November 24, 1967

PC

J.-H.-Théogène Ricard (Progressive Conservative Party Caucus Vice-Chair)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Ricard:

A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister not consider that the suggestion made by his parliamentary secretary is one that merits very careful consideration, and will he not accept the suggestion of his parliamentary secretary and

Topic:   SHIPPING
Subtopic:   MONTREAL-INQUIRY AS TO FEDERAL INTERVENTION IN DISPUTE
Permalink
LIB

John Robert (Jack) Nicholson (Minister of Labour)

Liberal

Mr. Nicholson:

I always give very careful consideration to suggestions which come from my parliamentary secretary. I have a very high opinion of him. But I would point out to hon. members-and those who have knowledge of the law will appreciate the significance of this-that once a judge has handed down his judgment and the judgment has been entered, the judge is what we refer to as functus officio. In this case Commissioner Picard is through, he is functus officio. I have been, and still am, perfectly willing to ask Professor Picard to do this, and would have been in touch with him before this if the parties had indicated a willingness or a desire to have him clarify the situation; but the unions have made it perfectly clear that they do not want Professor Picard to clarify the report. They have said so. They have said he is through. It puts the minister in a rather difficult position when, in law, he is through and one side has pointed out that he has no status at this time and they don't want further action by him.

Topic:   SHIPPING
Subtopic:   MONTREAL-INQUIRY AS TO FEDERAL INTERVENTION IN DISPUTE
Permalink
PC

J.-H.-Théogène Ricard (Progressive Conservative Party Caucus Vice-Chair)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Ricard:

A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Do we now have to take for granted that there is nothing the minister can do, and the dispute has to settle itself?

Topic:   SHIPPING
Subtopic:   MONTREAL-INQUIRY AS TO FEDERAL INTERVENTION IN DISPUTE
Permalink
LIB

Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Speaker:

Order, please. I suggest to the minister that the hon. member is now asking an argumentative question which is a repiti-tion of the debate we have had since eleven o'clock this morning.

Topic:   SHIPPING
Subtopic:   MONTREAL-INQUIRY AS TO FEDERAL INTERVENTION IN DISPUTE
Permalink
PC

Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Mac T. McCuicheon (Lambton-Kenf):

Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Labour. Are the unions involved Canadian unions, or are they affiliates of American unions?

Topic:   SHIPPING
Subtopic:   MONTREAL-INQUIRY AS TO FEDERAL INTERVENTION IN DISPUTE
Permalink
LIB

John Robert (Jack) Nicholson (Minister of Labour)

Liberal

Mr. Nicholson:

They are, of course, Canadian locals-there are some eight of them involved-but they are affiliates of a larger union, the International Longshoremen's Association.

Topic:   SHIPPING
Subtopic:   MONTREAL-INQUIRY AS TO FEDERAL INTERVENTION IN DISPUTE
Permalink
PC

Malcolm Wallace McCutcheon

Progressive Conservative

Mr. McCutcheon:

That being the case, is there any evidence of action here that might eventually direct the movement of exports to, say, certain American ports where the same union would be handling the products?

Topic:   SHIPPING
Subtopic:   MONTREAL-INQUIRY AS TO FEDERAL INTERVENTION IN DISPUTE
Permalink
LIB

John Robert (Jack) Nicholson (Minister of Labour)

Liberal

Mr. Nicholson:

I do not profess to be an expert on transportation, Mr. Speaker, but if they do not go from the ports of Montreal,

November 24, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry Trois-Rivieres and Quebec they would have to go from other ports. I would hope that some of the goods might go from Halifax or Saint John. But undoubtedly some exports that would normally go from Montreal over the next three or four weeks might go from American ports.

Topic:   SHIPPING
Subtopic:   MONTREAL-INQUIRY AS TO FEDERAL INTERVENTION IN DISPUTE
Permalink

INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY


On the orders of the day:


PC

Gordon Harvey Aiken

Progressive Conservative

Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know the adjournment debate ended awfully quickly, but I wonder whether anyone on the government side could tell us if the Acting Prime Minister will be in the house to answer questions, or will another minister be designated to answer questions on behalf of the Prime Minister?

Topic:   INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Permalink
LIB

Charles Mills (Bud) Drury (Minister of Industry; Minister of Defence Production)

Liberal

Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):

Mr. Speaker, the Acting Prime Minister has unfortunately been called away and will not be here for the next couple of hours.

Topic:   INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Permalink

INDUSTRY

COPPER-PRICE INCREASE BY NORANDA COMPANY


On the orders of the day:


NDP

Colin Cameron

New Democratic Party

Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):

I am in a bit of a quandary, too, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Registrar General. I will ask it, anyway, because one of the other ministers may be able to answer it, and if not it will appear in Hansard. In view of the increase in the price of copper announced by Noranda and now followed by the Hudson's Bay Mining Company, will the minister take action to reconvene immediately the committee on consumer prices so that the effect of these price increases on the general level of prices throughout the economy may be investigated?

Topic:   INDUSTRY
Subtopic:   COPPER-PRICE INCREASE BY NORANDA COMPANY
Permalink
LIB

Charles Mills (Bud) Drury (Minister of Industry; Minister of Defence Production)

Liberal

Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):

will take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker.

fTranslation]

Topic:   INDUSTRY
Subtopic:   COPPER-PRICE INCREASE BY NORANDA COMPANY
Permalink

HOUSING

MONTREAL-HELP FOR FAMILIES LACKING ACCOMMODATION


On the orders of the day:


November 24, 1967