursday, November 4, 1982