Mr. Barnett:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a word about the amendment to clause 7 which has just been proposed. I am happy

Canada Labour Code

to say that I find myself in favour of it. I think it is clear from the context of the amendment that it is not intended to alter the general and normal practice of one mandatory day of rest in every seven, which should be Sunday wherever practicable.

As the minister has said, this is a problem which does arise in connection with certain occupations. He may recall that I did have an informal conversation with him on this subject quite some time ago, particularly as it relates to coastal shipping in British Columbia. We have a collective agreement in operation in that industry under which practices have been established which provide that, normally, crews are at sea for 15 days and then are able to spend 15 days on shore. Certainly, if some arrangement had not been made to make the application of clause 7 a little less rigid than as originally drafted, I could envisage a situation under which ships would be pulling in to some little hole in the wall along the B.C. coast, and the crew spending a rather unpleasant rest day, when they would have preferred to have that rest day with their families when they returned home.

I just wish to say that I am pleased the minister has proposed this amendment. It had been my intention, if he had not taken that initiative, to have suggested an amendment to the clause.

Mr. Leboe:

Will the minister tell us

whether or not he believes the interpretation of the word "practicable" would cover religious beliefs as well? I am thinking of a situation in which an individual does not work on Saturday but works on Sunday. Would the word be broad enough to take that into consideration?

Mr. MacEachen:

Yes, Mr. Chairman, I think this word is broad enough to cover that situation.

The Chairman:

Shall the amendment

carry?

Mr. Nesbitt:

There is one point I believe we should have clarified. I realize that a number of these clauses are not at all contentious. However, on Tuesday evening the minister indicated to the house, as recorded on page 11399, that he was going to answer a number of questions. There were a great

Canada Labour Code

many questions asked about eastern feed mills in Ontario, as well as some other industries. At that point the minister said:

Mr. Chairman, naturally I expect to answer as many questions as I can, and 1 thank hon. members for their interest in this particular part of the bill. I think perhaps we should wait until tomorrow before I begin to do so, so I am quite agreeable that we now call it ten o'clock, I will attempt to deal with all the questions that have been asked when we return to our consideration of this bill tomorrow.

There were a lot of questions asked and the minister has not given any explanations as yet. The only objection I have to proceeding under these circumstances, Mr. Chairman, is this: I certainly agree that clause 3 is still standing, and it is perhaps the most pertinent clause upon which questions had been asked. However, clause 5 was certainly related to these things. Many of us fear that a number of these clauses will be allowed to slip through before the minister has given any of the assurances he has indicated he would give. I believe a lot of time would be saved in getting this bill through if the minister could give some indication when he is going to give us some answers to these questions.

Mr. MacEachen:

I think my hon. friend is mistaken. I made this commitment to answer questions on Tuesday. Yesterday, before the house rose at six o'clock, I spent quite a long time dealing with specific industries. I answered the questions, at least as well as I could and to the apparent satisfaction of members who were in the house. I did deal with trucking, shipping, grain elevators and feed mills as well as pipe lines, and made quite a number of answers. I thought I had cleared up the situation. I regret if my hon. friend was not in the house, but I did live up to my commitment.

Mr. Nesbitt:

In order that there will be no misunderstanding, Mr. Chairman, I may say I have gone through what the minister did say. I thought he had indicated earlier he would give a somewhat more comprehensive assurance than he did when he replied last evening. Can the minister indicate to us now -I think it would save a lot of time-if he can give somewhat more definite assurances on this question of eastern feed mills in particular.

The Chairman:

I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. member the fact that we are now considering clause 8. It seems to me the remarks that he is making now, and the suggestion he is making to the minister,

are not relevant at all to the question of overtime pay.

Mr. Nesbiil:

I was raising a point of order in the hope that it would facilitate the passage of the bill. I know many members want to see the bill passed. However, if we are not going to get co-operation-

Mr. MacEachen:

I am quite prepared to deal with eastern feed mills in reply to the statement made by the hon. member for Middlesex West. However, the Chair made a ruling, which the committee accepted, that I should wait until clause 3 was under consideration and deal with the feed mill question under clause 3. If there are questions asked as to the application of the clause, there will be a full opportunity to pursue the situation with respect to any industry. I am quite ready to co-operate and provide as much information as I have available. However, I have to follow the clauses, particularly in the light of the ruling by the Chair.

Mr. Woolliams:

I believe it would expedite the passage of the bill if we had an explanation under this clause. All of these clauses are, in a sense, related. Some questions were put by the former minister of agriculture in which the western members are interested. I agree with the ruling of the Chair, but these clauses are interrelated. However, without clause 3 the other clauses do not mean anything. If we had an explanation now, we might just hold up our hands and say "Agreed".

The Chairman:

So far as the Chair is concerned, there is a rule of relevancy that has to be applied in so far as that is possible. When we are considering a clause such as clause 8, which is so limited in its application, I suggest to hon. members that this is not the time to have a general discussion.

Mr. Woolliams:

With the greatest respect, Mr. Chairman, while I appreciate your ruling, if the minister were ready to make this explanation covering eastern mills, I think he should make it now. If we know there is going to be no hardship imposed on the employees at these country elevators, then that will influence our attitude to some of these clauses. Surely if the minister is ready to make a statement, he should make it now. If he makes a statement at the end, when we have agreed to a lot of these clauses which may affect these people, then we are left in an impossible situation. I think he should make this explanation.

Mr. MacEachen:

If we could have the

consent of the committee to regularize the proceedings, I would make a brief statement at this point. I certainly appreciate the speech made by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, which I thought was extremely useful and helpful in allaying some of the apprehension which had been raised about this particular bill in relation to country elevators. He put forward a proposal which, to me, is sensible and which could be fitted into the framework of this particular bill.

Mr. Woolliams:

Will it be fitted in?

Mr. MacEachen:

Of course it will be fitted in; there is no question about that. As a matter of fact, the former minister of agriculture adopted a rather progressive line in connection with that particular aspect. I was glad to have his views that the principle of this bill is applicable in the way he has suggested.

In so far as feed mills are concerned, let me say that the late C. D. Howe has been accused of many things in this house but he has never been accused of being a constitutional authority.

Mr. Knowles:

He may be applauding that remark right now.

Mr. MacEachen:

He may have made certain legal arguments, but my advice is that these mills are under federal jurisdiction because they have been declared by an act of parliament to be for the general advantage of Canada, and this act makes them subject to the conditions which are here outlined. The hon. member for Ontario brought in an Annual Vacations Act, and its conditions apply to these feed mills. They are subject to the terms of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. We have certified the feed mills and flour mills of eastern Canada as coming within the terms of that act. So the legal opinion is that they are covered by this bill. That is my advice, and the examples I have given illustrate that it is sound advice. If the hon. member has sound arguments to the contrary they can be tested in the courts. But that is the situation as we see it.

Mr. Nesbitt:

It is, then, I take it, the minister's intention that no exception should be made in the case of eastern feed mills.