1950-08-30

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, August 29, consideration of the motion of Mr. St. Laurent for the second reading of Bill No. 1, to provide for the resumption of operations of railways and for the settlement of the existing dispute with respect to terms and conditions of employment between railway companies and their employees.
Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, there is a very real consciousness in every part of this house, as I believe there is in every part of Canada, that we are met here to deal with the most serious situation of its particular kind that has ever confronted the parliament of Canada. It is a problem which must be tackled with speed, frankness and good will. As has already been said, it will not be solved by a display of heat. It should also be said that it will not be solved satisfactorily unless there is the most complete frankness in the discussion of the problem and in the examination of the legal effect and implications of the bill we are asked to adopt.
I am certain that every member of the house is equally anxious to take such just and proper steps as are necessary to assure the resumption of rail services throughout Canada at the earliest possible moment. On the other hand, we must examine the bill with a full sense of our great responsibility to the people of Canada, and with a very keen appreciation of the danger which inevitably exists that, in the most earnest desire to act with speed in the face of an emergency, faulty legislation may sometimes be adopted because of general agreement as to the purpose of the measure. I hope that in our discussion no member who fulfils his bounden duty as a representative of his own constituency and of the people of Canada will be exposed at any time to the suggestion that in so doing he indicates any desire to delay the earliest possible solution of this most urgent problem.
Any attempt-and I am not suggesting that any would be made-to restrain the frankest and fullest discussion of the bill, and the circumstances which make it necessary, by indicating that criticism is based upon a desire to delay a solution, would in itself be a challenge to that parliamentary freedom which we should most jealously protect at this particular time. I think it is impossible to overemphasize the gravity of the situation. From the Atlantic to the Pacific the normal movement of our natural products, our goods, machinery, industrial production and the daily requirements of the people in all the homes of this country, is at a standstill. In British Columbia, Vancouver island is almost completely isolated from the mainland, except for the airlift which has been established. Fruit growers, farmers, workers in the forests, fishermen and all others are being seriously affected, and those effects become more extensive every day. So it is on the mainland of that great province. Mines, factories and other operations upon which the employment of thousands of people depend have been forced to close.
The prairie provinces face a very special problem. There they see the danger of not being able to deal with their great wheat crop unless this problem is settled immediately. Nor is that the only special problem they have there, where distances make communication and transport by bus and car more difficult than in the more concentrated centres of population. In Alberta hundreds of oil wells already have been closed, causing not only a loss of fuel supplies but also of employment. In Ontario many of the largest industries are shut down, with resulting loss of employment to thousands of men and women. Farmers are unable to ship their products, and some of the finest crops in the history of this province are going to waste. In Quebec the same situation exists. As in Ontario, the great pulp and paper .mills are having immense difficulty in carrying on that business upon which so much of the economy of this country depends, as well as the employment of thousands of people.
In the maritimes there is severe disruption of normal activities because of the substantial dependence of so many places in those provinces upon rail service. Prince Edward

Maintenance of Railway Operation Act those railway organizations that same good will and co-operation which has existed in the past.
I am sure that the people of Canada want the railway workers 'to be adequately rewarded for the work they do, and to work under satisfactory conditions and with satisfactory working hours. As has already been said, no country in the world is more dependent upon its railways for its very existence than is Canada. We would not today be sitting here as representatives of one great nation occupying a subcontinent were it not for the promise of the construction of the intercolonial railway, for the assurance of railway connection with Prince Edward Island, and for all the services that were incidental to the main lines of the railways themselves. Neither would that original concept of confederation have been extended across this land from Newfoundland to the most remote part of British Columbia, had it not been for those great transcontinental railways which were extended to the west. They are the vital arteries which carry the lifeblood of our nation. Not only must those arteries be protected; not only must they continue at all times to function, but at the same time they must be in a healthy condition to undertake the task they perform.
Without attempting in any way to assess the merits of issues which must be decided elsewhere, I am sure that the view shared by the railway workers as well as by the people of Canada generally is that this must not happen again. I am perfectly sure that the railway workers have no more desire to find themselves affected by a situation of this kind than have other Canadians. Certainly all Canadians wish to see those steps taken which will mean that we shall not again be confronted with this procedure in the face of a crisis.
The bill before us is one which as yet we have had but little time to consider.' It reflects the very way in which the bill was drawn that it was seen for the first time by the members of the house only last night at eight o'clock. That did not give the members an opportunity to deal with the bill in a way that might have been desirable. On the other hand, we all recognize that consideration of the measure must proceed as rapidly as possible. The legislation before us reflects the fact that amendments were still being made to the bill as 'recently as yesterday. We must therefore carefully examine its contents.
The bill itself does provide a way in which work on the railways can be resumed. That is the main desire of everyone here. After the recitals and the name given to the bill,


there is the important provision that the railways shall resume operation and the workers shall return to their duties within forty-eight hours of this bill becoming effective. Then in section 3 the bill goes on to deal at least partly with one of the points in issue. Section 4 simply provides certain legal assurances that the agreements will continue in effect. Section 5 is one which I am sure must have caused surprise to most members of this house when they read it. Section 5 definitely and without any reservation provides for compulsory arbitration. There are many who believe in that procedure, and it is a view that everyone has a right to share and to express. But compulsory arbitration, which is a principle that has not been regarded as acceptable in labour legislation in this country, is not something which, it seems to me, should be suddenly introduced in dealing with an emergency of this kind. It can be said, and it has been said, that this is not compulsory arbitration in the ordinary meaning of those words. I must confess that I do not understand the reservation.
The arbitrator is to be appointed by the government unless there has been settlement by the parties to the dispute within fifteen days or an arbitrator has been appointed by agreement within that time. Then that arbitrator is to have authority to examine the issue in dispute and to make his findings. Those findings are not only to be binding upon the parties, but the parties are ordered by the bill itself to conclude a new collective bargaining agreement in accordance with the findings of the arbitrator.
There is no time limit on the length of the agreement. It may well be that the government knows that some additional terms have been agreed upon. If they have been, then I think they should be indicated to this house. But if this legislation is simply a statutory interpretation of a conditional agreement which is to be implemented by this bill, I think we should know that as well; because if it is not, then it is difficult to understand the inclusion of some provisions and the exclusion of others.
After examining this bill very carefully it does seem to me that it is drafted on the assumption that the arbitration provisions of section 5 are not going to be invoked. I cannot imagine anything more likely to create the very kind of situation that none of us would desire than to find that it had become necessary for the government to appoint an arbitrator to act under the wide, unlimited and unrestrained powers contained in section 5. It is not enough to say that no arbitrator would do certain things. Under that section an arbitrator can say that the

the majority of the members. The government must bear a grave measure of responsibility for this strike. There is a reason why this is the first general strike of this kind in Canada's history. The reason was indicated during the recital of events given to the house last night by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg). This is not the first time that the railway workers have failed to accept the decision of a conciliation board. It is not the first time that the workers and management have failed to reach agreement in the negotiations which have taken place prior to the date set for a strike.
The reason why there has been no previous strike of this kind, and of this extent, is quite clear. It is clear from the pattern which has been established throughout the years. The reason, is that at a certain point in the negotiations the government intervened to find a solution; that is what happened in 1948 and on other occasions. The workers and the people of Canada have all come to expect government action to avoid a strike in a situation of this kind. Last night the Prime Minister said that no one expected this strike. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it was the duty of the government to act with recognition of the fact that there might be a strike. It no more indicates the early expectation of a strike to prepare for one than it indicates the early expectation of death to take the precaution of making a will in plenty of time before you die. This would have been a sound and wise act on the part of the government.
There was an indication that at least one department did take the sound course, because the Postmaster General (Mr. Rinfret) took steps that were appropriate to prepare the Post Office Department for a strike, and as a result the Post Office Department since the strike was called has taken extraordinary measures to maintain its service. I am glad that hon. members on the other side of the house applaud that statement, because it would have been a commendable thing if the rest of the government had followed precisely the same course. Whether or not this system of settling such disputes is wise; whether or not the past record of settlement is one which the government as at present constituted approves, the fact remains that the public generally, and apparently the government as well, expected a solution right up to the last moment. After all, practice establishes precedents. If the government did not intend to intervene as it did on earlier occasions, it should have indicated that to the parties to this dispute, and to the people of Canada so that they would have been prepared for this situation.
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act
What is more, if the government held the view that it now holds, that it is not possible to contemplate paralysis of this kind in the nation's economy, then the time to take the appropriate steps to prevent that paralysis was well in advance of any possibility of a strike, so that the workers, management, and the people of Canada would know what the situation would be. After all, this strike did not suddenly emerge as a surprise to the people of Canada beyond the fact that the strike actually took place. The government well knew, as all Canadians who carefully followed the press knew, that strike ballots had gone out early in June. This house was sitting in June, and sat for three weeks after it was known that the strike ballots had gone out. If it was the intention of the government to depart from the practice which it had established, then at that time we could have given this matter careful consideration and sat as long as was necessary to deal with it in a quiet, cool and orderly way. To suggest that there was no occasion to consider such a possibility simply means that the government was assuming this problem could be settled in a different manner from that in which it had been settled in the past, unless the government was prepared to intervene.
The people of Canada as a whole are those to whom we owe our first responsibility. But let us also remember this. We are not dealing with a situation created by people who have any desire to wreck or destroy the economy of the country in which they live. There is no Canadian who does not recall the loyal and magnificent service given to this country by the railway workers during the years of war. There is no Canadian who is not aware of the co-operation and good will that has existed within the great railway organizations of this country, which have been held before the people of Canada as a model of what labour-management relations should be. In this case we are not dealing with all the railway workers of Canada. This strike does not involve the running trades. It does involve the other workers in the railways who are in a different category. These people love their country; they are loyal to it and will serve it in any way, as much as any one of us in this house will do. Recognizing our paramount duty to the people of Canada, and making it perfectly clear that the daily home life of our people must not be undermined by a dislocation of vital services and the paralysis of transportation throughout the country, I submit that in finding a solution it will be in the best interests of every Canadian if we do so in a way that will, in the years ahead, maintain within
28	HOUSE OF
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act Island is almost isolated from the mainland because the great railway ferry can only operate by permission of those representing the unions. Special hardships also are being felt in Newfoundland. Everywhere throughout Canada the people face mounting difficulties and realize that if this disruption of service continues much longer we face a disaster almost beyond imagination.
It is essential that for the very security of the home life of our people action be taken without delay. Every member of this house can multiply many times the instances to which I have referred, from his own experience in that part of the country in which he lives. Just to emphasize how serious this is, may I point out that at this very time the special United Nations force has been divided into three different groups, which for a time could not be brought together by rail and for which much of the heavy equipment required could not be supplied. That is a situation we cannot regard with equanimity at a time like this, when the very survival of our way of life is threatened throughout the world.
Our first duty, which should be discharged without delay, is to take such steps as are necessary to restore these vital services to the people of Canada, with justice to all Canadians-and I repeat, to all Canadians. It is not possible for us, meeting hastily as we have done, to pass judgment upon the issues which have precipitated this disastrous situation. What the people of Canada want us to do is get the railways working as quickly as possible. I believe that is the spirit of every member of this house. Collectively those who sit here represent all the people of Canada. It makes no difference what party we support in our own community; we represent all the people. Therefore we here have the great and proud and heavy responsibility of speaking for all Canadians. The well-being and security of the whole Canadian community is our supreme responsibility. When the wellbeing of the people of Canada is threatened in this or any other way, parliament, and the government, which is its executive branch, must take those steps which will preserve the national economy and the security of the home life of all our people.
In meeting that obligation, however, it is imperative that we should protect the general welfare of the nation without destroying the established and fundamental rights of any part of the community. Admittedly that is a difficult task. If it were not a difficult task we should not be meeting here today. The very urgency of the situation, the gravity of the problem we are called upon to face, require careful and at the same time prompt action by this house. It need hardly be


repeated that this is the highest court of the land. It is the supreme authority of the Canadian people, supported by the democratic vote and decision of those people. Denunciation here of one side or the other in this dispute would only contribute to the difficulty of settling it. It is extremely important that we all remember that adoption of the legislation we are called upon to pass in this special session will not settle the dispute. That is merely a preliminary step. Its one vitally important result will be to start the railways operating again. We must all bear in mind, however, that in taking steps to have the railways operate again we must do nothing that will make it more difficult to settle this dispute and establish that measure of cooperation and good will within the railway organizations themselves upon which the efficiency of that vast service depends.
It seems to me that recognition of this factor is essential in considering the legislation with which we must deal. Our first consideration is clear; that is our responsibility to the people of Canada. However, we also have the responsibility of making sure that those traditional rights upon which our society has grown and become strong are not impaired, regardless of the urgency of the situation, by any hasty action on our part, no matter how necessary haste may be in dealing with the matter. As we consider legislation to bring to an end this disastrous situation, I believe it would be very unwise and seriously prejudicial to the best interests of all our people if we attempted to pass judgment upon issues which must still be settled after that legislation is passed. So this matter should be dealt with in a way that will facilitate the settlement of these issues, not only in the interests of those directly concerned but in the interests of the whole nation. I believe that the welfare of Canadians generally will be best served if, no matter what our opinions may be, we reserve expressed judgment until those who have the responsibility of making further decisions are able to reach those decisions coolly and calmly after this first step has been taken. I think it is desirable that all of us bear this in mind. I hope that the people whom we represent will also bear in mind the obvious and important reason why we here in this house do not seek today to pass judgment at a time when we shall be called upon to refer the responsibility of settlement to others.
Having Said that, I think it is appropriate to make certain comments about the legislation itself, and also about the responsibility of the government, which after all is merely the executive branch of this house and under our principles of responsible government must at all times act in accordance with the advice of

agreement would be for twenty-five years; under it the arbitrator can fix any hours of work; under it he can fix any hourly wage; he can fix any working conditions he sees fit, and there is nothing to define his responsibility in that respect; management and the workers must accept the decision, and it is binding. Compulsory arbitration! That is a moderate term. I do not believe that any legislative body in this country, federal or provincial, would ever in its cool and calm senses consider for a moment the introduction of compulsory arbitration of this kind with no definition of the terms under which it was to be carried out.
This bill is far from complete. I heard a description of the bill over the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation network at eight o'clock this morning. In that description the broadcaster said: "The emergency bill does not contain penalties for failure to obey its provisions."


An hon. Member:: That is to laugh.


George Alexander Drew: That was a logical conclusion for the broadcaster to draw, but it is not correct, because there are powerful penalties which are automatic, without being written into the bill. I hope that everyone who is called upon to consider this bill will recognize that when a bill passed by this parliament or by any legislature of Canada calls upon anyone to do a particular thing, there is a section of the Criminal Code which imposes penalties if the bill itself does not do so. Let me read section 164 of the Criminal Code:
Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to one year's imprisonment who. without lawful excuse, disobeys any act of the parliament of Canada or of any legislature in Canada by wilfully doing any act which it forbids, or omitting to do any act which it requires to be done, unless some penalty or other mode of punishment is expressly provided by law.
That is an unwritten but effective part of this bill. Also the question would arise as to what would happen if the arbitrator brought in findings that were not acceptable to either side in the dispute. Would there be any opportunity to deal with this problem? Would the men be denied the right to strike? Would management be precluded from dealing in any way with the matter? It would appear that they would be, unless they simply decided that they would take action anyway. That is something, too, that we should very carefully consider.
There is another point that should be borne in mind. Section 2 of the bill calls for the resumption of operation by the railways within forty-eight hours, and the return of the workers to work within forty-eight hours. Once the movement is resumed, once the men
30, 1950	29
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act have returned to work, section 2 has been complied with. It contains no continuing authority; therefore the people of Canada, the workers and others, must simply rely upon the hope that everyone will observe the agreements which have been made as a result of the arbitration, whether they are acceptable or not.
It is almost unthinkable, Mr. Speaker, that this bill would have been presented to the house in its present form unless it is known now to a considerable extent what will be done under it. But the fact that there may be a feeling of confidence that certain things will be done is no reason why we should blind ourselves to the consequences of what may happen if such an agreement is not carried into effect.
This is not the only way that this subject could have been dealt with. It could have been dealt with in many other ways. We all recognize that whatever method is adopted now must be for the purpose of meeting the emergency itself. But this bill must be examined on its face and not on what the government expects to happen without the knowledge of the house and the people of Canada. I am not saying that there is such knowledge. I am only saying that if there is any such knowledge, then we must examine this bill on its face and examine it in that way.
The draftsmanship reflects the haste. When the house met yesterday afternoon and first reading was given to the bill, it was stated that I, as leader of the opposition, and the leaders of the other parties in the house, would receive a copy of the bill. I received mine just before six o'clock, and I feel sure that the others received theirs at the same time.
Hon. members generally received it at eight o'clock when we met. That was not the result of any technical difficulty in printing; it was due to the fact that the government was still making up its mind what it was going to do. It was a good thing that it tried to make up its mind before we actually dealt with the bill. But it does indicate that we should examine it very carefully now, and that we should not submit to any suggestion that just because we want this strike settled at the earliest possible moment we must vote for any piece of legislation, no matter how bad it is. This is part of a problem very much larger than the one immediately before us. This is part and parcel of the whole problem of the supervision of our railways by the government. AH that it is necessary to do is to go back through the chronology of

Maintenance of Railway Operation Act disputes of this kina and of the various arguments that have taken place before the board *of transport commissioners throughout the past few years.
An application is made for an increase in wages. After conciliation boards have made their findings, one side or the other objects, the government finally makes a decision and a new agreement is completed, then the railways immediately apply for an increase in freight rates so that they may be able to carry on their operations in such a way as to reflect the increased wages. The moment those increases in freight rates are effective, in the very nature of things requests are made for further increases in wages-all a perfectly natural and human course of events.
These two things are closely associated; there can be no one here who is not fully aware of the fact that freight rates and wages are directly related, and that confusion in dealing with freight rates creates confusion in dealing with wages as well. What we do now is not going to provide a permanent solution; but a permanent solution must be found. As the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) said last night, we must not again find ourselves in a position where the economy of the country is paralysed, nor must we find ourselves in a position where the government is paralysed, for lack of adequate legislation. We could have had that legislation last June. The government saw fit to let this situation arise, and then to call parliament after the event had occurred. Now that we have met together, let us recognize the fact that if the proposal put forward by the Prime Minister is accepted by this House of Commons-that some solution must be found without a situation of this kind occurring, a solution which is just to the people of Canada and just to the workers-then this or any other bill we might introduce and consider here would not adequately deal with the situation with which we are confronted. It is our duty to find that wider and more effective solution.
I said that this was not the only way the situation could have been dealt with. The government of course is well aware of that, because it has dealt with problems of this kind, although not on this scale, in another way. Therefore I intend to move, and do move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough):
That Bill No. 1 be not now read the second time but that in the opinion of this house consideration should be given to a measure which would provide for the appointment of a national administrator to ensure immediate operation of the railways pending final solution of the dispute by the free process of collective bargaining.
I hope no one will make the suggestion that this would delay consideration of the

problem. I do not believe for one moment that the law officers of the crown have not given consideration to this particular procedure. I do not believe for one moment that they have not given consideration to employing this method instead of the method of compulsory arbitration. It would be unreasonable to believe that they have not, for the simple reason that they have employed it cn other occasions; and certainly this government would be the last to argue that a method which it supported with such strong arguments in the past is not a method which would be acceptable in dealing with a problem of this kind.
I am not proposing this as any long-term solution; I am proposing it as a means only of dealing with this particular problem-just as the bill now before us deals only with this particular problem. I am proposing that the provisions in regard to returning to work, and the other effective provisions of the bill, should be retained.
Hon. members know perfectly well that in the debate on second reading it is not possible to move an amendment deleting or varying certain sections. I wish to make it clear that we support that part of the bill which calls for the resumption of work within forty-eight hours both by the railways and by the men. And we support those other provisions which are not inimical to a long-term solution of this great problem in the best interests of the people of Canada.
It would be very simple for the government to strike out section 5 of the bill and to insert in lieu thereof a section which I have no doubt their law officers could produce in half an hour or an hour-and not drafted within that time, but produced from their files -and that we could then proceed to deal with this matter.
May I add that I and those associated with me want this matter dealt with at the earliest possible moment. I am proposing what I believe to be a method that would deal with this particular situation effectively and in the interests of the people of Canada, and also in a way that would make it possible to retain and preserve good will within a great organization vital to the welfare of the whole of Canada.
I am not suggesting-and I hope no one will say that the amendment produces this result-that the appointment of a national administrator is for any indefinite period. I am merely proposing that a national administrator be appointed until such time as the ordinary established processes can operate. The Prime Minister said last night that was what he wanted. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) said that was what he wanted. If they want that, then I urge that they adopt

this suggestion because it will preserve those methods and principles which are certainly not preserved by the measure now under consideration.
We could be dealing with this bill very shortly if the Prime Minister were to indicate his willingness to make that change, which merely constitutes an amendment. It may be said, and quite properly, that on second reading we deal with the principle of the bill. If the principle of the bill were only the resumption of the services of the railways, then I am certain every member of the house would vote for it without a moment's delay. If the principle were merely the restoration of those services which are so necessary to the home life of our people and the work of our whole country, then there would be no thought in anybody's mind of even raising any question, and I should think the bill would probably have been adopted by now. I sincerely hope that the Prime Minister will consider the seriousness of going ahead with the bill now before us. I hope he will accept the suggestion I have made, or, if he has a better one, make another suggestion; but I suggest that we sit continuously until the bill has become law. The matter is urgent, but nothing can ever be so urgent that in solving one problem we create grave problems of another kind, not only for the moment but for years to come.
This is a serious moment in the history of Canada. Because of the fact that we had no legislation to deal with such a situation; because of the fact that workers, management and the public were encouraged to believe, by statements emanating from Ottawa, that there would be a last minute solution, we find ourselves in a position in which the Prime Minister himself has said he did not expect we would find ourselves. Let us not take any chance of finding ourselves in that position again. The Prime Minister has enunciated the proposition that the economy of Canada must not be paralysed by events of this kind. When we have dealt with the bill, let us then proceed to deal with a method which will carry out that proposition coolly, calmly, and with consideration of the measure we have in mind. In the meantime the rights of every Canadian would be protected under the amendment I have moved. There would be no interference with the rights of any Canadian to the services of the railways. There would be no interference with the rights of the railway organizations and there would be no interference with those long established rights of the workers which have had a very considerable bearing on the measure of harmony that has existed in this country between management and labour throughout past years.
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act
We are sometimes inclined to exaggerate the number of disputes. If there is a strike, naturally it is noticed by everyone. What is often ignored is the vastly greater number of friendly and co-operative solutions that are reached by the system of collective bargaining that has been worked out through long years of trial and error. In finding a solution for this problem, let us not cxeate equally great problems for another day.
In a spirit of good will, and with a desire to bring into operation these vital arteries of the life of Canada as soon as possible, we can solve this problem in a way that will protect the rights of all our people, the rights of every part of our community, will continue the efficient operation of our great railways, and will be to the best advantage of the nation that we love.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I am certain that every member of the house, regardless of where he sits, is anxious to see the immediate resumption of railway transportation services in Canada. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) outlined the difficulties under which various producers are suffering at the present moment. Let me remark that not only the producers and every consumer in Canada are suffering from the great strike now in progress, but also every railroad employee involved in the strike. The loss of earnings to that great group of Canadian citizens is a serious one to every one of them. From what I know I am certain that the employees of the railroad system would be glad indeed to resume work tomorrow and operate our transportation services if they were assured that they would receive consideration at this time of what they regard as their just claims.
The situation in the house illustrates what we feared might happen if this matter were brought to the floor of parliament. We have a bill before us and we have an amendment moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), both of which have to be carefully scrutinized in order to understand their implications. These two proposals, the bill and the amendment, mean that we are to be involved in a fairly prolonged debate. While we are debating in the house, the railway transportation system of Canada is not running. Producers, consumers and workers are alike denied the usual facilities, earnings and means of life which the railway transportation system brings to them.
A week ago today, the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis), who is sitting beside me, telephoned me from Vancouver and drew this very fact to my attention. He made the suggestion that I should get in touch with the Prime Minister (Mr. St.
32	HOUSE OF
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act Laurent), even though I always hesitate to do such a thing. We suggested to the Prime Minister last Wednesday that every attempt should be made to settle the strike before parliament met, because we expected that both the management of the railways and the workers would wait until the house had come to a decision before either resuming negotiations or attempting to come to an understanding regarding the resumption of traffic on our railroad system. As a matter of fact I suggested to the Prime Minister a procedure he subsequently followed, that of calling together the union heads in an attempt to get their minimum demands, calling together the management in order to get their maximum concessions, and then endeavouring to bridge the gap. The two groups were called together on Friday, but apparently an attempt to bridge the gap was not made. Negotiations were resumed, and when that was done, concessions were made by the negotiating committee on behalf of the unions. At 4.30 on Saturday afternoon there seemed to be considerable optimism, at least among the union representatives; and it was unpardonable that at 7.30 that evening, when they met after taking recess to clarify their positions, the president of the Canadian National Railways should have abruptly brought the negotiations to an end and prevented any possibility of arriving at an understanding before this house met. I say emphatically that no matter how much we thought Mr. Donald Gordon might contribute to the welfare of the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian people, as I did, by his earlier statement to the union leaders of a final offer and by his action last Saturday evening he has lost the confidence of the men, and I believe he will never regain it. I regret to say, in other words, that I believe his period of usefulness as president of the Canadian National Railways has come to an end.
I have given this brief recital because it is with a great deal of misgiving that I enter into this debate. I do not like this bill. When I read the preamble it led me to believe that, the railway companies and the bargaining agents of the employees having appeared to agree that existing wage rates should be increased and the forty-hour week introduced, the legislation would involve a settlement along those lines. Had I stopped at the preamble, or had the preamble of this bill constituted the law, I should say there was much to be said for what is contained in the preamble. As the leader of the opposition says, however, when you examine the bill itself it contains much more than appears on the surface. The rules that have been negotiated by the men over a long period of years, and which in no way enter into this wages and hours dispute, under this bill may be thrown


into the discussion. All matters which the railways or the men care to bring before an arbitrator, if one is appointed, may be the subject of new negotiations. Even a layman who knows very little about railway rules appreciates the fact that those rules have been agreed upon, having regard to the differing circumstances within the various railway systems, over long periods of years. An attempt was made by the railway management to introduce the rules as a bargaining point but, as I understand it, as late as last Friday that feature of the discussion was eliminated by the railway companies. They recognized the impossibility of reaching a speedy agreement in relation to the railway problem if those rules-and I give this only as an example-were thrown into this discussion.
As members of this house we must bear in mind that this bill, if adopted by parliament, of course will be very carefully scrutinized by the legal advisers of both sides. I have no doubt the legal advisers of the railway companies will take full advantage of every point in their favour contained in the bill now before us. Consequently it seems to me that instead of having before us a bill which will assist in bringing about the resumption of railway transportation services, and which will promote a better feeling in the industry so that we may not face interruptions of this kind again, in reality the bill will throw the fat in the fire, whatever the outcome of the strike, and we shall be plagued with difficulties all along the line for months and perhaps years to come.
Then, of course, there is the feature of compulsory arbitration, which has been emphasized by the leader of the opposition. In this democratic country we have built up a labour code, a way of doing things, which in the past has worked well. I believe that if more conciliation and a less dictatorial attitude had been shown by the railway managements,, collective bargaining would have achieved results and this strike would have been avoided weeks ago. But we are faced with this situation, and I must say that I believe the policy of the government ever since the end of the war, supported by a large majority in this house, is responsible for these disputes. The beneficial controls over our economy, which during the war worked well and prevented disputes of this kind, were hurriedly dispensed with. In the beginning when that was done the Minister of Finance told this house that he hoped and believed the cost of living would level off somewhere between 140 and 150; I think 145 was the figure he used at the time. Where is the cost of living now? It is over 167 as compared with the

base period, and still going up. Two groups of people are suffering primarily from this condition, both as producers and as consumers -the workers in industry and the producers on the land. The producers are paying more for their machinery, more for their supplies, more for their repairs. The workers are paying higher rents and higher prices for food and other supplies. They are the groups among the consumers who are most vitally interested in this transportation problem. Let me say that just as we fought and will continue to fight discriminatory freight rates, so also we fight substandard conditions for any of our workers in our transportation industry. We have no more right to ask producers in the maritime provinces, in British Columbia or in the prairie provinces to bear an undue share of the cost of transportation than we have to ask the lower paid men in the railway unions to bear an undue share of the cost of transportation.
There is a wide misunderstanding in the country-and I know this from my correspondence-regarding this strike. Many people are under the impression that the strikers are the more highly paid operating personnel of the railway; that is not so. The unions involved in this strike are the non-operating unions, covering the men who sweep out the cars, the men who handle the freight and express-what you might call the little people in our railway system. These are the peoole who are striking for a better standard*of living. When you compare their wages with those of employees doing comparable work in the same towns and cities, you find they are lower.
I believe this whole matter, Mr. Speaker, stems from the failure of the government to safeguard the Canadian people during this post-war period, and particularly do I say this in relation to the rapid inflationary increase in the cost of living. We cannot expect that any group of people will long suffer the disadvantages that the present situation has brought upon the groups I have mentioned. If we look at this bill we find that all it does, as I have said, is to provoke further discontent, and to provoke a fear that this compulsory feature will be taken as a precedent in the future. If these objectionable features of the bill were eliminated I believe the government would find that there would be substantial support for the resumption of railway services, and the reopening of negotiations from the basis which was reached last Saturday.
The bill does not contain any deadline for the commencement of the forty-hour week. As a matter of fact I believe it is generally known -I think the Prime Minister or the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) mentioned it yesterday 69262-3
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act -that in that particular the difference between the negotiating parties last week was only a few months. We should remember that the railway men had come down many months from their original position as to when the forty-hour week should go into effect. The date the men wanted was June 1, 1951, and the railways suggested September 1, 1951. The bill does not say that the forty-hour week should go into effect at a date on or before September 1, 1951, the date furthest away. There is nothing in the bill to that effect, and it may mean nothing to the arbitrator. I believe the leader of the opposition is quite right in saying that clause 3 of the bill contains no real guarantee, except of a temporary nature, with regard to wages.
Again, with regard to the forty-hour week, the understanding is and was that if the forty-hour week came into effect-the railway management did not disagree with this-then the take-home pay should be the same. The bill now before the house 'contains no guarantee of that. Consequently no matter how much one may want to see the railways resume operations, every member of the house should scrutinize the bill and understand its implications. I suggest to the government that, having regard to the debate and the objections or suggestions that are made, it should give an undertaking that the objectionable features will be eliminated in the committee stage to enable hon. members to support what purports to be the purpose of the bill, namely, the resumption of railway transportation in this country. May I also repeat what I have said before: if we pass a bill for the resumption of railway transportation, if we do all the other things that will be expected of us to get the railways running, we shall not have solved the transportation problem in this country.
I believe that out of this meeting of parliament must come a consideration of the whole Canadian transportation problem. What we require in this country is a national transportation policy and a national transportation system, not necessarily entirely publicly owned. It should at least be a system which will integrate every form of transportation, and which will give fair and reasonable service at fair and reasonable rates to all parts of this country. At the same time it would enable the transportation system generally to earn a sufficient amount so that it would not have to pay substandard wages or charge any class of its customers in any area the discriminatory rates that we now see.
I am disappointed in this bill. On Monday night I thought we were going to get something from it. I thought that perhaps the Prime Minister, since he said in the house yesterday he had received a lot of advice,

Maintenance of Railway Operation Act had received good advice from people who would know what was in the minds not only of the public in Canada but of the workers generally. I was hoping that if that advice were given the effect of it might have been seen in this bill. Upon looking over the bill it seems that, if the advice was given, it was not taken, because I am quite sure that the provisions of this bill would not be approved by anyone in close touch with labour thinking in this country.
I do not want to delay the discussion of this measure. I want to conclude with this thought. This matter is of supreme importance to all the people of Canada. Some of us from the outset were most anxious that the matter should be settled in the traditional way, and speedily. Neither the railways nor the employees should have to wait for parliament to meet and discuss it. But once parliament was called, it was perhaps inevitable that railway management and workers would look to this parliament to find some solution of the problem. Consequently I think the solution has been delayed by this method of dealing with it.
I want to say again that I think the government must bear the responsibility for what has occurred and is occurring. Their whole economic policy has promoted the kind of atmosphere in which workers on the one hand and industry on the other are engaged in a struggle, the one to make its profits or to enhance them, and the other to maintain or to improve its standard of living. As long as that struggle continues, we are in something of a vicious circle, one price chasing the other all the way up.
I am not going to prolong the discussion further. Mr. Speaker, I think the house must give consideration to every feature of this bill and to what has been suggested by the official opposition, and must try to come to a decision which will bring about resumption of our railway services immediately and at the same time ensure that free collective bargaining and social justice will remain fundamental parts of our Canadian way of life.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, before the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) speaks, may I endeavour to get the sense of the house on the suggestion which has been made by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) and the leader of the C.C.F. group (Mr. Coldwell) that there be no interruption of the session at one o'clock or at six o'clock today until this matter has been disposed of?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: If that is the desire of hon. members, I may say that I asked the Clerk to prepare the form of a motion which it would be necessary to pass in that regard; it is as follows:
That until Bill No. 1, an act to provide for the resumption of operations of railways and for the settlement of the existing dispute with respect to terms and conditions of employment between railway companies and their employees, has been disposed of, there shall be no interruption of the house this day at one o'clock or six o'clock p.m., notwithstanding the terms of any previous order of this house.
I do not think that hon. members would wish to commit themselves for more than this day, or be committed to a non-interruption if we get through by six o'clock; and that is covered by the terms of this motion. As this seems to represent the general desire of hon. members, I ask the unanimous consent of the house to put this motion, seconded by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe).


George Alexander Drew: May I ask if that implies that the Prime Minister accepts my amendment?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No. I think it implies that there can be no serious consideration given by the government to the acceptance of the hon. member's amendment.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. St. Laurent for the second reading of Bill No. 1, to provide for the resumption of operations of railways and for the settlement of the existing dispute with respect to terms and conditions of employment between railway companies and their employees.
Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Maintenance of Railway Operation Act the greatest weakness of the bill that is now before us is that it does not give assurance that the government will immediately tackle and find a solution of this root problem that has caused so many strikes throughout the world and is now causing this one in Canada. We think that this is no time for recriminations, and we do not intend to follow that course in this debate, no matter how long it goes on. But we do feel that this is a time for serious and sober reflection. If this strike serves to open the eyes of the members of parliament and of the people of Canada to what is really happening, it will serve at least one good purpose.
One fact stands out above all others. The striking unions have not the sympathy of the consuming public generally, although it is recognized by all fair-minded people that .many or most of the employees concerned are underpaid in comparison to those in similar .employment elsewhere, and with that we must have sympathy. I think we all must admit ;that they have a good cause. Why, then, the widespread lack of sympathy for the workers' cause? Well, Mr. Speaker, one of the .outstanding reasons is that the consumers of Canada know from sad experience in the past that if the demands of the striking union are met it will immediately aggravate and increase what the strikers themselves declare to be the direct cause of the strike, namely, the increasing cost of living. This need not necessarily be the result, but it has been in the past, and there appears at this time to be no provision for preventing it in future-and I might say, too, no disposition on the part of officialdom to see that that result does not ensue.
What has really happened, of course, is that the purchasing power of the Canadian dollar has been allowed to decrease in a most alarming and largely unnecessary way. The blame for this serious shrinkage in the value of the dollar must be placed squarely upon the government of Canada; for they, under the constitution, carry the sole responsibility for national financial policy. As a matter of policy this government has allowed the value of Canadian money to decrease until men and women in all walks of life find it well-nigh impossible to buy the necessities of life and build for themselves a modicum of security for the future. In sheer desperation, then, workers who are organized often turn to strikes to secure increased pay and better conditions of labour. They are forced to do it. That seems to be their only recourse. But those workers who are not organized, and in fact all consumers, find themselves in the Squeeze between the upper and nether millstones.

If this terrible situation, which is the root cause of labour unrest and general fear and frustration over the whole nation, is to be remedied, it will require much more action than is provided for in this bill. The government and this parliament must find and apply an effective and just solution of the problem of the ever-increasing cost of living and the shrinking dollar. To reach such an objective, though, will require that we leave what have come to be the all-too-well trodden paths of financial and economic policies. It will take the best brains and the boldest efforts of both houses of parliament to devise the new policies. As soon as the emergency legislation has become law and our railways are operating again, we must give assurance to the railway employees and all Canadian consumers that action will be taken by the government to make the value of the Canadian dollar stable as the value of production itself in the sustenance of life. Nothing will go so far to dispense social justice to all men, or to satisfy and settle the minds of union labour, as putting a stop to the soaring cost of living.
I predict that if we do not apply a scientific stabilizer on prices and costs, this country will face ever-increasing labour management troubles; the future will hold an unbroken chain of disruptions, strikes and civil strife. We do not want that. There is, sir, right at our hands, a remedy for pyramiding living costs and inflated prices. At the proper time in this session-not now-and when the railway emergency has been settled, my group will outline in some detail the compensated price discount method of restoring the full value of our dollar, and at the same time of stabilizing the cost of living at a reasonable level. We will show how those urgent and most necessary things can be done without bureaucratic wage and arbitrary price controls that no worker and no Canadian consumer wants.
The time is late. This whole problem of railway labour disputes should have been considered by the government and the house weeks ago. But even at this late date I appeal to hon. members to bend all their efforts not only to ending the present impasse between railway management and labour, but also to finding a permanent remedy for the root causes of labour troubles, one that will give justice and fair treatment to all Canadians, regardless of their occupations. To accomplish less than this will be dereliction of duty on our part.
There are two alternatives open to the Canadian people to accomplish what I have suggested. One is to rise up in united demand that their government, the present government, find and apply an effective solution to

the consumer price problem-or put us into office and we will do the job. The people have their choice; and I have not heard from the official opposition today any solution of this great problem which lies at the very root of all our labour unrest and our strike difficulties.
Just a word about the amendment. I have not yet had time to give it consideration. In fact I have not yet even had a copy of it. I do not know why in the world the official opposition does not see to it that enough copies are made of their amendments so that we may have something to look at. I am not therefore in a position to say what we will do about it. But I heard it read, and it did strike me that it does not offer a solution at all. It seems to me the railways and the workers concerned have had free collective bargaining over a period of fourteen months, and that they have not come to any satisfactory conclusions. Furthermore, if the amendment were to carry, the workers would have no assurance whatever of any increase in pay to help them meet the increased cost of living at the present time. The bill certainly does provide at least a beginning of a solution in its provision for an increase of four cents an hour, as set out in one of its sections. Therefore I cannot say whether we shall be in a position to support the amendment until I have had a chance to study the matter further.


Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, in the few remarks I shall make at this time-and because of the urgency of the situation before us they will be few-I hope I can be clear. Certainly I shall endeavour to be brief.
We have before us a bill the purpose of which is to end the present stoppage of work on the railway transportation systems in Canada. With that purpose we are all agreed. As a matter of fact part of what I shall have to say will be in criticism of the government for its apparent lack of concern while the situation that led up to the strike was brewing, and of the lack of concern shown when the strike actually took place. The strike came into effect a week ago last Tuesday morning. So far as I have been able to learn from the radio and the press-the only means we had of knowing what the government intended to do-it was the government's intention not to do anything until parliament should meet a week later, and then, in the leisurely way parliament deals with these matters, to make provision for the ending of the strike.
I felt that that was not what was required in the circumstances. I felt also that, because
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act the government would be compelled to inject' itself into the dispute at some time, surely it should not let a week go by without doing anything. I could not get in touch with Ottawa by telegraph, which is the cheapest way and the one which appeals to me, so I took the next best means and by telephone got in touch with the leader of this group,-the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). Before calling him I put my views in writing so that I could state them clearly and in the shortest possible time. I suggested to him that he should get in touch with the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) at once and ask him to call in the representatives of the labour unions and of the railway companies and put the matter before the labour unions in this way: "What are your minimum demands?" and then ask the employing companies: "What is' the maximum you will concede?"	->
Two days after the time I called, suggesting that the Prime Minister be communicated? with, he did call them in. But in my opinion he did not approach them with that sense of urgency the situation required. He told them,' "Now, try to get together to settle this matter." It seems to me he should have found out immediately what separated them, and then should have indicated what could be done to bridge the gap between them, if there was a gap. If that had been done 1 am satisfied that there would be no reason for this; bill; that the gap would have been bridged, because it was not very great, and when both parties were before the Prime Minister I am almost certain that they would be on theid best behaviour and it would be less.
There is another factor entering into this, matter which I must touch upon. The former minister of labour died. I should like to, have said something yesterday to express my own regrets at his passing, because,, though we sat on opposite sides of the house; for the greater part of the time he was here, we had a very close association and, may I say, friendship. The job of minister of labour is not an easy one; the portfolio is not one a person would ordinarily seek, because he is bound to be criticized, no matter what he does. There was one thing about the Hon. Humphrey Mitchell, the former minister of labour, which was of great importance: he knew labour matters, he knew labour men; he knew what was in their minds, and he also knew how to meet employers.
I have certainly nothing to say about the present Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg), except that he is one of the finest men I know and did an excellent job in the portfolio he held prior to his present one. But surely

Maintenance of Railway Operation Act the government have among their ranks-I am sure they have, because I know them- men who know the labour movement, and who, holding the labour portfolio, could be effective in the present situation in a way that the present minister for obvious reasons cannot be. I say again that I hope he will not misunderstand me, because I have nothing but the very highest respect for him. It seems to me that on every score the government allowed this situation to drift when they should have known that sooner or later they would have to come into the picture. They have now come into it at the most difficult point for themselves and the country.
Let me review the facts leading up to the stoppage of work. The agreement under which the labour unions were working expired on the 16th of June, 1949. About that time they opened negotiations with the employing companies. I do not believe anyone can say that the labour unions did not make every effort to reach an agreement. It seems to me that there was a lot of quibbling on the part of the companies. I have had some experience in negotiating labour agreements. I have toeen a member of a union that has always worked under an agreement, and my experience has been that if a collective agreement expires on a certain date-let us say June 16, 1949

the new agreement comes into effect as from that date. There should be no question about the date on which certain parts of it should come into operation. There might be some question about when the five-day forty-hour week should come into operation, but surely there should be no question about the date on which any increase in wages granted under a new agreement should come into effect. It should come into effect on the day the old agreement expires and the new agreement begins. It is either that or the workers are working part of the time undpr an agreement and part of the time without an agreement at all.
Therefore I believe that the companies did not negotiate in good faith. If I had any doubts on that score, they were eliminated by the action of the companies when they ipet in this building after the dinner adjournment last Saturday. I was having dinner at the Lord Elgin hotel, and I met a number *of the employees' representatives there, not by design but they also happened to be dining there. They seemed to be very optimistic that an agreement was in sight. They hoped to be able to obviate any differences they had and to complete an agreement when they resumed their meeting at 7.30 that evening. When they met at 7.30 the discussions and negotiations that had been going on when they adjourned at 4.30 were
[Mr. MacInnisJ

not continued. They were met with a statement by the chairman of the Canadian National Railways that there was no reason for continuing in session any longer, as the companies had come to the conclusion that an agreement could not be arrived at. Not only that; but Mr. Gordon also had a typewritten statement prepared for the press. Therefore between 4.30 and 7.30, instead of discussing with the representatives of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company how near they could come to meeting the demands of the employees, he was discussing with them a statement to give to the press terminating negotiations. In- my opinion that amounts to double-crossing not only the workers but also the government of Canada. As a matter of fact it seems clear that the chairman of the Canadian National Railways did not bargain in good faith, but intended to place this matter in the lap of the government so that an arbitrator would be appointed.
I agree with everything my leader said about Mr. Gordon. I mix with workers. I have been at meetings of strike committees in my own city of Vancouver, and I have never known workers to be so incensed at the actions and attitude of their employers as the railway workers in my province are at Mr. Gordon. One of the things they cannot forgive is that when he came to speak to them he did not come in a conciliatory frame of mind and talk to them as man to man. He came and spoke to them as a man to children. He said, "You go on strike and you will live to regret it." The workers of this country, the members of the trade union movement of Canada, have got beyond the stage where any employer can come to them and tell them where their best interests lie and that if they differ with him they will live to regret it. I am satisfied that it will take a generation of good labour relations to undo the harm that has been done by the chairman of the Canadian National Railways in the short time that he has occupied that position.
Let us consider the bill. It definitely does two things. It orders the men back to work, and provides for the appointment of an arbitrator to arbitrate, as has already been mentioned, not only the question of wages and hours but everything in dispute. These definite provisions in the bill are of a coercive character. They are contrary to past government policy in the matter of labour relations policy which was reiterated as recently as June of this year at the conference of the international labour organization in Geneva; and they also put into effect a policy that is repugnant to free labour everywhere. The point has been made that this bill deals only with a particular situation and does not affect

our industrial relations act. Nevertheless the workers are fearful-and I believe they have every reason to be-that if this bill passes, employers will take it as a precedent and that whenever workers make demands there will be no further bargaining in good faith because employers will expect the government to make the same provision for them; that is, an arbitrator will be appointed and then it will be left to one man to decide what the workers are entitled to.
There are in Canada some excellent men for arbitration work. There are also some men appointed as arbitrators who do not understand the needs of the workers, who think in terms of labour as a commodity. They forget or cannot understand that the commodity cannot be separated from the human beings who deliver it

human beings with aspirations, with hopes, with families to feed and educate. They do not understand those things; they do not think of labour as man, in all respects like themselves. They think only in terms of the least amount on which labour can continue to labour and reproduce its kind. It is with men of that kind, acting as arbitrators, that members of the trade unions are afraid they may have to deal.
I have not had much time to consider the amendment, but I will say that it would get our transportation system in operation quickly, and also that it has been tried before. Controllers have been appointed at various times, and so far as I know have done a very good job. What position I shall take when the amendment comes to a vote will be decided after I have had time to give it further study; but, as I have said, I believe it has much to commend it. If only for the sake of getting the roads operating at once and getting the principle of free collective bargaining into operation again I should be glad to go a long way indeed.
One could say much more, but let me conclude with this. As yet no one has said that the demands of the railway employees are unreasonable. Both the Canadian Pacific and Canadian National are now operating under the five-day forty-hour week on their lines in the United States; and those lines have not gone bankrupt. As a matter of fact their net profits this year are much greater than they were before those hours went into effect, and instead of being greatly increased the number of employees is somewhat less than before the forty-hour week went into operation. So there is not very much in the argument that they cannot meet the cost. But let us not forget that the railroads of Canada were given two, if not three, increases in freight rates recently, and that their financial position in 1950 is much better than it
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act was in 1949. I am not going to take the trouble to give the figures at the moment, but they are on record and may be seen by anyone who cares to look.
Let me repeat that the issue here is the question of compulsion, of putting into the hands of one man the power to determine the living conditions of hundreds of thousands of men; and to that I am opposed.


Mr. David A. Croll (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I want first to extend my good wishes and congratulations to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg). None of us in this house envies him the task with which he was confronted at the very moment he took office. His position demands two qualities in particular, which he possesses in full measure. They are courage, and, in its broadest sense, liberalism; and I am sure they will sustain him through this very difficult period.
We are meeting here today in an air of crisis that has swept over this country as I have never known it before in peacetime. Usually tension and hostility create the worst possible atmosphere in which to settle a labour dispute; yet something must be done and done now in order to end this creeping economic paralysis. I support, as do other members of this house, the resumption of railway service at the earliest possible moment. Speaking in this house yesterday the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) was careful to make it very clear that this bill is not to be considered a precedent; that it is not compulsion in the usual sense or as it is commonly understood; that no sanctions are involved. I was horrified at the suggestion made in the press some time ago that there might be loss of pensions and seniority, or even jail, as the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) suggested. That is not so. The Prime Minister made it clear that the right to strike is in no way being affected by what we do in connection with this bill.
To me those are very comforting words; yet in principle I consider this a dangerous bill, less because of what it attempts to do now than because of what in other hands it might be made to do hereafter. We have all heard it said that the free trade union movement is the foundation stone of democracy. We have perhaps heard it said so often that the words have lost their significance, but to me, and I know to many other members of this house, they remain the literal and absolute truth. Let us first admit that this is an ad hoc bill designed for one specific purpose, to settle one specific strike. Let us admit that at this late date, in the light of all the tragic happenings that have gone before, the government sees no other course in the national interest than to enact this measure. Yet this bill could be construed as saying

Maintenance of Railway Operation Act to the trade unions that in such and such circumstances you are no longer free to exercise your rights. If in the exercise of your legal rights and accepted privileges you jeopardize a large number of your fellow men, then we, the government of this country, will endeavour to strip those rights and privileges from you.
On those grounds, Mr. Speaker, I believe the bill is wrong. In its potentialities it is destructive of democracy. I do not believe we can introduce into this limited field, for a limited time and with a limited objective, this sort of bill without doing harm to the concept of collective bargaining.
At the outset I made it clear that I support that portion of the bill which starts the railways in operation again, but I hesitate to go beyond that. The bill has a fault in that it falls far short of accepting the minimum proposals made by the railways. I should have thought the bill would include the assurance that there will be a forty-hour week, at a date agreed to already. In any event there should have been a floor on the work week. I thought it should have included the assurance that there will be forty-eight hours' pay for forty hours' work. This much should be said for the government, that the bill goes beyond the proposals of the railways in that it includes the hotel and water transportation personnel. For that the government is entitled to a high degree of commendation.
I find it difficult to accept the section referred to by some members in this house as "compulsion" and by others as "determination". I have always thought that there was another way out. We all agree that the railways ought to commence operating immediately. We all agree that the parties ought to go back and negotiate, but while they are negotiating the railroads must continue to run. It seems to me that if they are unable to reach an agreement we shall be back here in January, and we can then deal with the problem as it appears before us. By that time the parties to the dispute will have cooled off; we shall have cooled off; and the Canadian people will have cooled off. At that time we can take the appropriate action. I feel certain that by that time no action will be necessary, because an agreement will have been reached, an agreement which will give the men retroactive pay for the time they were negotiating.
If we are guided by what we have read in the newspapers, and what we have heard in this house, we must come to the conclusion that mistakes have been made, and that the graver mistakes have been Mr. Gordon's rather than the unions'. I believe he handled the negotiations with something less than
[Hr. Croll.]

skill and dexterity. He demonstrated repeatedly that he was accustomed to dealing with a type of individual a little more docile than the trade union member. He carried the ball during the discussions, and unfortunately for us he fumbled it.
The newspaper account of the interview with Professor Mackintosh was, in my opinion, telltale. He said that both sides were childish; that was' a damning thing to say about grown men meeting to conduct responsible and far-reaching negotiations. His report, presented to the house last night by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg), was a shocking one. It is reported at page 20 of Hansard. Human and labour relations on the railways have deteriorated to the point where they cast their dark shadows on the collective bargaining process. In his report Dr. Mackintosh says:
The work of the mediator was made extraordinarily difficult by (1) the almost complete lack of confidence between the parties to the dispute; (2) the number and variety of the unions which were attempting to bargain as one unit; (3) the very low level of effectiveness of collective bargaining in the industry; (4) the fact that the rapidly approaching menace of the strike created confusion between genuine bargaining and attempts to make statements of positions before the work stoppage took place.
We send people to the bargaining table and we find that they are fighting this out with public relations officers to see who can get out the best statement, who can get out the last statement, or who can lay the blame on the other person. "Childish" is hardly the word for it; it is much worse than that. It seems to me it is downright negligence. I share with the members of this house the view that one man is particularly responsible for it.
Let us finally consider the bill for a moment. Neither today's government nor today's opposition in this house can undertake to say what the effect of passing this bill will be, though we say it is confined to a particular strike in 1950. There it is for all of us to see in the future. We ask ourselves the question, will it not be extended in the future by administrations less friendly to labour than our own? Will not the principle of public interest be extended to cover other unions-perhaps first in the transportation field, in the trucking industry, or the seamen? Will not this same principle be used in other industries which may be declared essential to the public, such as the packing industry, baking, steel, or mining?
A segment of the press of this country has for some time been conditioning the minds of the people to compulsory arbitration. It

seems that the beachhead will be public utilities. I believe much comfort and much support will be derived by them from section 5 of this bill. If any of you have read the Montreal Gazette this morning you will find that the lead editorial already says:
The time is bound to come when that principle will have to be broadened from this particular, present dispute to all disputes that concern the nation's lifelines.
The editor is talking about compulsory arbitration. For some time other papers throughout the country have been saying the same thing, so we might as well meet this issue now and declare our stand. We should do what we can towards achieving the goal that we consider to be in the public interest. I believe it would be nothing short of a national calamity if we were to substitute something else for the collective bargaining process. I was heartened to hear the Prime Minister say that was not proposed in this bill. On the other hand, are we not being asked to take a long stride down the road whose end is neither trade unionism nor democracy as we know them? It is true that compulsion can force the parties to submit to a given procedure. It may even force them to accept unwillingly certain results. But I think this house knows very well that forced obedience generates resistance and hostility. Far from being a cure, it is a source of further conflict and it multiplies strife instead of preventing it. Compulsion never removes the cause of the strife. Forced obedience against the will of those concerned sows the seeds of bitterness and resentment and in the end aggravates the very condition it was sought to cure.
I believe that compulsory arbitration means the death of collective bargaining. It is all very well to say that we shall apply this principle only in this case, but we have done damage to a fundamental principle of freedom. The right of the wage earner to refuse to work is a legal right and a fundamental human right; and the exercise of that right is an essential ingredient in a free and vigorous economy. I believe that under certain conditions a strike may be far less harmful to the state and to industry than peace maintained by statutory tyranny.
I shall vote, Mr. Speaker, against what I consider to be compulsory aspects, as contained in section 5 of this bill.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in common with other hon. members who have spoken, I regret that a strike in our transportation system became necessary, and I am most anxious to see it settled at the earliest possible moment. But I share the view that has just been expressed by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll), 692G2-4
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act and which was also put forward by my leader (Mr. Coldwell) and by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis), that it is in the public interest also, indeed that it is of primary importance, that there be no interference with the principle of free collective bargaining.
Dress it up in any way that you may, the bill presented by the government does interfere most seriously with that principle. Point out though you may that the bill deals just with this particular situation, it establishes a precedent for the handling of labour disputes by the means of compulsory arbitration; and I am firmly of the view that that price is too high a one to pay for the settlement of the present dispute. I am satisfied that there are other ways in which it could have been settled and that there are now other ways in which it can be settled. Out of loyalty to the best interests of this Canadian nation, I feel that I have no alternative but to oppose the principle of compulsory arbitration which is set out in the bill that is now before us.
I want to take a moment or two, Mr. Speaker, to say that I feel that in the dispute itself the requests, or the demands, if you wish to call them that, of the workers are most reasonable and more than justified. As has already been stated, it is some thirty-two years since there has been any change in the work week of most railroad workers. It has also been pointed out on behalf of the railroad workers that the average wages, let alone the wages of the lower-paid railway workers, are far below the highest wages being earned by industrial workers in this country. We must not confuse the situation by thinking of some of the higher rates of pay that are earned by certain operating personnel; for in this dispute we are dealing with the whole gamut of railroad workers, which includes a great many in the lower brackets. . I think it is to be said in defence of the railway workers that for a long time they have refrained from taking action of this kind. If I am correct, the last time there was an interruption in railway services that could be called a strike was in 1919, thirty-one years ago; and even on that occasion a good deal of the cessation of work was of a sympathetic nature or because of the particular circumstances of the time.
Many railway workers feel that it is because they have shown such a responsible attitude and such a readiness to refrain from striking that advantage has been taken of them and that their wages, hours and conditions have not had improvements to which they were entitled. I therefore feel, without going into that side of the case at too great length, that it must be pointed out that we

Maintenance of Railway Operation Act are dealing with a responsible group of workers who are making most reasonable and just requests. I think it should be pointed out also that in the various negotiations that have taken place, both in Montreal before the strike actually broke and here in Ottawa last week end, the leaders of the workers made substantial concessions. Whereas in the first place they asked for seven cents an hour increase, with some of the unions asking for ten cents, effective July 16, 1949, they came to the point where they were prepared to accept, in order to settle the dispute, seven cents an hour effective June 1, 1950, or, as an alternative, five cents an hour effective January 1, 1950, with a cost of living bonus as from September 1, 1950.
Let it also be pointed out that when the railway workers first served notice on the management, they asked for the five-day forty-hour week with forty-eight hours' pay to be effective September 1, 1949. Last Saturday they were prepared to settle the strike on the basis of the forty-hour week becoming effective June 1, 1951, with an additional three months' period during which they would not ask for overtime rates up to forty-eight hours a week. In other words they have moved two years in the effective date that they were insisting upon for the implementation of the forty-hour week. I submit that these people, to whom fine tributes have been paid on all sides of the house, have, as the facts show, taken a most reasonable and a most patient attitude. Indeed, if they have made any mistake across the years, I think they have been r little too patient, and that as a result of that patience they have obtained less than they deserve.
In the face of that attitude on the part of the workers, and in the face of what I believe to be their just and reasonable demands, we have presented to them by the government this Bill No. 1, which requires that they go back to work on certain terms. The only immediate guarantee that they get out of this bill is an increase of four cents an hour. I am thinking at the moment of employees in the Weston shops in Winnipeg, where I come from, who by the way are working forty hours a week. Hon. members may not realize that, but the fact of the matter is that last May the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, despite the agreement which called for a longer work week, reduced the work in its main shops-the Angus, Weston and Ogden shops and so on-to five days, forty hours, but at forty hours' pay. Incidentally there has been no complaint as to any loss of efficiency because of the forty-hour week. That means that those workers, according to the terms of the bill before us,

will be asked to go back to work for an increase of four cents for the forty hours they are working-in other words, $1.60 a week. The cost of living has gone up almost that much while they have been on strike; and to suggest that after all the years they have waited for a more decent settlement, that after all the years they have exercised this patience, they should be directed to take that as the basis of going back to work, is certainly beneath this parliament asking them to do.
I know that this bill also has in it the proposed that the other issues in dispute would be submitted to arbitration, and that the award of the arbitrator in the last analysis would be made binding. I suppose some would say the workers are being asked to go back to work not only for $1.60 a week in the case that I cited, but on faith and in the confidence that the arbitrator will give them perhaps something more with respect to the wage increase, and perhaps the forty-hour week at some reasonable time. But, as has already been pointed out by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), by the leader of this party, by the hon. member for Spadina and perhaps by others, the terms of the bill make it very clear that once the arbitrator takes over he has the power to arbitrate on all matters then in dispute.
Section 5, subsection 1, makes it quite clear that any matter in dispute between the parties, any matter upon which at that time there has not been agreement, shall be arbitrated by the arbitrator and his decision shall be final. As a matter of fact, there is not even a guarantee-though I cannot imagine any arbitrator not recognizing the four cents-there is not even any legal guarantee that the arbitration would include the four cents which is granted on a temporary basis by this bill. There is no guarantee that the arbitrator would give to the workers the earliest day for the implementation of the forty-hour week which the companies were prepared, up until the time the negotiations broke off, to give. As I understand it, on Saturday last the companies were prepared to settle for the implementation of the forty-hour week on September 1, 1951. It does seem to me that the bill should have put a clear deadline, if you like, under that date, making it positive that the arbitration award would make it at least that if not earlier.
Just as there is no legal protection for the four-cent increase, so there is no protection on any other maximum offers that the companies made during the course of negotiation. Someone might say: "Surely the companies will not go back on those offers." But if I know railways, and from the way they have acted in the course of this dispute, it is pretty

clear that they would have the opportunity to leave even the four-cent proposal as a matter in dispute at the end of the fifteen-day period. All they have to do is to leave it as a matter in dispute, and then it is up to the arbitrator to decide.
I point out also there is nothing in the bill to provide that if the arbitrator decides on the forty-hour week it will be with forty-eight hours' pay. That has been the basis of the request for the forty-hour week by the workers, not only during the past twelve months, but during the past five years while they have been making it known to the companies and to the public that they wanted this change. There is nothing in the bill to guarantee that the forty-hour week would be with forty-eight hours' pay. That is of real concern to the workers I represent.
Similarly, there is nothing in the bill to guarantee to the workers that the length of the contract will be favourable or even partly favourable to them. That has been one of the matters in dispute. The men wanted an annual contract, as they have had down through the years. The companies asked in the first place for a three-year contract. The men felt that to give the companies a three-year contract was to give the companies the chance of enjoying rising revenues in a period of buoyancy which the men would not be able to share in. They would be stuck then with lower wage rates for that three-year period. Actually I believe there was some sort of compromise arrived at during the negotiations that broke off on Saturday; but the bill says that it will be up to the arbitrator to decide how long that contract is to be. Once the companies make that a matter of dispute it gives the arbitrator double reason-and double authority, if you like-for deciding on that point.
Similarly there is nothing in the bill to protect the men against the arbitrator deciding that the ten changes in rules which the companies put forward as a counter-proposal would have to be accepted. I say here again I understand there was some compromise reached on that point, but all the companies have to do is to make it a matter under dispute at the end of the fifteen-day period, and then leave it to the arbitrator to make a decision on those rules. Those rule changes are perhaps not clearly understood by a great many of the public. Certainly their significance and import are not fully realized. On behalf of the men I want to say that they feel very keenly the suggestion that those ten rule changes should be made. Some of them affect one class of workers and some another. They deal with such things as the length of time a person must be an apprentice.
69262-ii
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act They deal with Sunday work and overtime. They deal with what station agents get when they get up in the middle of the night to meet a train, and all kinds of such matters, and have been arrived at through the years by a process of negotiation more or less satisfactory to both sides. Now the companies come along and suggest that these changes, all in the companies' favour, should be made as a price of a settlement.
I repeat, despite any approach to each other that they may have made in the course of the negotiations that have taken place thus far, once they resume negotiations under this bill all the companies have to do is to leave the rule changes as a matter of dispute at the end of the fifteen-day period and it is thrown to the arbitrator to decide. As I have already indicated, to ask the men to go back to work, men who have been as patient as the railway workers have been, men who have made the contribution that they have to our national economy both in war and peace, to ask these men to go back to work at four cents an hour and the slim possibility that there would be of getting a reasonable settlement on these other points that are at issue, I suggest, is something this parliament should not be asked to do. Any suggestion that this would solve the problem, that parliament could go home and think it had done a job, is far from the mark.
I ask hon. members just to contemplate what would be happening during the next few months. The members of the unions would go back with four cents an hour. They would not be satisfied with what was going to happen, and the result of that dissatisfaction would show itself in the nature of their work on the job, and might show itself in the numbers who would go back to work. Then a few months from now the arbitrator, having gone into the matter of these various things that are in dispute, makes his award. The chances of the award meeting the just and reasonable requests of the men, I submit from experience, are not good, and yet it is an award that they will have to accept; and you would have, instead of this body of men for whom so much praise has been uttered - today being satisfied, a disgruntled group of workers who would feel that they had been let down by the parliament of Canada, at least by the government that brings in this legislation. I submit that members who are anxious to rush this thing through today would then rue the day that they supported this way of settling this dispute.
For these reasons I feel that any of us who are interested not only in the welfare of the workers in this country and in justice


Mr. Gillis:: No, he did not.


Mr. Pouliol:: The hon. member may have his views, but I have mine.


Clarence Gillis: I know the horn, member wants to be accurate, and he generally is. The industrial relations committee wrote that provision into the code and then a backbencher in the house moved it out. It was taken out in the house, not in the committee.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will tell my hon. friend that it was taken out in the house when his amendment was defeated. The hon. member is free to have his views and I am free to have mine. I have the honour to represent several hundred railway employees whom I consider to be like my children. I have great respect and admiration for them because they are good citizens who are doing their work very well. I am interested in them because I recommended most of them for their positions. I am dealing with them every day and I think I am just as well informed on labour matters as any hon. member who has tMr. Pouliot.l

railway men in his constituency and who receives them and listens to them instead of trying to instruct them.
I do not intend to speak at great length. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is interested in the' welfare of railway men, but he is not the only hon. member who is. All members of parliament are interested in the welfare of railway men, and the first one who has shown his deep interest in the welfare of the railway men is the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). He has taken this matter to heart and has discussed all the angles of the problem with the leaders of the brotherhoods and of the railways.
I cannot understand why an hon. member with the intelligence of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre should present such a futile subamendment. I have great respect for the hon. member; I admire his gifts, but his subamendment is far from meaning what he has said it means.
I think this a proper occasion to say a word about the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew). I listened with great attention to the speech he made, and I think, with the exception of its ending, that it was one of the best speeches of his career. He reminded me of a gifted painter who paints a wonderful masterpiece and then in a gesture of eloquence passes his brush across the picture and destroys it.
At first I listened to the leader of the opposition with awe-meaning admiration; but finally I had a feeling of disappointment. Why? It was for this very good reason. Having complained about the coercion used against the railway men, he suggests the greatest piece of coercion that has been suggested since we met together. The government wants to appoint an arbitrator if no understanding is reached between management and labour. That is the only thing to do. But there is this other proposal, a proposal exhumed from the old days of R. B. Bennett and Sir Edward Beatty-amalgamation of the railways under one man.


Mr. Green:: Oh no; it was not.


Jean-François Pouliot: Let Quadra be quiet.


Howard Charles Green: You stick to the facts.


Jean-François Pouliot: I was there at that time. My hon. friend was not here at that time. I remember the appointment of trustees of the Canadian National Railways for the purpose of amalgamating the two railways and the fight that was waged by the Liberal party when Bennett wanted to amalgamate the express, telegraph and telephone companies. Here we have the suggestion not of an arbitrator but of an administrator, a national

dictator, a man who would be the boss of both railways. So far as the railways are concerned, my policy is the old policy of the Liberals:	competition ever, amalgamation
never.
I have often heard railway men say that the Tory party was the high finance party, the party that was so despotic with the railway men, the party that wanted unification of the railways. I thought that was a story of the past.


Howard Charles Green: That is the Liberal party now.


Jean-François Pouliot: Let Quadra be quiet again.


Mr. Noseworthy:: The Liberal party is taking their place.


Jean-François Pouliot: How does the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) speak through his hat when he is uncovered?


Howard Charles Green: You do all the time.


Jean-François Pouliot: I know the story of the Tory party better than my hon. friend knows the story of his political family. I have been sitting here long enough to know the story. I have been fighting long enough against R. B. Bennett, Beatty and all those fellows who wanted amalgamation of the railways. I can tell my hon. friend that it is because of the Liberal party that we still have two railways, one privately owned and one controlled by the state. Otherwise their shares would have been sky-high and the C.P.R. would have been controlled by the state in the same way as the C.N.R. We would have had no competition and a lot of men would have lost their positions. That is why railway men are against amalgamation of the railways. That is why railway men throughout the country and the Canadian people at large will deeply resent the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition.


Howard Charles Green: We are against amalgamation, and you know it.


Jean-François Pouliot: It is a foster child. Leave
it to the ghosts of Bennett and Beatty and do not speak of it any more.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Speaker, I know that no one wants to delay the vote on this particular question.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Clarence Gillis: You fellows had fourteen months at it; I guess I can take a few minutes. There are some things I should like to have clarified in my mind about the whole mess. The hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) has injected the note into the debate that if the amendment and the addition thereto that we propose are adopted it will mean amalgamation of the railroads. There is one thing that I should like to have him or somebody else on
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act that side of the house answer. Why is it that during the negotiations, which finally broke down, joint representations were made by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and the Canadian National Railways? Why is it that Donald Gordon, the head of the Canadian National Railways, was the chief spokesman for both systems? Why was that type of negotiation carried on? I should like to have that question answered. During the period of negotiation it was amazing to me that such was the case. Perhaps that is the main reason why the Canadian National Railways did not get anywhere under its management.


An hon. Member:: The C.P.R.


Clarence Gillis: I am talking about the Canadian National Railways. If the Canadian National had been divorced and freed in the negotiations from the entanglements of the C.P.R., for whom Mr. Gordon had no right to speak, then there is a possible chance that the mess that we are in today would not have resulted. I think the Canadian National system could have worked out an agreement. The hon. member for Temiscouata provoked me into saying that, and before the debate closes I should like someone on that side of the house to tell me why the government-appointed manager of the Canadian National Railways became involved and tangled up in the negotiations of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.


Jean-François Pouliot: If my hon. friend will permit me-


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will answer him now or I will answer him on the amendment.


Clarence Gillis: I would rather have the Prime Minister do it.


Jean-François Pouliot: The hon. member invited me, and I have accepted the invitation.


Clarence Gillis: I said the hon. member or someone else.


Jean-François Pouliot: The Prime Minister is not responsible for what I say. I am.


Clarence Gillis: Coming from you it would not be official.


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not pretend to say anything official, but I could answer the hon. member's question properly.


Clarence Gillis: I have no doubt about that.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is all right.


Clarence Gillis: I am not going to argue with the hon. member. I rose at this time to make a few observations. In my opinion the bill before the house should be withdrawn. I

Maintenance of Railway Operation Act believe that the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition, buttressed by the addition that we have proposed, is the quickest way to get the railways back into operation. The hon. member for Temiscouata has criticized what we had to say in our amendment to the amendment and compared it with the bill. The amendment to the amendment presupposes the withdrawal of the bill. If it is the intention and desire of all members of the house to get the railroads back into operation-and that is the main essential at this time-then I think the fastest way to do so is to withdraw the bill. If we accept the bill without amendment it may have very serious repercussions in the future, and I could not accept it under any circumstance.
What is so difficult, dangerous or bothersome about relieving a national emergency in this country? In my opinion it is one of the most serious emergencies the country has ever faced. At the present time we are mobilizing a force to go to Korea. Thousands of members of United Nations forces are in slit trenches at the present time fighting against great odds and difficulties. They expect that we have the equipment at home to support and maintain them, to feed and supply them. The present situation so far as the rail strike is concerned is a pretty bad demonstration to the boys whom we are asking to leave Canada and place their future in our hands in the matter of supplies and their trying to do their share in the present international situation. I think it is more serious than anything we went through during the last war.
You may say what you like about this business of an administrator, or controller or whatever you want to call him, but the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) knows all about that matter. Several times during the last war he had occasion to come into this house and table an order placing a controller in charge of some branch of industry in this country. National steel was controlled for a considerable time; Montreal Tramways also was controlled. There was no friction or difficulty; things went well, and there was no disruption of production.
I am not so much concerned about what this bill means to those directly involved today. I am convinced that you cannot write a trade union agreement on the floor of the House of Commons. The former minister of labour made that statement many times, and I agreed; you cannot do it. If we pass this bill at this time there will be a rearback from every trade union in this country. No trade unionist in Canada who has any knowledge of the movement or any knowledge of
[Mr. Gillis.l

the history of the development of trade unionism, realizing the stigma of compulsion that is contained in this bill, would accept it for one moment. I believe the Prime Minister's intentions are good when he says this is not compulsory bargaining at all, that it is a detour. Perhaps he believes that, but in my opinion it is not a detour; we are setting a precedent that will be taken as a pattern by industry in this country if and when the bargaining gets a little tough. The simple and easy thing to do then will be to break off, throw the matter into the lap of the government, and have a bill passed. This is the first step in that direction. In my opinion it is an invitation to large sections of our industry, such as steel, coal and others which have never bargained in very good faith, to get out from under their own responsibility and put it up to someone else to take action which may not be too popular in a given instance.
I suppose we could argue this matter all day, as we argued these very matters thirty years ago; but personally I could never go back to the people I represent here, who well understand the implications of this bill, and tell them that I accepted legislation of this kind, because they know what it will mean to the future of collective bargaining in this country. Personally I think there is something wrong that we do not understand, and that perhaps the Prime Minister does not understand. There is a great deal of propaganda throughout the country that is confusing the people. As the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) suggested this morning, you meet people who say, "Well, they are earning as much as $300 to $500 a month now." That is not true. The people represented by the bargaining agents on this occasion have been patient and long-suffering. They have been given only one increase in the last twenty-five or thirty years, amounting to about $35 a month. Their average wage is far below the average for industrial workers in this country. I 'have the figures before me in the Labour Gazette for October, 1949, though I am not going to take time to read them.
I could understand it if the railways took the position that they were unable to pay, but that is not so. In this same issue of the Labour Gazette it is clearly shown that the question of ability to pay is not at stake at all. Then the propaganda is sent out that to grant these demands would mean an increase in freight rates, but that is not so either. Figures contained on page 1208 of the Labour Gazette indicate that following the last freight increase the earnings of the

railways went up tremendously and have continued to go up, while the wages of these underpaid and underprivileged workers have remained unchanged for a long time.
The demands of the railway workers are completely justifiable, and the policy followed by the railways in the negotiations on this occasion was the craziest I have ever seen, particularly in the way those negotiations culminated. I must say I am greatly disappointed in Mr. Gordon if he took the attitude he is reported to have taken in breaking off negotiations. For five weeks last session I was a member of the committee on government operated railways, steamships and telegraph lines, and during the sittings of that committee I was greatly impressed by Mr. Gordon. All during our deliberations I thought he took a very realistic position in asking for adjustments in the capital structure of the railways, and so on. Whenever a question came up affecting the employees of the system, in my opinion he went far out of his way to make a good case for them. So I was greatly disappointed in the way he acted, if we have the facts straight, in terminating negotiations, in wrapping himself around the C.P.R. and all that sort of thing. Something is the matter somewhere, I think, on which hon. members have not been informed.
I think the average member of this house should pay some attention to what the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) had to say. He has no axe to grind. He is a member on the government side, and a good lawyer who understands the implications of these things. In my opinion he is not speaking for propaganda purposes. In this bill we are writing a trade union agreement. After further negotiation we are going to place the whole matter in the hands of an arbitrator, whose decision will be final and binding. He can fix the terms of this agreement as he wishes, and there is no appeal. The worst feature of the whole thing, however, is in connection with the enforcement of this trade union agreement from there on. So far as the railroads are concerned that enforcement will be in the hands of the law officers of the crown through the Criminal Code. That follows automatically. If we take that step today in reference to this large body of workers with whom we are dealing, how long will it be before steel, coal and all these other people come here asking for the same thing?
It seems to me the controversy going on at the present time may do some good if we pay attention to what has happened and what is happening. I believe it points up the necessity for a revision of our conciliation machinery. I have said in this house many times, and am still convinced that there is no use giving
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act someone responsibility unless you also give him authority to carry out that responsibility. I believe we did a good job of writing a national labour code, but do not forget that this bill automatically wipes out many provisions of that code as it applies to this dispute. Then I believe we did a good thing when we set up a national labour relations board. I believe we have a well-trained, well-qualified body of men there. In the last analysis it seems to me the people who should have had the final say in this or any other dispute of this magnitude were the Canada labour relations board. You can send out Pettigrove. I know him well, and he is an excellent conciliator; there is none better. You can send out Maclean, who thoroughly understands the problems of the railroads, having been for many years an official of one of the unions; he would do an excellent job. But when you send one of these men to conciliate a dispute he is merely a man who pleads with somebody to do something, without power or authority to give directives with any push behind them.
Long ago I suggested an amendment to the national labour code. I had in mind that the national labour board should have the power, when confronted with a dispute of this description which threatened the security of the country, to call both parties to the dispute before the labour relations board. The board would have semijudicial powers, and would see to it that the terms of the national labour code served the interests of the economy of this country. The board would be enabled to determine whether Donald Gordon was reasonable or unreasonable; they could determine whether he was committing infractions of the regular rules of collective bargaining, and they would have some power to enforce the machinery provided by the national labour code. Today no one is in that position. Mr. Gordon, a big, strong man, can throw his hat in the ring and push everyone around. It was his responsibility, as well as the union's responsibility, to settle this dispute. They did not settle it. They threw that responsibility into the laps of men who have only a couple of hours to prepare a bill covering the merits or demerits of a dispute which has been going on for the last fourteen months.
When it takes two bodies of sensible men fourteen months to come to an agreement concerning wages and conditions of work, there is something wrong with both sides. There is something the matter somewhere. I am honestly saying that the passage of this bill is only going to aggravate the situation. I believe the action which was initiated on many occasions during the last war by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) is the proper way of handling the problem. There should be a controller or administrator appointed, I do not care what you call him,

Maintenance of Railway Operation Act and the unions and management should reopen negotiations taking the subamendment we propose as the basis tor negotiation. I believe that with the experience of the last two weeks fresh in the minds of both management and union officials, an agreement could be reached within a reasonable time. I cannot understand why there should be so much delay and so much confusion.
I said, Mr. Speaker, that I do not want to delay the bill. I do want to see these railroads operating. I know how essential it is. I also want to protest the principle against which the labour movement throughout Europe, Britain, and this country has fought for the last one hundred and fifty years, and that is the principle of compulsory arbitration. I am opposed to it. I could not consider for one moment, in the light of the present situation, accepting this bill as a solution to the problem. It is our desire to be helpful, and the reason I am supporting the line of action proposed by the last two amendments is that I believe it is the fastest way of accomplishing our purpose. I believe it is the way the government will avoid a lot of difficulty in the future.


Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I have been much interested in the arguments that have been put forward today. I have been particularly interested in the points of view presented by this side of the house. I hoped that the government would have found itself in the position of putting up at least one of its members to answer some of the many points which have been raised. Such has not been the case, and I am sure it is not because it would be a waste of time, so there must be some other reason for it. I suspect that the reason is the large measure of sense and judgment which has been shown by the opposition today, and which the government has been unable to meet.
Everyone is anxious to settle this dispute, but it has to be settled, if at all, with justice. This bill before us, in our opinion and I am certain in the opinion of the men who are affected, does not give justice. There are a number of illusions about this strike, and I intend to deal with some of them, because they have been carefully perpetrated. I have never seen a strike in which there was such a barrage of propaganda against the men involved as there has been in this one. In almost every newspaper across the country there have been comments, some going as far as to call the men traitors, and some, like the Financial Post, merely calling them blackmailers. Apparently few of the newspapers have a good word to say for the men involved. The same thing has been true of the comments over the air. Invariably we have
[Mr. Gillis.l

heard of the hardships of those who have been affected indirectly by the strike, but very little of what has been happening to the men.
I believe there are certain things concerning the working conditions of the men involved which should be brought once again to the attention of the house. My leader has dealt with some, and the member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) has dealt with some. Certain figures have been given, but we know, through study of a government publication dated October, 1949, that six industries were examined-logging, mining, manufacturing, construction, transportation and communications-and an average wage rate arrived at. This average was twenty-four or twenty-five points higher than the wage rate of many of the men who are involved in this strike.
The house will recall that in March of 1948 the men received a wage increase of seventeen cents per hour. Since then the cost of living has gone up by approximately twelve to fifteen points. The first demand made by the union was for a wage increase of seven cents, for forty hours' work and forty-eight hours' pay. I suggest that this demand was reasonable because, although the first demand was made a year ago, the men are still asking for the same thing. If we are to judge by the cost of living they should receive an increase of twelve cents per hour instead of the seven they are requesting. There is no sign yet of any break in the present inflationary spiral.
If the government finds itself in a predicament today it is due in no small measure to its own policy of removing controls which we maintained were necessary and beneficial to the country. The result has been a constant increase in the cost of living, always followed and not led by the demand for better wages. The workers of this country have not been responsible for the rapid increase in the cost of living. In the past it has been suggested to this government that controls be continued so that the demand for wages could perhaps be curbed to some extent. Parliament was warned that if controls were removed we were headed for labour troubles, and they have come home to us today most severely. As a matter of fact the majority of the men involved in this strike are not receiving the money which the Toronto welfare council deems adequate for the average family to live, not in comfort but with the essentials of life. It is said by the council that a worker with a family should receive about $49.15 per week.
Another point which must be remembered is that there has been no change in the working hours of the majority of these men during the last thirty years, although in many other

industries the hours of work have been reduced. The railways and other agencies have led us to believe that the forty-hour week is not at all common in Canada. I have before me a Department of Labour statement which I shall quote:
The five-day week was common in all the cities except Halifax. Eighty-five per cent of the workers in Toronto and Vancouver, seventy-seven per cent in Montreal, fifty-four per cent in Winnipeg, and twenty-four per cent in Halifax were on a five-day week. Only a small proportion of the plant employees in each city were working six full days per week.
It would seem, therefore, that the railway workers were not asking for anything which was unusual or extraordinary.
We have been told in part by the railway association and by the newspapers that the railways cannot afford the increases which have been asked for. We have been told by leaders of the railways that the cost would be in terms of millions of dollars. Their estimate was well over $100 million. But we have seen by now what the experience has been in the United States. Last year on the Illinois Central Railway, the five-day forty-hour week was instituted. The railroad said it would cost them $14 million in the next year. The year has expired and we now know that the cost has been in the neighbourhood of $500,000, as the company admits. The United States railway association said that the five-day forty-hour week would cost over one billion dollars to the railways. After a year's operation we have now seen that the earnings of the railways -that is, the combined railways as a whole- have increased by over $30 million while their operating expenses have dropped 5-7 per cent. These are practical illustrations which I think are worthy of rather more attention than is the theorizing of the railway association of this country.
As the hon. member for Cape Breton South pointed out, certain employees of the C.N.R. and the C.P.R. work in the United States today a five-day forty-hour week, with the seven cents increase in pay allotted to them last year. We have not yet been able to find out definitely what the financial result has been to the railways involved, but we know that the railways have been most unwilling to publish the figures concerning those particular workmen. AH we know is that the railways say that the increase which is asked for is going to cost too much, but they have never yet pleaded inability to pay; and in view of the figures which have been published in the Financial Post they cannot very well do so.
If we take the six-months' period ending June 30 this year and that ending June 30, 1949, we find that this year the C.P.R. had
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act a profit of $9,100,000 as against last year's figure for six months of $3 million; that is quite a substantial increase. The C.N.R. shows an even more phenomenal increase, to $16,500,000 this year as against $1 million last year. Much of these additional profits accrued, of course, from raises in the freight rates. But unquestionably, as I have said before in this house, when one considers the share that the worker gets out of industry and the share that the shareholder gets out of industry, we must remember that the shareholder only lends his money to the corporation whereas only too often the worker has to give his life. Therefore when it comes to assessing the just claims of either, undoubtedly the worker is in the preferred position.
In any event, the situation today is that the railways can afford the increase. When the bill reaches committee stage in the house, I shall be glad to know if the minister can enlighten us as to what the latest profit figures of the railways are.
One other argument advanced by the railways has been that if we give this increase in wages we shall have to increase freight rates and therefore the cost of living will be affected. That is an odd argument indeed when one considers the case put up by the railways before the royal commission on transportation. There the Canadian Pacific Railway Company was asking for an increase in freight rates, and concerning that increase it said:
Freight rates may have some effect on the movement of the cost of living index, but if it exists it was too small to show up in this test.
In other words, when the railways want an increase in freight rates, that is not going to affect appreciably the cost of living; but when the workers want an increase in wages, it is going to affect the cost of living. From that one can see an element of hypocrisy in the railways' position.
Mr. Donald Gordon has already been hauled over the coals today, and adequately, I think. But from my own experience in talking with railroad workers in my own city and here, I know it is true when it is said that Mr. Gordon has forfeited the confidence of organized labour in the C.N.R., and there is going to be difficulty in the future when it comes to negotiating an agreement with a man who has already threatened the unions, as he did in July. I think it was the hon. member for Cape Breton South again who said that organized workers were not going to take that sort of threat from anybody. They achieved their independence by their own efforts and they are not going to lose it by the threat of any one man. The same Mr. Gordon said in

Maintenance of Railway Operation Act 1946, when the steel strike was on, that an increase that the workers wanted would practically blow up our economy. He was wrong then, and I think it is possible that he is wrong today.
I noticed in the Globe and Mail this morning, a paper which I read partly tor the vituperation which it exercises against the workers, that it says that the ballot which was used by the union corresponds almost to the police state, to dictatorship, to totalitarianism, because the worker has to put his name on that ballot. That is another of those cases where the worker can never win, no matter what he does. The name is put on that ballot and sent in, and only the general chairman ever sees the ballot. But on the other hand there is the danger that if these ballots were not most carefully checked in this way, and in secrecy, the union could be accused of stuffing the ballot box. It is one of those examples which indicate that -the worker cannot win.
Now we have the government's only solution to the impasse in which we find ourselves, a solution which is not acceptable, I would gather, to anyone on this side of the house, and one which will not be acceptable to the unions concerned, even although they obey the law and go back to work, as I am certain they will. The details have been dealt with adequately. The government is going to see, perhaps, that the workers get their four cents an hour increase. All matters in dispute-and that may mean everything- shall be settled, if they are not settled beforehand, by arbitration and compulsion. The workers will get a forty-hour week some time, but nobody knows when. Nothing is said about the check-off. I do not know whether this is a typical example of Liberal policy. I had always been led to believe that the Liberal party was for the underdog; but in this case all that he has been given is a bone, and a bone is not quite good enough. This bill does not give justice. It is stacked against the worker. The dice indeed are loaded against him. I believe the bill is unjust and unfair, and I am going to vote against it.


Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I feel that in this present debate, during this special session, my voice should not remain silent. The present situation imposed upon Canada by the failure of negotiations to settle the strike problem has brought some considerable concern and some hardship to the people of the constituency which I have the honour to represent. The wheat farmers of my constituency are now commencing the harvesting of their grain. If the railroads are not on the move within a short time, the farmers will be compelled to thresh their


grain, to dump it on the ground and to trust that the action of the elements will not be serious enough to destroy it. Besides that, I represent a considerable coal-mining constituency. By reason of the strike, the coal mines have ceased operation and many coal miners are not at work. I also have two small divisional points in my constituency. Therefore I say, Mr. Speaker, it is imperative that this matter be settled one way or another in a short time.
I wish to compliment the leader of this party on the speech which he made a little while ago, in which he placed considerable responsibility upon the present administration for the policies of the past which aggravated the economic conditions of this country, and thus brought on this situation which we all agree is a national emergency. I do feel that when laws are passed by this parliament it is the duty and responsibility of government to see that those laws function smoothly. I felt that this matter now before us was a government responsibility and that there should have been no need for the calling of a special session at this time to deal with it.
The very moment that I returned to my constituency, after spending just a couple of weeks at the coast, the newspaper came out with headlines that parliament was to be called. I understand that my name was mentioned in press reports and radio reports as one of the members who could not be found. I should like to say that the lost has been found, and that I was here pronto for the opening of parliament. That is neither here nor there. But when I picked up the paper and read that parliament was to be summoned within a few days and that members were urged to fly, and that the responsibility of getting us here was placed upon the shoulders of certain officials, I could not help feeling that the responsible government of the day had failed somewhere. My reaction at the time was that there should be another strike. I thought that perhaps members of parliament should go on strike and refuse to come here and simply say: "It is a government responsibility. They have permitted the country to get in such an economic state that a strike has been called". However, members of parliament usually do not go on strike. We obeyed the summons and are here to deal with this matter.
As the leader of this group has said, we are in favour of the principle of the bill. I want to emphasize that he said "the principle of the bill". I personally cannot quite agree with the amendment that has been proposed by the leader of toe Conservative party. The amendment proposes that the railways be placed under an ad ministrator. For the life of me

I cannot see that an administrator placed over the two railroads is going to administer them any better than the two railway administrations can administer them. If either the leader of the Conservative party or the spokesman of the C.C.F., who are in favour of the amendment, can tell me how an administrator can administer them in any better fashion than they are presently administered, and while negotiations are taking place, I would be quite happy to vote for the amendment. But I cannot see that that can be done.
The strike is not against the administration or the manner in which the railways are administered. The strike is for certain changes in their labour agreements; and an administrator would have no power whatsoever to interfere with the labour agreements as they now stand, or as the labour unions want them to be. Therefore the amendment itself is entirely meaningless.
While we all believe in free collective bargaining, that does not solve the present problem, because they could continue in their present dilemma. Besides that, either the union or the railways through their spokesmen could continue the present stalemate almost indefinitely. If the original amendment as proposed by the Conservatives passes, that stalemate could continue with the workers working without any increase whatsoever, without any solution in sight, and the stalemate continue indefinitely. I cannot see that there is any particular advantage in the amendment.
I do not want to be unkind to any individual. I recognize that Mr. Gordon has been perhaps a valuable man to this country in days gone by. But it appears to me that if Mr. Gordon were to continue to be the spokesman for the railways under the terms of the amendment, with an administrator running them, the matter would be left in the condition of a stalemate. I do not know if the newspaper reports that Mr. Gordon walked out of the conference were true, and by that virtually sabotaged the negotiations that were going on. If he did, then it is unfortunate because solutions in conferences cannot be made by walkouts. We know of walkouts in much larger conferences that have been held, but we have always assumed that this type of strategy to sabotage was the tactic of Russian dictators. I am not intending there to speak unkindly of any individual. Mr. Gordon has done a good job, and perhaps is a good man for certain jobs. It may be wisdom, after this legislation is passed, for the railways to have someone else carry on their negotiations for them.
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act
I should like now to say just a word about the subamendment. It corrects very largely the objectionable features I see in the amendment; but I think it would have been wisdom for the C.C.F. to have moved the subamendment if possible after disposing of the amendment.	.
While I say the subamendment corrects largely the objectionable features in the amendment, it would still be necessary to have an administrator. Who would that administrator be? I do not suppose it would be the man I have in mind, but it is not beyond the realm of possibility that the government might even ask Mr. Gordon to act as administrator. I am certain my C.C.F. friends would not be agreeable to that. While he might be a very good choice as administrator, perhaps as a negotiator he would not be so good.
May I now deal with what has been described by hon. members as the compulsory effect of the proposed legislation. I listened with a good deal of interest to the speech .delivered by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll), who is usually most reasonable and practical in the speeches he delivers in the house. In addition to that, he was at one time minister of labour in Ontario, and therefore speaks with some degree of knowledge and experience. I agree with what he said about the forty-hour week, and for the sake of time I shall not repeat those observations. In respect of any compulsory features one might find in the proposed legislation, may I point out that we in the Social Credit party have well established the fact that we are a party absolutely opposed to compulsion. The Social Credit philosophy is built basically upon the freedom of the individual, the freedom of society and the freedom of the effective functioning of democracy.
I do not believe anyone in the house or country will gainsay my statement in this connection. We have always been opposed to compulsion. Under a Social Credit system there would be no need for compulsion; but we are not living under that system. Ever since some of us have been in the house, over the last fifteen years, we have had to support measures designed to function under the present financial and economic system, and have consequently agreed to a certain measure of compulsion. We have not given that support because we wanted to but because, although it was against our principles, it seemed to be the best thing to do at the time and under the circumstances.
There are many compulsory features in legislation now on the statute books affecting other industries in this country. Let us for
54	HOUSE OF
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act a moment consider agriculture. An institution known as the wheat board has been set up, and that organization sets the price the farmer is to receive for his grain. Then there are other compulsory features in connection with the wheat board.
The present dispute is one as to the price labour is to receive for the contribution it makes to the economy of the country. There is no difference in principle in the demands of labour to sell their work at a price and the demands of farmers to sell their production at a price. However, the farmer has nothing to say about the price he shall receive for his labour and production. The wheat board sets the price; the farmer takes it, and likes it. He has got to like it. Moreover, the wheat board states when wheat is to be delivered, and pays the farmer when it wants to pay him, at stated periods-not when the farmer wants to be paid. There is an element of compulsion there. Of course there is no strike in connection with it, and we let it go by and do not regard this compulsion in a serious manner. This applies to other industries as well.
I am not opposed to strikes. I represent a large proportion of labour, and I know that as a final resort it is the only weapon they have. Not for one moment would I want to take away from them the privilege of striking -and my leader whispers to me that when I say that I speak for this group. May I point out too that, in the result, a strike is in itself compulsion. The very basic element of a strike is that of compulsion.
The only occasions on which we have ever given any consent whatsoever to the principle of compulsion have been in times of national emergency. I believe we are all agreed that at this time we are in a state of national emergency.
While I have been discussing the principle of compulsion during the last few moments, may I now attempt perhaps to destroy my own argument as I proceed to deal specifically with the bill. I cannot see a great deal of compulsion in it. In my view perhaps the government has very cleverly manoeuvred the bill so as to stay away as far as possible from any compulsory features.
The hon. member for Spadina has mentioned the compulsory feature in section 5.
I am not dealing specifically with that section now because that would have to be done during the committee stage, but I should like to read part of the section to show that there is really nothing that even savours of compulsion. The section reads:
If within fifteen days after the commencement of this act, or such longer period as may be fixed by the governor in council at the joint request of a


railway company and a union, agreement has not been reached between them either as to the terms of a collective agreement-
That leaves the way open to continue negotiations for fifteen days and then if either party comes to the government and says, "We want more time," the government can say, "If you are making progress, go ahead and settle it." If they return and say they still want more time, they can have all the time they need to settle it without there being any compulsory feature whatsoever.
There is another side to the picture. Either side to the dispute, either labour or management, is given the opportunity to force the appointment of an arbitrator. A stalemate may last for fifteen days and either one or other of the parties may refuse the choice of arbitrator that is named and force the government to name an arbitrator. There may be compulsory principles considered to be in the bill, but I cannot see them.
This morning the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) brought out the point that while there were no penalties in what he considered to be the compulsory part of the bill, in reality penalties were attached to the bill by reason of section 164 of the Criminal Code. One element of effective law is the necessity of imposing penalties. Most hon. members know that in private life I am a clergyman. I am one of those clergymen who believe in hell fire, and I preach it. Sometimes I like to warn people lest they go there, and on certain occasions I feel like telling people to go there. I never have told anyone to go there, but sometimes I feel like telling the government to go there.
Supposing I should get up on a Sunday morning and preach a sermon and tried to be so effective that the congregation would smell the brimstone? Suppose in conclusion I said, "It is all right, I have preached this hell fire but you do not have to worry because nobody is going there anyway." What sort of a preacher would I be if I did that? There would be no sense in that sermon.


Mr. Lapointe:: No cents in the collection.


Ernest George Hansell: That is perhaps one of the cleverest retorts I have heard in this house for a long time-there would be no cents in the collection. Certainly if a preacher preached like that he would not deserve to have any dollars on the plate.
I think my group would be in favour of our being sure that there are no compulsory elements in this bill and the penalties described by the leader of the opposition in section 164 of the Criminal Code could well be done away with. When the proper time

comes we will be ready to propose an amendment that a clause be added providing that section 164 of the Criminal Code shall not apply to this measure. I do not suppose for one moment that in drafting this bill the government had any idea of invoking section 164 of the Criminal Code. I believe that the government felt that this was the way out, that the arbitrator would arbitrate and arrive at a decision which would be fair and that the present national emergency would be solved.
I believe that some limit should be provided in section 5 with regard to the duration of the period of time any agreements decided by the arbitrator would operate. I do not think I can add much more. We are against compulsory bargaining. We are one hundred per cent for the principle of free collective bargaining. We do not believe that the present bill interferes with that principle.
One feature of the bill is that it deals only with this special emergency. If there were a war on, such as we experienced a few years ago, I feel sure we would be ready to support a measure of conscription such as was brought down in the last war. That would be compulsion in a national emergency. I repeat that I cannot see any compulsory features about this legislation. Another point I should like to make is that the present bill does not apply to our labour legislation; it is applicable only to the present state of emergency. It will not affect any labour relations or legislation of the future.
(Translation):


Mr. P. L. Dube (Resligouche-Madawaska):: Mr. Speaker, this is the first time since my election that I have had the honour and pleasure to say a few words in this house. If this opportunity is given to me today, I owe it to the electors of the constituency of Restigouche-Madawaska who afforded me this advantage by choosing me as their representative on October 24, 1949.
I am glad to take part in this debate because it gives me the opportunity to thank very heartily my fellow workers of the Canadian National Railways for the fine spirit they have shown since the beginning of this strike which has so sorely tried the two railway systems of Canada since the 22nd of this month. It is distressing to realize that the president of the Canadian National Railways has not deemed fit to accept the request made by the labour unions of both companies because I am convinced that it was justified.
In order to show the hon. members of this house that the leaders of the labour unions
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act asked only fair treatment for their members, may I be permitted to give a statement of the wages paid to the employees:
Mechanics	
$1.22	an	hourMechanics' Helpers	99	"	"Steamfitters	
1.22	"	"Steamfitters' Helpers	99	"	"Coach Cleaners	87	"	"Backshop Workers	
1.15	"	"Backshop Workers' Helpers	87	"	"Telegraph Operators	
1.00	"	"Sectionmen	86	"	"Sectionmen-after 309 days	88	"	"Sectionmen-after 3 years	90	"	"Bridgemen	81	"	"Track Repairmen (10 hours a day) .63 "	"
When an employee works only eight hours a day and pays $1.25 a day for board his wages are not excessive when the high cost of living is taken into consideration.
Would you like to know how people live in those coaches standing on the tracks? Go into these miserable hovels and see for yourself how twelve people manage to sleep in a coach 36 feet long by 8 feet wide. It is most unfortunate that human beings should have to live in such conditions.
While I am on this subject, I wish to bring to the attention of the house the fact that the public at large is of the opinion that another group of workers has been well treated. Indeed they are, but they work an average of 40 to 50 days per month. If we take into consideration the responsibilities entrusted various categories of workers, we must agree that their hourly rate of pay is not very high. I quote:
Engineers	
$1.34	per	hourFiremen	
$1.10	per	hourTrain conductors .... $1.14	per	hourBrakemen	
$1.06	per	hour
According to figures published in the Labour Gazette in October 1949, the index of the average wages paid to railway employees in 1949 was 170-2 per cent, while that of the average wages paid to workers in the detailed list pertaining to industry was 195-8 per cent. Wages paid railway employees were thus 25 points below that average, 35 points below industrial wages and 74 points below the highest wages paid in Canada.
According to statistics prepared since the freight rate increase, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company had chalked up a net revenue, in April of this year, as compared to net receipts for the corresponding month last

Maintenance of Railway Operation Act year, of 103-5 per cent. In May revenues had risen to 130 [DOT] 4 per cent and in June, they reached 206 per cent. The Canadian National's net revenue for the month of June, 1950, stood at $16,494,000 compared to $950,000 for the same period last year.
It is dismaying to see that railway employees cannot get wages comparable to those paid workers in other Canadian industries.
I would also like to point out that some railway employees now retired receive a pension of only $30- per month. Such a pension most certainly is out of all proportion to the present cost of living.
In conclusion, I wish to state that I will unreservedly support the bill introduced by the government. I will do so because, after having studied the amendment to the amendment, I am afraid that the appointment of a controller at the head of our two railway systems, instead of an arbitrator, might be followed in the near future by the amalgamation of our railways.
(Text):


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assinihoia):: Mr. Speaker, as other members who have taken part previously in this debate have emphasized, this is indeed a most urgent situation affecting all sections of the people of this nation. It certainly is urgent to the farmers of western Canada as I know it is to agriculture from one end of the nation to the other. It is not only necessary that we have the transportation system operating in order to move our grain and livestock products but it is even more urgent in order that we may have supplies of gasoline and repair parts in order to take off the present harvest. I believe the farmers feel that the stoppage in railway operations should come to a halt immediately. Not only that, they feel that adequate steps should be taken so that such a situation will not come to pass at any time in the future.
I might say that some people in Canada felt that, after the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) had announced the calling of parliament immediately, parliament would have been called within forty-eight hours. Apparently even the T.C.A. official who talked to me thought so. He assured me that parliament was opening last Wednesday and that other members were making reservations. Therefore I made a reservation for Tuesday night and arrived here last Wednesday. While the railway strike is very urgent so far as the average farmer is concerned, it was even more urgent in my case because I left what I hope will prove to be a reasonably good crop.
_ I am speaking at this time partly because it has been reported in various newspapers


from time to time within the last few days that there was a -clear division in the C.C.F. party, that there were members of the party representing farming constituencies who believed that the position of the railroad unions was unreasonable. I wish to deal with that contention in a few words.
It seems to me one of the basic causes of the strike is the fact that the government removed price controls in what I would call a disorderly rush. The cost of living of the workers is going up almost every day, and they feel that in order to protect the standard of living of themselves and their families something has to be done. But as far as the present inflationary situation is concerned, it affects farmers in exactly the same way. Their costs of production are going up almost daily, while the prices of a great many of our primary products are falling.
The farmers know that our railway system is very important and must be kept in operation at all times. But they also know that every time the railways go to the board of transport commissioners asking for an increase in freight rates, they are given an increase, and in a discriminatory manner. The railways obtain everything they ask from the board of transport commissioners. The workers see railway profits increasing rapidly, while their own standard of living is going down. As a result they believe action must be taken if they are to feed and clothe and house their families properly. For instance, in April of 1950 the net revenue of the C.P.R. showed an increase of 103 per cent as compared with the same month in 1949. The increase in May was 130 per cent, and in June 206 per cent. The Canadian National net to June, 1950, was $60,500,000, as compared to $950,000 for the same period last year. The truth is that the railways have never been in a better position to pay the workers reasonable wages. As has been pointed out already, the people now on strike are the lower paid groups employed by the railways, whose wages are a good deal lower than those paid in other comparable industries.
I believe that the position of the farmers and the position of the workers across this country are identical at this time. I do not think legislation which is fair to one is necessarily unfair to the other. The Saskatchewan farmers' union has circulated a letter signed by its president, J. L. Phelps, setting forth the position of that organization with respect to the present railway strike, from which I should like to read one paragraph:
We feel the present situation has developed because proper policies were not adopted to provide the necessary stability. We believe that bold and decisive action must be taken by our government immediately. The Saskatchewan farmers' union

therefore urge, in the strongest possible terms, your immediate consideration for submitting a plan to the members of the House of Commons now summoned for a special session in order to lay before them a proposal to establish immediately a price stabilization commission, upon which industry, labour and farmers will be adequately and proportionately represented. The duty of this price stabilization commission would be to proceed at once to fix the prices of manufactured goods, wages, hours, rents, profits and the price of primary products, including those of agriculture used for Canadian consumption, in fair relationship one to the other, and that this price stabilization commission be further charged with the responsibility of revising, from time to time, prices for the purpose of eliminating any inequalities as well gs making the necessary adjustments resulting from technological changes.
I agree with the sentiments expressed in that paragraph. If we are to have industrial peace, if the farmers of Canada are to continue all-out production, then each must receive a fair return. But of course there must be some control; otherwise strikes will continue, and there will be unrest in agriculture.
I find that I cannot support the bill the government has presented to parliament. As I .see it that bill contains two main points. First, the workers on the railways are ordered back; then compulsory arbitration is provided. I believe that at this time the workers must be ordered back, but I disagree with the provisions of the bill concerning compulsory arbitration. As an alternative to this bill we have moved an amendment to the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew). By that amendment the workers would not be given everything for which they have asked; they would be merely guaranteed the concessions offered by the railroads pending free negotiation. I believe the workers would accept such a proposition and go back to work with good spirit, to operate the railways efficiently as they have in the past. The other matters would be left to negotiation.
I do hope, Mr. Speaker, this parliament will do nothing at this time to take away any of the hard-won freedom now enjoyed by the workers, the producers, or any other group in the nation. I believe the members of this house would be well advised to support the C.C.F. alternative.


Mr. C. E. Johnston (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say just a word before the vote is taken. It is not my intention to hold up the house unnecessarily, but I think I should have something to say on this subject. In the first place, in my view the responsibility of necessity must lie with the government. It seems to me that if the government had fully realized the seriousness of the situation they would have acted a long time before they did. I believe it is the consensus of opinion
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act that the railways must be put back into operation immediately, so that the entire economy of Canada may not be dislocated. There is no doubt that practically every portion of that economy is feeling the effects of this strike, this tie-up of the railways. I hesitate to use the words "by this strike" because some might take it that I am against the strike. Let me make it abundantly clear, Mr. Speaker, that I believe labour should have the right to strike; that is the only weapon labour has against industry. For that reason alone I maintain that the power to strike should never be taken away from the unions. But there is great economic difficulty facing all classes of the Canadian people. This has been referred to before but I believe it is worth repeating.
Agriculture, particularly in the west, will be seriously affected by this tie-up. The time is coming, in fact it is at hand, when the crops must be harvested. If there is a shortage of gasoline for power it might result in the destruction of many bushels of wheat. Then again there are not the storage facilities on the farms to take care of the forthcoming crop; that is one phase of the difficulties which face us. There are other phases which apply to almost every part of our economy one could mention. Many people are suffering from unemployment because of this strike. The railways are just as much to blame as are the unions.
At this particular time, Mr. Speaker, I should mention one of the transportation systems which is doing a worth-while job, and that is the trucking industry. On several other occasions I have spoken in this house about the trucking industry, pointing out the necessity of having a healthy trucking organization to take care of transportation problems. I think it would be well for the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) to note on this occasion the outstanding part the trucking industry is playing in conveying necessary goods, and particularly those goods necessary to our defence forces so that those boys who have offered their lives in the defence of this country can be properly trained. The trucking industry is also playing an outstanding part in delivering drugs to all parts of Canada where they are needed. I believe the trucking industry as a whole should be commended for the worth-while part they are playing in the economy of this country.
I said a moment ago that the unions and the men involved cannot be expected to carry the full responsibility for the consequences of this strike, and one has only to recall that the government itself is responsible in large measure for having permitted the cost of living to rise to such heights. When we

Maintenance of Railway Operation Act found freight rates going up there was no concerted effort on the part of the government to see that prices were maintained at a level which would not unduly affect the economy of the country. When one finds that the cost of living is rising on every hand, not because of anything done by the ordinary workingman, then one must expect there is going to be economic dislocation. The men who are suffering because of this increased cost of living will have to do something to counteract it, and the only thing that labour can do under those circumstances is to ask for an increase in pay. These members of the non-operating unions who are now asking for increased wages are the people who were suffering because they did not have sufficient income to meet rising costs. The railway unions are not the only ones affected by these rising costs. Every workingman in Canada is affected by them, yet the government sits idly by and does nothing to help these people provide a decent standard of living for their families. Since that is the direct responsibility of the government, then the government must take by far the greatest share of the blame. Let us not condemn these people who are taking part in the strike as the ones who are causing the increases in costs.
May I say just a word, Mr. Speaker, about the new president of the Canadian National Railways, Mr. Donald Gordon. In my view Mr. Gordon is a very capable executive. He served as chairman of the prices board during the war. In that position he was-I was going to say he was practically a dictator. In that capacity he did a fairly good job. As one of the members just indicated, he learned some bad habits in that position. I am not so sure, Mr. Speaker, that the government would not be well advised, in any further negotiations between the railways and the unions, to substitute someone else for Mr. Gordon. I believe it is quite clear that the unions are not prepared to conduct further negotiations with Mr. Gordon as head of the railway company. I am not speaking disparagingly at all of Mr. Gordon, but I believe it would help negotiations if the government could appoint someone else as negotiator.
I should like to refer to the bill for just a moment, and then to the amendment and subamendment. The leader of this party has stated that, in general, we would accept the bill. He certainly never indicated he would accept all the clauses. It will be necessary, as discussion of the bill progresses, to make certain amendments here and there to the various sections of the bill. I wish to say a word about the amendment. In my judgment


the amendment does not solve the problem at all. Let me read it to you:
That Bill No. 1 be not now read the second time but that in the opinion of this house consideration should be given to a measure which would provide for the appointment of a national administrator to ensure immediate operation of the railways pending final solution of the dispute by the free process of collective bargaining.
This amendment provides for two things. First, it provides that there shall be a national administrator. May I say, Mr. Speaker, that there are some of the local unions across Canada that are not in favour of a national administrator. I do not say that applies to the heads of the unions, but there are some of the local unions throughout this country that are not in favour of a national administrator. The other objection I have to the amendment is that there is no finality to it. True, a national administrator would be appointed, but there is no provision that agreement shall be arrived at by a certain time. In effect it means that if a national administrator is appointed the unions will be forced to continue under their present agreement without any increase in pay, and that negotiations could be continued for the next ten years. It offers no solution.
When this bill was introduced it was the unanimous opinion of the house that the railways should be put into operation immediately and negotiations reopened, with some hope that there would be a finality to those negotiations. I want to make it clear once more that this party is entirely in accord with collective bargaining. If we can accept the Prime Minister's word, and I think we can, as being sincere when he said during the introduction of this bill that this would not be a precedent but was only to apply to this emergency, then I think we could not say in the strict sense of the term-and I use that word advisedly-that it is compulsory legislation; because without doubt I am against compulsory legislation.
If I may just refer to the subamendment for a moment, I would say this, Mr. Speaker. I think that the subamendment is put in in the wrong place. I do not see how it can very well fit in with the amendment, because the amendment calls for an administrator, not an arbitrator; and under the subamendment you are making the administrator in effect an arbitrator, something which was not intended, I take it, by the mover of the amendment in the Conservative party. I cannot say that I am in any disagreement with any of the points which are indicated in the subamendment other than the last one, and that may have been an oversight. Let me read the last one for you: "the check-off of

trade union dues." I think the intention of the mover of the subamendment was a voluntary check-off. If that is so, then I could agree with that. But if it is a compulsory check-off I could not agree with it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is one of the points asked for by two of the unions.


Charles Edward Johnston: May I ask if it is a compulsory or a voluntary check-off?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Voluntary.


Charles Edward Johnston: If it is voluntary, I think it should be so indicated in the subamendment. But if this subamendment had been applied to section 5 of the bill then personally I would have no objection to it; and I think the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) would be well advised to say to the house that the conditions outlined in the subamendment would be acceptable if they were applied to section 5 of the bill. I believe that probably the mover of the subamendment would agree to withdraw that subamendment now if the Prime Minister would assure him that those conditions would be taken care of in the bill.
Again let me say, Mr. Speaker, without delaying the house too long, that there are two things that I am definitely opposed to. One is the outlawing of the strike. I think that would be entirely wrong, as it is the only effective weapon that labour has. The second thing that I think would be entirely wrong is compulsory arbitration. I do not think that the bill itself endorses compulsory arbitration. It is true that it does provide for an arbitrator. But under the terms of section 5, they have fifteen days. If they cannot come to a decision in those fifteen days, then they can appeal to the governor in council and get an extension of time. I therefore think the bill provides for ample time for an arbitration to come about, and I think that would be the result. But the leader of this party, when he was speaking, indicated to you, Mr. Speaker, that even though Bill No. 1 will be passed, it will not be a solution to our problem. It will not be a solution to our economic problem, to the strike problem or to any of those problems which will arise between labour and management in any industry. It seems to me that we should be occupying ourselves on this occasion with legislation which would tend to do away with the necessity of strikes in the future. We must devise some means of raising the standard of living of the people of this country instead of having costs continually rise, because that will not settle the matter. I do not intend to delve into that
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act problem because the leader of this party has indicated to you that, when the appropriate time comes, he will once again point out the proper method for the solution of such problems. May I say once again, Mr. Speaker, that this party will always take that view Which they think is conducive to the welfare of the people of Canada.


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, the reason we are here today is to find some vehicle or method by which to get the railways back into operation and certainly not for the purpose of writing a union agreement. I think that we should all bear that fact in mind and keep that as our aim so long as these discussions continue here in this house. However, that point has been overlooked to a considerable degree, and the discussion has gone at some length into the matter of the clauses which should appear in an agreement. I therefore found that I was in a position calling for a statement of my stand in this case. If the discussion had not gone so far afield I would not have risen. Certainly I had not intended to rise and had not prepared a speech for this occasion. I have, however, made some few notes, and I will refer to them, although they may not be in order and my speech may be somewhat rambling, as some of the previous ones have been.
I say that we did not come here to write an agreement or to make an agreement because I know that the railway men whom we represent-and there are railway men in a great many constituencies-do not want us or expect us to write an agreement. They wish us, as early as possible, to find some method by which the wheels may again begin to turn. I attended a meeting of striking employees and requested certain information regarding rates of pay, et cetera. I knew that their rates of pay were, in most cases, out of line with those in other industries, particularly the industries in the area in which I live. However, I asked for that certain information and they were reluctant to give it to me as one who was going to discuss their affairs. Their reason was not that they felt that their rates did compare favourably with the rates in other industries but rather that they did not wish to have the discussion brought to the floor of the house. They were afraid, as many others have been, that a discussion of the kind would be carried on in the house to such an extent that action would be delayed providing for their return to work.
I mentioned the comparative rates of pay, and I wish to refer to them further. It is not true that the railway workers are a highly paid class. That is a fallacy that has been

Maintenance of Railway Operation Act perpetuated, possibly, I believe, because the running trades receive large pay cheques quite regularly. But that is so not because of their high rates of pay but because of the long hours which they spend on the road. Their rates of pay do not compare, as a basic rate, with anything in industry; that is, they may compare but certainly not too favourably with the logging and mining industry. They are somewhat below. That is a fallacy that will have to be remembered by the members of this house; because I understand the negotiations are coming up in the near future for that particular group of employees. In my opinion the rates of pay of the striking employees are below the average of all industries in Canada. I feel that their case is perfectly justified; and certainly I am prepared to back their demands in every way possible. But, as I said before, it was not our responsibility in this house.
The responsibility for calling a strike is a very grave one. I recognize the strain that the heads of these large unions were under, and the responsibility which they shared at the time they had to call this strike. I am sure they did it because they felt they were acting in the best interests of those whom they represent, and because they had obtained a very large majority, somewhere in the neighbourhood of 97 per cent, in favour of such action, a circumstance which could not be ignored.
It has been said that the method of taking the ballot was undemocratic. I do not agree with that statement. Because the membership extended from coast to coast it would have been very difficult to supervise a strike ballot unless there was some identification of who was marking his "x" on the ballot. It was pointed out to me at the meeting of the strikers that no one in that particular area knew how anyone voted, and the ballot was not taken in that way for that purpose. It was not taken in that way for the purpose of influencing the outcome of the ballot. However, I might say that if the ballot had been absolutely secret, in view of the fact that 97 per cent of the workers voted in this way, there is no doubt that a sufficiently large majority would have been obtained to warrant calling the strike.
There is another matter, namely, the matter of negotiation on the part of the companies, to which I should like to refer. I have said also that improvements could be made in the way the negotiations were handled. However, the companies are responsible for choosing their negotiator. It is no business of the unions whom the companies choose. It is the companies' responsibility. If they do not choose one who they feel is a good negotiator, then it is the companies' loss.

Good negotiators are picked not for the purpose of giving something to the union. Good negotiators are picked for the purpose of maintaining the best interests of the companies. I have not heard of any statement by the union negotiators that the company negotiator should be changed or that they did not wish to negotiate further with him.
Let me return to the bill itself. Although certain officials of the union may not agree with me, I believe that the employees in my particular area are very anxious that this thing be settled, or at least that they get back to work and that negotiations be resumed. That was my impression while attending their meeting. Certainly they did not indicate that they wished to go back to work without any assurance of improvement, but they feel that they should get back to work at the earliest possible moment and that negotiations should be resumed as soon as possible. Therefore I am prepared to support the bill introduced by the government, with some reluctance, however, regarding section 5. The fact that the railway unions are allowed to go on strike, to use that very strong economic weapon, is some reassurance. To shut the railways down for a week is to use a very grave economic weapon, and it is still maintained. Once this dispute is settled this bill will be no longer effective. Should the unions desire to negotiate another year, and if we were to take the stand that the unions could not go on strike again, we would have to call parliament and possibly go through the same procedure-the Lord forbid, I may say. But there is the possibility; and certainly parliament could not be called any earlier than it has been on this occasion. Therefore the workers would still have their right to the economic weapon that they enjoy at the present time.
In the words of the Prime Minister, the amendment introduced by the leader of the opposition is not worthy of consideration. Because the subamendment is tied to it, it is also unworthy of consideration. The unions do not want the government to negotiate an agreement. I am sure that is a factual statement. To introduce new clauses in dispute now would be indeed unfair. The one particular clause that I have in mind, which has been introduced by the C.C.F. party, is the matter of check-off of union dues.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not at all; it has been there for fourteen months.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I have said in this house and I am still prepared to say that should I be requested by any union to sponsor a bill calling for the check-off of union dues I should be pleased to do so. However, since this parliament voted with a very large majority in opposition to the voluntary

revocable check-off less than two and a half months ago, I feel it is unfair at this very crucial moment, when the railways are on strike and when we are in an emergency, to introduce a question which had been defeated by more than a two-thirds majority in this house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the hon. member permit a question?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Certainly. That is no solution
nor would it bring this matter to a successful conclusion. I heartily support the bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before the hon. member
takes his seat may I ask a question?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has
resumed his seat. Apparently he does not wish to answer the question at this time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thought he said yes, Mr. Speaker.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of ihe Opposition!: Mr. Speaker, I wish to deal for a moment with the amendment to the amendment. I want to say this before referring to it. Earlier this afternoon we heard from the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) as clear and sound an exposition of the basic principles under consideration as I have heard for some time. This is not the first time that we have sat on opposite sides of legislative bodies. He has been consistent in his views. At the same time I think he will recall that this is not the first time I have had the responsibility of considering the question of free collective bargaining, and at all times I have attached considerable importance to recognition of that principle as being basic to good labour-management relations.
I appreciate the motive which has prompted the subamendment, but I would point out that the subamendment in itself seeks to deal with certain things that are now the subject of free collective bargaining. While on one occasion it might be desirable to seek legislative support for a position regarded as desirable, on another, as in the case of the bill itself, a principle might be established which would work in a way that would not be intended.
Over the years there has been free collective bargaining between the representatives of management and the workers in our great railway organizations. It is highly desirable that the principle of free collective bargaining be retained. One of the Objections I expressed with respect to section 5 of the bill is that
30, 1950	61
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act it does impose restrictions and grant powers which are in opposition to that basic principle.
May I deal briefly with one other matter? Whether or not it was intended to be taken seriously, more than one speaker has injected the suggestion that the appointment of an administrator would be a way of taking some steps toward amalgamation. I can answer that wholly specious argument only by pointing out that this government have followed that very practice without at any time anyone suggesting that they had such a purpose in mind with relation to the industries with which they were dealing.
For the reasons I have given, not because of the intentions or the merits, but because of the principle involved, I feel compelled to oppose the subamendment.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) and to the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne) may I say to the house that the subamendment does not attempt to write an agreement. The check-off, to which my hon. friend-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Major James William Coldwell: I had not spoken to the subamendment.


Mr. Speaker:: That is right. The hon. member may proceed.


Major James William Coldwell: The check-off, to which the hon. member for Kootenay East objected, has been asked for by at least two of the unions negotiating. We have attempted to amend the amendment because it asks the men to return to work without the quid pro quo to which they are entitled.
Parliament has assembled to consider this matter, and if we ask-indeed, if we command-the union men to go back to work, then at the same time we have the right to set forth the minimum upon which they should return.
The bill is defective in our opinion on the grounds I set out earlier today, because while in section 3 it does say-
-the terms of each collective agreement to which this act applies are provisionally amended forthwith by increasing by four cents per hour each rate of wages established by or pursuant to the agreement-
-it does not carry out the intention set out in the preamble, which is as much, may I tell my hon. friend, if he votes for it, the writing of an agreement as if he votes for the subamendment. There is no excuse to be found for refusing to adopt the quid pro quo in our subamendment and then voting for the very inadequate protection given in the bill itself.

Maintenance of Railway Operation Act
As I say, because the bill does not carry out the intent of the preamble, to set a time in which the forty-hour week will come into effect, it is inadequate, and, as I said this morning, in some other particulars it is repugnant to us.
I wished, Mr. Speaker, to make that explanation: we are not writing an agreement; we are giving a quid pro quo to the men so that the railways may operate and be enabled to conduct their business in the ordinary way.


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


Mr. Smith (Calgary West):: I take it, Mr. Speaker, you are referring to the main question?


Mr. Speaker:: The question before the house is the motion for second reading of this bill.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I intend, sir, to detain you and the house for only a very few minutes.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Arthur Leroy Smith: The duck season in our country does not open until October 1. I say quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, that I am speaking with considerable difficulty and, I trust, with at least controlled emotion. I would refer first to the statement made by my leader in opening, that as far as either party to the dispute was concerned, with such restraint as we may be able to exercise, we should avoid saying anything which might lead to future controversy. But I must say

Maintenance of Railway Operation Act that I regret the attack that was made here upon Mr. Donald Gordon. I say that because I am unable to appreciate any attack of that sort on anyone who has no opportunity of answering. I add that I am utterly opposed to condemning anyone on such loose reports as we have of the negotiations which have taken place to date. It seems to me it is nothing but the old cry, "Crucify him," in so far as we have the facts here. I have no prejudices for or against Mr. Gordon. Perhaps if I had any they would be against him, because I am one of those persons who have been compelled to bear the terrific strain of listening to him sing. If we are to be influenced to comment in any way I want to say that Mr. Gordon may have abruptly terminated these negotiations. As to that none of us know, but I do know that the negotiating committee for the men refused the offer of our own Prime Minister for a thirty-day respite.
I should like to say that I am going to vote for this bill. I am adopting a strange course; at least, to me it is strange. I believe the speech of our leader. this morning was one of the most masterly speeches to which I have listened in this House of Commons. I agreed with every word of it. Now that the amendment which he proposed is gone-of course I supported it-I find myself in the position where the paramount issue is to get these wheels rolling as quickly as possible. I loathe and despise some of the provisions in this bill. To our shame let it be said that we have contributed nothing towards the permanent solution of our problems, but since the amendments are gone there is nothing left for me but to support the only way of getting these wheels moving. I am not in disagreement with the criticisms of this bill but I believe the situation is so fraught with danger that I could not forgive myself, even in the face of criticism by uninformed people, if by my vote I contributed in any way to retarding the operation of these railways.
It has not been suggested to me by anyone but I know full well that I could have found it convenient to be absent at this particular time. I conclude by saying that it is not a crime for one to vote against his party. I believe perhaps we have had an occasion today upon which more than a few of us might have done so. If that be a party crime, I am guilty. If it is not I stand here and say that, as an expedient to get these railways operating, I intend to vote for this bill because that is the only sure way of which I know to have these trains "operating by tomorrow or the following day. I am mindful of the fact that in the province from which I come six hundred oil wells are closed today, and nearly


all drilling operations are going to be closed owing to a lack of steel pipe. I know that with a crop ripening in the west there is not enough gasoline in the country, and certainly not in the province of Alberta, to harvest this crop. I know that if this grain is dumped on the ground the excess moisture we have in my province will cause it to sprout, and in no time it will start to rot. I am therefore forsaking a principle for which I have long fought, but I do that as an expedient and with a clear conscience that at least we will be sure our economy will continue to function.


Mr. J. A. Ross (Souris):: I shall only detain the house for a minute or two in order to make my position clear with respect to the forthcoming vote. In common with my colleague who has just resumed his seat, I listened to the most masterly discourse on any subject to which I have listened in over twelve sessions in this House of Commons during my leader's presentation this morning. I believe he proposed an excellent amendment. I am not satisfied with this bill as it is, nor am I satisfied with the actions of the government. Several ministers have indicated that they expected this strike to take place. If the government as a whole expected it and did not wish to take the proper steps themselves but wished to refer the matter to parliament, in my opinion parliament should have been assembled on the day the strike was to take place. I feel strongly about that, Mr. Speaker.
The vast majority of Canadian citizens are anxious to see this strike ended and to have our great transportation, systems functioning again. The people are also anxious to have some assurance that this situation shall not be repeated in the near future. The bill contains no provision to ensure that, so the people will be disappointed. I shall tell you why I am voting for the bill. It is due to the fact that I know something about the agricultural problems of this country. I can tell you that while all the citizens of Canada are suffering as a result of this strike, in the west we have one harvest a year and that is now taking place. In some parts of the prairies the grain is spoiling because of this strike. For ninety per cent of the people in the west this grain represents their living.
I have a comparison of my own which I should like to make. In 1942 I fought what I thought was a silly plebiscite. When the government of the day carried it I went out in my riding and did everything humanly possible to assist in obtaining the largest percentage of yes votes in any riding in Canada. That is the way I feel about this

matter. Since we have a tremendous government majority, elected under an outdated electoral system, and we have done all we can to improve this bill, although it is still not satisfactory to me I am going to be forced conscientiously to vote for it. In order to get this strike ended and the transportation system functioning, I shall vote for the measure. I hope I shall not be misunderstood in this matter, Mr. Speaker. I believe in the party system of government and a strong official opposition, but having done all we can to improve this measure I must take this stand at this time.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith), I shall not detain the house long.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I notice members on the Liberal side of the house cheer that statement. Let me remind hon. members on the other side of the house that it was their lack of a transportation policy and their runaway prices that got this country into the mess that it is in today.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Let me also remind hon. members opposite that they fiddled for fourteen months while the members of the trade unions were trying to negotiate an agreement with the railway companies and never lifted a finger to try to assist those negotiations. Let me remind hon. members opposite that even when they decided to call parliament, it took them about three days to formulate plans for getting the members here to Ottawa and it took them practically eight days before they got this house assembled.


Jean-François Pouliot: Don't point your finger at
anybody.


Joseph William Noseworthy: That took practically
eight days, and now they quibble about fifteen or twenty minutes.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I regret, Mr. Speaker,
that I cannot support the government bill. I regret that the alternatives that were proposed this afternoon were voted down in this house. The objections to the bill have already been set forth and to the principle involved, namely compulsory arbitration. This bill leaves the railway men who are today on strike completely at the mercy of the government-appointed arbitrator. It does give them a temporary four cents an hour. Beyond that, what hope is there that the 69262-5
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act railway companies which have refused to budge for fourteen months are going to make any concessions when they know that after fifteen days there will be a government-appointed arbitrator who will take over the situation? The men are left completely' at the mercy of that government-appointed arbitrator.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: A good government.


Joseph William Noseworthy: We are glad you think
so. If the conduct of the government-appointed president of the Canadian National Railways system during these negotiations is any indication of what the men may expect from a government-appointed arbitrator, then their strike is lost when this bill passes parliament. They will have lost everything for which they have been fighting for fourteen months, and everything for which they went on strike.
I most sincerely suggest that the government inform us now, before the vote on second reading is taken, whether or not they are prepared to amend clause 5 of that bill in a way which they know will be more acceptable to the men who are now on strike. Will they let us know, before this vote is taken, whether or not they are prepared to amend section 5, as I understand they have been requested to do since this bill became available last night? If the government is prepared to make those changes-and the government members and the cabinet ministers know what the required changes are- then we can support the bill. Otherwise we shall oppose it.


Mr. Rodney Adamson (York West):: Mr. Speaker, we came down here to do one thing, namely to get turning again the wheels of industry which are dependent upon the operation of the railways. I object as strenuously as does any other member of this house to compulsion of any sort in labour-management disputes or in anything that has to do with collective bargaining. There comes a time, however, when, under the democratic principle of the greatest good for the greatest number, we must decide whether, despite the principle involved, we are going to support a measure which will have the effect of starting industry again or are going to hold it up and by so doing compel-and I use the word "compel"-many thousands of others to lose their livelihood because of their dependence upon the railways. With that one principle in view, Mr. Speaker, I shall support this measure.


Mr. G. S. White (Hasiings-Pelerborough):: I shall take only one minute, Mr. Speaker. Like the other two or three members of this

Maintenance of Railway Operation Act party who have spoken, I wish to indicate that I will support the bill. As was stated by the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith), now that the amendments are out of the way, to the members of this house who wish to get the wheels turning again and the men back to work nothing remains to be done but to support the bill. My sole reason for supporting the bill is to return the economy of this country to its natural course as soon as possible. My vote will in no way indicate that I approve the methods adopted by the government or the idea of compulsory bargaining.


Mr. J. H. Ferguson (Simcoe North):: I am
going to vote against this bill, Mr. Speaker, because it is not necessary to pass this bill to put these railways into operation. I will not vote against one section of my constituency, because I am afraid the other sections would know that if I would stab one section in the back, I would also stab them in the back. The railroad men in my riding are part of the backbone of the Dominion of Canada. To take away their legal bargaining rights, as this government is doing today, is something that no man who is decent or honest can vote for. I will have the unanimous support of the farmers, the manufacturers and every man and woman in my riding, because where I come from they are fair and decent citizens.
Any person who will vote for this bill has not given due consideration to all sections of his riding. There are other methods that could be adopted to put the railways back into operation. There is a war on and men are giving their lives on the battlefield today. This is in keeping with the war effort of this government. They have to call parliament together. They have no thoughts of their own except ridiculous thoughts which lead to steam-roller and rubber-stamp methods. At the next election the people of this country will tell the Liberals what they think of them.


Mr. Speaker:: Before the Prime Minister speaks it is necessary for me to inform the house that if he speaks now he will close the debate.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I shall delay the house only a very few moments and I shall not attempt to discuss any of the points that have been raised, because I think there is an appreciation by all hon. members that it is important to proceed with the vote on this motion at the earliest possible moment. I do wish to say this, however, because of some of the remarks that have been made in the course of the debate.
I do not think it is necessary to make any amendment to this bill to ensure to the

workers that any arbitrator would not make an award that would be less favourable to them than the proposals that were in existence at the time the negotiations broke off on Saturday night. But we all appreciate that it will be desirable not only to have the men obey the law but also to have them go back to their jobs with a feeling of security that they are getting a fair deal. For that purpose the government will be prepared to have an amendment introduced at the committee stage to limit the field of determination to that which remained the gap between the parties when the negotiations were broken off, subject, of course, to any further narrowing that the parties may themselves have brought about by their further negotiations at the time an arbitrator is appointed.
That I am sure is what would be done by any arbitrator of the character that a responsible government would select to do the kind of difficult job that will have to be done, if unfortunately the parties cannot themselves complete their collective agreement, or themselves choose the arbitrator to decide such points of difference as may remain between them. In order that it may be quite clear however that nothing else could happen, the government will be prepared to have such an amendment made to section 5 of the bill when it is at the committee stage.
If it appears that hon. members feel there should be more than fifteen days-in the bill it is suggested that there should be a period of fifteen days during which negotiations should continue, and both parties by an application could get an extension-if there is a general feeling that there should be provided at once perhaps more than fifteen days the government will be prepared to have that point considered when the clause is under examination in committee.
I do not think I should say anything further at this time. After we get into the committee stage and section 5 is under consideration I will ask one of my colleagues to move an amendment which has been drafted.


George Alexander Drew: In view of the fact that this statement has been made at this point, will the Prime Minister read the amendment now?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: It would have to be with the unanimous consent of the house. It is not regular to refer to a clause in a bill on the motion for second reading.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, may I submit that if for the purpose of a discussion on second reading the Prime Minister or anyone else indicates that it is his intention to move an amendment which would affect the minds of

hon. members, I think hon. members should know what that amendment is to be. That does not involve the discussion of a section of the bill; it does inform the house on what they will be asked to consider when the amendment is introduced.


Mr. Fraser:: That is only fair.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I have said what the substance of the amendment will be. I have it here. As His Honour has said, it would require the unanimous consent of the house for me to state its terms. If that is the desire of hon. members I can read it.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the Prime Minister the unanimous consent of the house to read it?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It reads as follows:
That clause 5 of the bill be amended by inserting as subsection (3) the following subsection and renumbering subsections (3), (4) and (5) as subsections (4), (5) and (6) :
"(3) In deciding any matter under this section, the arbitrator shall decide the matter within the limits of the proposals that he determines were made by the railway companies and the unions in respect of that matter at the time negotiations were terminated between them on the twenty-sixth day of August, nineteen hundred and fifty, or were made by either of them after the commencement of this act at any time before the matter came before him and which narrow these limits, but the arbitrator by his decision shall not provide for a reduction in a rate of wages established pursuant to section 3."


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall I declare the motion carried?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr.   Si. Laurenl@: If there is to be a division we shall know where the dividing line falls. I ask that the yeas and nays be called.


Mr. Speaker:: I have asked that the members be called in.


Mr. Fleming:: I wonder if the Prime Minister would comment -upon the use of the word "resume" in the second line of this section? There was some discussion on this point earlier in the debate and I should think it would be appropriate for the Prime Minister to comment on the effect of this word as to whether it means leaving the door open for some further suspension of operations before the other clauses in the agreement may have come into effect.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I do not think there can be any serious doubt about that. It is required that the operations start within forty-eight hours and that the men return to their jobs. I do not think there can be any doubt as to the effect of the section.


An hon. Member:: They do not have to wait forty-eight hours.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: They do not have to wait forty-eight hours; it is within forty-eight hours. I would hope that it could be very much expedited. I have been informed from what I take to be reliable sources that as soon


as the legislation is in force no time will be lost, either by the railway companies or by the operators, in getting things moving again.


George Alexander Drew: Are we to take from that that this bill interprets an agreement that has already been reached?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No; no agreement has been reached. Of course no man can make a commitment as to what 125,000 other men will do, but I was told it was believed that when parliament had spoken law-abiding Canadians everywhere, whether in management or operation, would heed the direction coming from parliament.


Angus MacInnis: I do not think it is necessary for anyone to ask what the word "resume" means here because it is very clear that once we pass this bill we prohibit or outlaw railroad strikes for all time to come.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Angus MacInnis: The Prime Minister shakes his head or his whole body, but let us just see what has happened. There has been a railroad strike which has tied up the economy of Canada and it has been necessary to bring in a bill to this parliament to end the strike. That having been done on this occasion, that method having been adopted, is anyone in this house going to tell me that at any other time this government or any other government having a law of this kind as a precedent is going to allow the economy of the country to be tied up as it was?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Angus MacInnis: My hon. friends may laugh, but surely with all the brains that there are supposed to be on that side of the house a better way of settling this dispute could have been devised. It is the iron fist of compulsion. I am telling the railway workers of Canada that, so far as they are concerned, free collective bargaining means free collective bargaining to the extent that the employers want to bargain, but once the employers stop bargaining then it is an arbitrator for the employees.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.
On section 5-If agreement not reached within fifteen days after commencement of this act.
Louis Stephen St-Laurent: As I undertook on the motion for second reading of the bill, I will ask my colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, to propose the amendment I read at that time with the unanimous consent of the house.


Mr. Howe:: I move:
That clause 5 of the bill be amended by inserting as subsection (3) the following subsection and renumbering subsections (3), (4) and (5) as subsections (4), (5) and (6):
"(3) In deciding any matter under this section, the arbitrator shall decide the matter within the limits of the proposals that he determines were made by the railway companies and the unions in respect of that matter at the time negotiations were terminated between them on the twenty-sixth day of August, nineteen hundred and fifty, or were made by either of them after the commencement of this act at any time before the matter came before him and which narrow these limits, but the arbitrator by his decision shall not provide for a reduction in a rate of wages established pursuant to section 3."


Stanley Howard Knowles: Are there any copies of the amendment available?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I am sorry; I had three but I gave one to Hansard and the Clerk has the original and the other one.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is one point on which I should like to be clear. It is a little difficult to be sure that I am in order because this is a new subsection 3, and I want to say something about it in reference to something that is in subsection 1. I believe I am in order. The new subsection 3 says that the arbitrator is to stay within the limits that were agreed upon up until Saturday evening, but subsection 1 gives the arbitrator the power to fix the term during which the collective agreement shall operate. I should like to know whether the limitation will apply to that factor as well, namely, the fixing of the length of the term of the agreement.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: To the whole scope of the arbitration, and my understanding is that both parties had at that time in their respective proposals fixed two years from the first of September, 1950.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In other words, with the amendment we now have some improvement in the section in that it narrows the field upon which there will be compulsory arbitration. I have no hesitation in saying that I am glad to see the field narrowed, but in common with what my colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver East, has just said I feel I must not let the section pass, even with the amendment, without pointing out that within that narrow field it is still compulsory arbitration and it still says to the railway workers of Canada, "you have exercised your right to strike for the last time."


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is what parliament will say if it passes the bill with this section in it. I approve of the amendment. If the bill and the section must pass I think they should contain that amendment-indeed
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act I moved an amendment earlier along the same lines-but I insist that the basic principle, even with that narrowing, is still a vicious one and it definitely detracts from one of the basic rights involved in effective collective bargaining. Although the amendment is desirable, the section as amended is still repugnant.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Would any hon. member care to suggest that the word "fifteen" in line 31, the first line of section 5, be replaced by the word "thirty"?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, I am glad the Prime Minister has raised that point. He mentioned it earlier in his remarks. Personally I believe there would be some value in providing a longer time. In my opinion this particular section is the one which provides for compulsory arbitration. I do not believe there is machinery set up under our laws whereby compulsory arbitration can be fair to the unions of Canada. Eventually there may be some sort of tribunal devised, but certainly there is no such body now. I regret greatly that a bill should be placed on the statute books of C&nada containing a provision for compulsory arbitration. Now that the house has given second reading to a bill containing such a drastic provision, which in my opinion is really taking a club to labour, I urge that the period of fifteen days be extended in the hope that the strike will be settled without the actual use of the compulsory arbitration provision. Once it has been used then it will be just that much more difficult to prevent its being used a second time. Personally I believe the time should be extended.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Will my hon. friend so move?


Howard Charles Green: I so move.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We had better pass the first amendment first.


Mr, Fleming:: Before the house disposes of the amendment moved by the Minister of Trade and Commerce I should like to say a brief word about it. I think all of us welcome the introduction of that amendment by the Prime Minister. Many of us think that it should have been announced at an earlier time. It all goes back to the fact that this is very hastily drafted and hastily conceived legislation. In fairness to the house, I think the Prime Minister ought to have made known his willingness to introduce such an amendment at a much earlier stage of the proceedings. He has introduced it and we welcome it. We welcome it because it at least has the virtue that it confines within a narrower sphere the dubious principle of compulsory

Maintenance of Railway Operation Act arbitration, the thing in this bill which has incurred the opposition of a number of us on this side of the house. To the extent that it narrows the application of a vicious principle we welcome it.
I think that one must pause for a moment to consider the position in which the arbitrator is going to find himself with reference to some of the features of the dispute which at first blush may not be those that hon. members might consider most difficult. I think the section under consideration should be read along with the third paragraph of the preamble. That paragraph seems to treat the subject matter of the dispute as being confined simply to hours and wage rates. It reads:
And whereas the railway companies and the bargaining agents of the employees appear to have agreed that existing wage rates should be increased, and the forty-hour week introduced but appear to have been unable to agree as to the amount and effective date of the wage increase or the date at which the forty-hour week would be effective and the terms and conditions upon which it would be introduced.
The Prime Minister will recall that there were other factors as well in the dispute. At the concluding conference between the parties, as I understand it, there was a suggestion that some of these other issues should be reserved for further negotiation; the Prime Minister recalls those to which I allude. It seems to me that the arbitrator, who will be called upon to perform a very difficult task, should have some clear direction in the bill as to the extent of his duties in reference to those other conditions. If he reads the third paragraph of the preamble as qualifying the intent of section 5 of the bill he may consider that he is confined to the two subjects of hours and wages, and some further dispute may arise as to the interpretation of this act as it applies to those other subjects in dispute. In fairness to the arbitrator, and certainly in fairness to the parties to the dispute, I would urge that any possibility of further misunderstanding between the parties be eliminated at this point.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: In my view it is not
possible for this committee at this time to make an exact statement of the position of the proposals when the negotiations were broken off. However, a statement was issued on Saturday evening by the press bureaux of the railway companies, which was included by the Minister of Labour in his recital of the facts last evening. I do not know whether that statement would conform with the recollection or admissions of the negotiating committee for the men, but one statement was to the effect that there should be an agreement along lines indicated by the

negotiating committee as satisfactory, to negotiate amendments in connection with certain rules. That is a part of what was apparently contained in the proposals that were being discussed in the hope of arriving at a collective bargain; an agreement along lines indicated as satisfactory by the negotiating committee, to negotiate amendments in connection with certain rules. That is why the amendment to section 5 which is now suggested was drawn in this way. If there is any dispute, unfortunately the arbitrator will have to satisfy his own mind as to the gap which still existed at that time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think all hon. members
will wish to give the arbitrator, in the discharge of his difficult task, the utmost possible help, in the directions to be contained in this legislation. The third paragraph of the preamble at first blush seems to treat the matters at issue between the parties as being confined to those two, namely, hours and rates of wages.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There is one other matter not referred to in the third paragraph, and which is not included in the information I have gathered from press statements as to the position of affairs at the time negotiations were broken off. According to the press statements apparently there was not at that time discussion as to whether or not there would be a check-off. That seemed to have disappeared from the area of discussion, though it had been there at some earlier date. I do not know whether it had been dropped or whether it was just being left in abeyance, to be taken up after the other matters were decided. That is something about which the arbitrator would have to satisfy himself. He would have to be satisfied as to whether it was still in dispute between the parties or whether it had been dropped. All the other matters would be covered by the general language of paragraph 3, the terms and conditions upon which the forty-hour week would be introduced; it is all implied in that, as far as my information goes. Personally, if I were acting as arbitrator and were shown that the statement published in the newspapers was really handed out by the negotiators for the railways -I think it has the mimeographed signature of the press bureaux of the railway companies -I would take it as a statement by which the railways were bound, and would take it as saying that at that point their offers contained everything mentioned in that statement. It also purports to say what was the position of the negotiating committee for the men at that moment. I would not be prepared, without confirmation from the men, to

take that statement as indicating their position. I would feel that I had to get from the men a statement of their position at that time. It has been referred to in declarations that were made, or that were published by the newspapers as coming from some of them, but that is something which would have to be determined.
With respect to the position 6f the railways, I should not think the arbitrator would be apt to have very much difficulty, because this statement was put out at that time apparently by the press bureaux of the companies. I should imagine it would not have been put out if it had not indicated the real position being taken by the representatives of the railways at that moment. I do not mean they were saying, "We have arrived at a point where we have agreed on all these things." They were taking parts of what they wanted in the over-all agreement, but certainly it would indicate the proposals they were making for a collective agreement at that moment.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not wish to labour the point-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I can tell some hon. gentlemen opposite that they are not making any contribution toward expediting the proceedings today.
I wish to state the position as I understand it, and perhaps the Prime Minister would signify his view. If other questions besides those as to hours and rates of wages remained in the realm of dispute in the position taken by the parties at the concluding sessions on' Saturday night, settlement of those conditions is to be one of the duties of the arbitrator notwithstanding anything that may appear in the third paragraph of the preamble?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That is quite so.


The Chairman:: Before proceeding further I believe we should consider the amendment moved by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, substituting the word "thirty" for the word "fifteen" in line 31, the first line of subsection 1 of section 5.


Howard Charles Green: I should like to know the Prime Minister's opinion of this amendment; I am not quite clear as to his stand on it. He is being unusually coy about this amendment, and wanted me to move it. I should like to know the reason.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There was no very firm view as to the prospect of agreement being reached, and it was felt that in this legislation there should not be any indication that we did not consider the matter was urgent. For that reason it was made fifteen days instead of
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act thirty. However, now it has become quite apparent that the house wishes the parties to realize that there is urgency about getting on with collective bargaining, and about making a serious endeavour to have the matter disposed of by collective bargaining, the possible implication of wasting time about which we were fearful when the bill was printed, and which was the reason for stating fifteen days instead of thirty days, has been eradicated by the tone of the discussion in the house, and it would not seem that allowing thirty days for continuing negotiations would be likely to be time lost. I think it is better, in view of the tone of the discussion that has taken place in the house, to have thirty days rather than fifteen days. I welcome the amendment suggested by the member for Vancouver-Quadra.


Mr. Harris (Danforlh):: Since this is a government bill, and we are all agreed, perhaps the Prime Minister would have one of his ministers move the amendment.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: If the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra prefers to have it done by the action of someone on the government side-


Howard Charles Green: No, I moved the motion.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Since I have declared I welcome the motion, I think that should be sufficient.
Amendment (Mr. Green) agreed to.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before the section itself carries-


Joseph-Alfred Dion: The question is now on the amendment by the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What I want to say will fit in there, too. I followed with close interest what the Prime Minister has just said about the status of the discussions regarding changes in the rules. I appreciate the difficulty with which he was faced in being very definite about it because of the fact he has a statement from the railways on the matter which refers to a proposal from the union, but apparently he has not a written statement as to what the proposal from the union was. I think I know what it was, but I am not going to confuse the situation by indicating what my knowledge may be. I think it should be on the record that the arbitrator should handle this matter with extreme care, and that he find out clearly what the proposal of the union was. I believe the company did agree to the proposal, and if it is ascertained that that is so, that will be the end of any discussion on that matter so far as this dispute is concerned.

Maintenance of Railway Operation Act
The fact that the Prime Minister referred to the statements made by the railways last Saturday night, Mr. Chairman, raises another question. It concerns the whole question of the limiting new subsection 3 moved by the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the reference to the hotel and water transport workers. Deliberately some of us have not referred to that question at all throughout this debate because we took it, at least I did, from the terms of the bill that it applied equally to all the employees involved in the present dispute. "Employee" is defined as an employee of a railway company, and "railway company" is defined as any of the companies listed in a certain schedule. This schedule includes hotel and steamship companies and railways that own steamship companies and hotels. I point out that one of the statements made by the railways on Saturday night concerning the position they had reached is as follows:
Hotel and water transport workers to be covered in a separate contract for one year to be granted an increase of two cents per hour effective September 1, 1950.
That may have been the position reached by the companies that night, but it certainly was not acceptable to the unions. The Prime Minister now says that this new paragraph calls for arbitration between the limits established by the differences between them on Saturday night, but I thought the government's bill dealt with that point. The government's bill made it clear, I thought, that whatever kind of agreement as to wages, as to the effective date of the forty-hour week and the length of the agreement, is made, it will be the same for all unions involved.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, the provision in section 3 of the bill is that everyone will get the provisional four-cent rate, and in the amendment with respect to the arbitration in the field that was in dispute between the railways and the employees there is a provision that the arbitrator will not have the right to reduce the rate fixed by section 3; that is all the limitation that is put upon him. The other matters in dispute, as to whether the contract shall be for one year or two years, do not find themselves determined by the terms of the bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thank the Prime Minister for the clear and frank statement he has made of the position. I welcome the fact that the four-cent provision applies to hotel and water transport workers as it does to all other workers, despite the two cents which appears in the statement made by the companies. I must tell him, however, that it is not satisfactory to me that the legislation-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Do we have to satisfy you? I thought you were against the bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Minister of Trade and Commerce is right, I am against the bill. One of the many things in the bill with which I am dissatisfied is that it makes this discrimination between the railway employees generally on the one hand, and the hotel and water transport workers on the other. If it is now possible for the arbitrator to award a two-year contract to the railway workers and a one-year contract to the hotel and water transport people; if it is now possible for him to award different rates of wage increase to these two groups of people; if it is now possible for him to award the forty-hour week at a different period of time, then I tell the Prime Minister and the Liberal members of this house that this whole business will prove to be most unsatisfactory, and there is grief ahead for a long time to come.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall the section as amended carry?


George Alexander Drew: No, section 5 is not improved by the amendments that have been made. They are simply an attempt to make an unsatisfactory section a little less unpalatable.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Agreed.


George Alexander Drew: I heard the Prime Minister say "agreed". I feel sure that he does agree-


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The whole bill is
unpalatable.


George Alexander Drew: I am sure the bill is unpalatable, and I am sure that the Prime Minister is quite correct when he said he had no firm view because amendments were being made yesterday, a further amendment is being made today, and if this debate continued for any length of time I am satisfied that, owing to representations from outside the house from one side or the other, there would be further amendments to this bill. This section is one which could be left out and the results obtained by getting the men back to work and resuming operations of the railroad, while letting collective bargaining operate in the ordinary way between management and the great railway organizations that have been dealing with each other with great success for decades in this country.
The amendment now before us is simply a further attempt to carry new principles into legislation which at some future date may operate as a precedent, and those who find that being done will regard it as very unsatisfactory indeed. This section neither assures to the Canadian public the continued operation of the railroads in the months and years ahead, nor does it assure the workers

Maintenance of Railway Operation Act
the basic right of collective bargaining, upon which good will and co-operation must depend, no matter what temporary arrangements are made. Obviously the bill will pass in its present form from the indications of support the government has received. I wish to make it quite clear that I regard it as something that is not only unsatisfactory to those directly affected by the limitation imposed by this section on the long-established principle of collective bargaining; it is also unsatisfactory to the people of Canada because the bill offers no assurance that this will not happen again. It offers to the workers none of the assurances that their rights are going to be protected in the years ahead.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, because of the impatience of the private members on the government side of the house, what I have to say is for their benefit. I am glad that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre made the point about the powers of the arbitrator to set different rates of wages for groups for which the bargaining committee was asking a similar rate, and also for setting a different time for the expiry of any collective agreements that might be entered into. It seems to me that the chairman of the Canadian National Railways was trying to separate some of the unions from the larger bargaining group and make separate agreements with them.
The purpose of a trade union is to improve the bargaining strength of individuals by collecting them together into one organization. Another means of increasing the bargaining strength is by bringing various unions into one organization for bargaining purposes. It is quite clear that in the recent negotiations the purpose of the Canadian National Railway Company was to separate these unions so that they could make a separate agreement with each of them, having the agreements expire at different times so that never again could the railway employees confront the company with a united front of all agreements expiring at the same time.
I should like to point out to the few members on the government side who claim to be union men and to those who are representing trade union or workers' constituencies that the powers that are now given to the arbitrator are, either wittingly or unwittingly, designed to weaken the trade union movement for collective bargaining purposes.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: This is the section upon which this party, through its leader, took its strongest stand. As we see it, this section represents the most direct move ever made in any country-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, in spite of what the Prime Minister said last evening, this section represents the most direct move ever made in any country to set up provisions for an arbitrator in a labour dispute with absolute power to determine. This is a terrific power to place in the hands of one man. It is a power unequalled in its amplitude in any other country having the democratic concept of government. There is no one in this parliament who at any time did not wish to give support to the assurance in our country of continued railway transportation. That was and is our attitude. No one had objection to paragraphs 1 and 2, and to the noble preamble. What is being done in this section of the bill is what we take our objection to, namely the granting of uncontrolled and untrammelled power to one person to determine decisions in trade union matters and to change the provisions for settlement of labour disputes that have existed for over seventy years.
I believe that if the debates that have taken place on this bill lead to the setting up in parliament of a committee to re-examine and restate the principles of collective bargaining, much good will result in labour relations. Evolution makes change necessary. When the Prime Minister endeavours to say that this section does not mean compulsory arbitration, I say that it means nothing else and that it means a change in this country that will create a precedent from which in future relations there may be no departure. It was to preserve the principles of collective bargaining that the leader of the opposition moved the amendment to settle this strike by collective bargaining rather than resort to a provision which is dangerous in its import and dangerous in the absolute power that it confers on one human being.
As it now stands this section grants such absolute power as has never been granted before, and I say that in spite of what the Prime Minister said in reference to Britain, because I have that legislation before me. The principle enunciated in this section is one that in the future will constitute a precedent; and the pathway of today will be the highway of tomorrow. It is dangerous in its import to the continuance of collective bargaining and that relationship which, in my opinion, should prevail as between management and labour. There is no use in endeavouring to ask that this section be not continued as it now is in this bill; but it is sections such as that, passed under urgency, which so often lead to tyranny. Urgency there has been for months. While the urgency
74

Maintenance of Railway Operation Act of the situation required action by this government and while our economic position in this country was worsening week by week, the government was vacationing. The record that was placed before this house last evening by the Minister of Labour shows that for days in August the government did nothing. The government was not giving that leadership which the people of Canada had a right to expect. Having vacillated and having been inactive for months the government now introduces a section such as section 5 because of the present urgency of the situation; and urgent it is. In my own province the situation is as serious as it is in any other part of this country. Because of that urgency which, in considerable measure, is due to lack of action on the part of this government, a section such as section 5 is now passed. It will be carried. But from this day on collective bargaining will be an instrument which may become only a memory.


Ernest George Hansell: I should like to say a word on this principle of free collective bargaining that the Conservative spokesmen have been attacking. In my speech a little while ago I claimed that this bill did not really propose any compulsion. The thirty-day clause, together with a longer period, fixed by order in council if necessary, gives the right of free collective bargaining and places the responsibility of free collective bargaining upon the two contending parties. It is only when they themselves have failed through free collective bargaining to reach an agreement than an arbitrator is appointed.
What I would like to ask my Conservative friends, because the problem is in my mind, is this: They believe in free collective bargaining; so do we, so does the government, so do our C.C.F. friends. But when free collective bargaining has failed, what is their proposal?


Mr. Wylie:: They have not any.


Ernest George Hansell: All this bill proposes is that when free collective bargaining has failed an arbitrator is appointed to settle the point.


Joseph William Noseworthy: We welcome the amendment which the Prime Minister proposed to clause 5; but one of the most contentious points raised in this entire discussion is the question of the status of the two groups of workers, namely, hotel employees and water transport workers. The unions have been seeking to secure for them exactly the same terms of settlement that they got for the other unions. By reason of the clause which refers to the four cents it was hoped that that point had been conceded to the unions. Actually I find that the leaders of the unions who were negotiating this matter felt that

they had at least won that one point when this bill was circulated last night.
They felt that one of the points this bill gave them was that there was to be no distinction between the treatment accorded the hotel and water transport workers and that accorded to other unions. According to the Prime Minister's statement, that is not so. I would suggest that the Prime Minister give consideration to removing from the sphere of negotiation which the arbitrator would deal with the question relating to the ten points, and that this bill provide for the same treatment on the part of the water transport workers and hotel workers as for the other unions. As long as there is that distinction this bill will not be satisfactory to the railway workers. While they may obey the law and go back to work, it will not be with good grace if it should happen that a different settlement is awarded to the two groups I have mentioned from that awarded to the other group.


Major James William Coldwell: May I also join in the suggestion that this particular point should be reconsidered? The unions that have been negotiating have been negotiating as a unit, and have endeavoured to operate that way throughout. Anything which tended to break that unity would, I am perfectly sure, be resented by the larger group of unions.
As a matter of fact, when suggestions were made during negotiations that they should get less than the larger unions, the larger unions felt that they must insist on the same treatment for those smaller people as for themselves. I am sure they would deeply resent any differentiation, and it would just be another case of unrest and discontent.
There is a certain amount of loyalty among these union members who have been working together through their groups. They would have felt, I am sure, that to accept for themselves an agreement which separated in any way the smaller group of workers would have been disloyalty to that group. The government would be well advised to consider this small group of people as coming under any of the decisions that are beneficial to the larger unions.
I have heard it said that the railway management considered throughout that after all this was a minor matter. In fact on one occasion I heard it described as peanuts. If for the sake of a small part of the negotiating unions we fail to do what is justice to them, and give the larger unions the feeling that this group which has relied on them has been discriminated against, I think it will tend to create bad public relations and bad union relations in the future.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: They are not being discriminated against in any way. The government, in the bill which it recommended to parliament, has treated them in the same way as the other unions, namely, as one unit; and everything that binds the arbitrator with respect to any one binds him as much with respect to those two small groups as it does to the others. Therefore the arbitrator will have to investigate the disputes between the parties; but so that there might be no suggestion that his powers will enable him to reverse that decision, he cannot reverse the decision. Everything that is bound by the statute is bound for everybody, but what is open to further negotiation between the parties are the things that are in dispute between them. It may be that they would agree on different terms of contracts or on different arrangements. If they could not agree the arbitrator would have to make a finding; but he would have before him an example of the recommendations to the government and of the action of parliament in recognizing the desirability of not doing anything that would make anyone feel that he was being disloyal to a comrade.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let us have this clear. The Prime Minister just said that the arbitrator is bound in his dealings with the hotel and water transport workers in the same way as in his dealings with the others. But is it clear that, if the parties do not agree to the same kind of settlement for both, he has the power under this act, if he so decides in his wisdom, or otherwise, to award a different wage increase to one group than to the other, and a different date for the forty-hour week for one group than for the other, and a different period of time for the length of contract between the two groups?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I would not like to discuss those details; but in the recommendation we made to parliament and in the bill itself we have attempted to treat as one unit all those involved in this dispute. On all of the points in which we have provided expressly, we have stated the arbitrator cannot undo what we are doing. On the other matters he will have to make a determination as to the extent of the gap and the bridging of the gap.
For instance, I would not like to give any opinion as a lawyer as to whether or not in the position taken by the parties at the last moment there would still be room for the arbitrator to say that one group, perhaps the car men, would get one rate, and another group, perhaps the boilermakers, would get another. I do not know. We have endeavoured to treat the whole group who are out, 69262-6J
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act those who have withdrawn from work, as one unit; and our reason for doing so is that we thought it would be unfortunate to ask by legislation that any portion of them should do something which they would regard as disloyal to their comrades.


Major James William Coldwell: Then we can take it that the intention of the legislation is so far as possible to keep the unions as a unit in their negotiations?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I would not put it in that way. The intention was not by legislation to require any of the unions to adopt a course that they would regard as disloyal to their fellows.


Mrs. Fairclough:: Although it was my
privilege to second this morning the amendment proposed by my leader, I purposely refrained from speaking on that occasion in the hope that the deliberations in the house might be shortened, and that we might arrive at a decision at an early hour so as to get these men back to work-because, after all, that is the concern of every Canadian citizen at this time. I cannot help feeling that the discussion that goes on now almost interminably defers that ultimate goal.
However, we have now arrived at the section in the bill which was the cause of the opposition from members in this party. In spite of the fact that the pill has been well sugar-coated by now, I would say it is still bitter, and as the coating wears off it will become more and more bitter. I cannot see how those in the house, regardless of the party leadership they follow, who in their hearts believe in a system of free enterprise, to which we give unlimited lip service, can vote for a section like this which disrupts the management-worker relationships which have been built up in this country over a period of fifty years.
History is not made overnight; negotiations are not broken down overnight. I say to hon. members that it is the first bite that creates the appetite, and that there is being established by section 5 a precedent that may well be written into all future labour negotiations. I do not think there ever was or ever will be a strike in this country that could not, through the services of a clever advocate, have been termed a strike against the people. They could all be construed as such, because there never was a strike that did not in some way hurt someone-even the strikers themselves. They know that.
I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that by members of this party and by others this section has been termed compulsion; and, regardless of the whitewashing it has received, it is still compulsion. I hold very strong views

Maintenance of Railway Operation Act on this particular subject, views which I have held for many years. They are not dictated by partisanship. As a matter of fact, if my party had seen fit to do otherwise,
I should still have had to vote against the bill and against this section, because I do not believe it is in the best interests of those things for which we.stand. I do not believe it does anything at all to further our history of labour negotiations-negotiations, may I say, and laws, that can exist only in a free democracy such as that we love and seek to protect in this country. Therefore I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that I cannot possibly vote for this section 5.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, opinions are free; but the hon. member for Hamilton West knows that the Ottawa Journal is a good Conservative paper, that it had fine writeups about her. It is a good, solid Conservative paper, and it must interpret the statements made by the leaders. Besides that they must know all the intentions, all that goes on behind the scenes of the caucus room of the Conservative party.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


Jean-François Pouliot: Members are discreet, but they must have some kind of intuition, so that they know what goes on behind walls. If the Conservatives are friends, then they must have some way of broadcasting their policies, and it could not be done more cleverly and in a more able way than it is done in the Ottawa Journal, to which I am a subscriber, and have been for many years.
There is a Russian word, one which is not bolshevik but which belongs to the ancient regime of Russia. It was the first description of a totalitarian, of a despot. It is pretty hard to say, and I will not use it in that sense today -and I would not have ever used it, if I had been the city editor of the Ottawa Journal. I shall send my copy of the Journal to the hon. member for Hamilton West so that she may read the two headlines of the five o'clock edition, fresh from the oven. They are, "Battle Stalls Strike Bill", and then right underneath, in big letters, the hon. member with her bright eyes can read this: "Drew Wants Railway Czar to Take Over."


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, there is an old saying that there are none so blind as those who will not see. I saw this headline over an hour ago.


An hon. Member:: And closed your eyes.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Yes, Mr. Chairman, that is a very true observation; I closed my eyes to the heading because I am not given to forming opinions from headings. I read the entire

article, and I would advise my hon. friend who subscribes to the Ottawa Journal to do likewise. If he would like to have this newspaper back again, I would send it to him with that admonition because, as he very well knows, the man who reports an article very rarely writes the headlines. Somewhere no doubt within the confines of the editorial offices they ran amuck and could not find a nice, short word to put in there. Nevertheless I think it will be admitted that in the history of the world other words and other names have been used such as kings, emperors, as well as czars, and which have brought down upon the heads of some countries a certain amount of opprobrium. I do not think you can take any one word and say that every one who might be described by that word was a despot or a criminal.
I make no apology for the evident mistake that was made by the Ottawa Journal. I think if the hon. member will take the time and trouble to read beyond the headline he will have the answer which he has undoubtedly overlooked.


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not rise in defence-


An hon. Member:: Read it.


An hon. Member:: Take your medicine.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: The question is-


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not rise in defence of the Ottawa Journal but all I have to say-


Mr. Casselman:: The chairman is on his feet.


Jean-François Pouliot: You military advisers.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: The question is on the amendment.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank you and I am very sorry you did not say that before the hon. member for Hamilton West started her digression.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to: Yeas, 90; nays, 34.
Sections 6, 7 and 8 agreed to.
Schedule A agreed to.
On schedule B.
Mr. Higgins:: There is one thing I should like to get a little more clear in my own mind. The Prime Minister defined the position of the water transport workers and I wonder if once again he would make their position clear at least beyond the doubt in my own mind. Are they going to be included with the other railroad workers?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: They are.


Ernest George Hansell: When I spoke a half hour or so ago I said that I agreed with the leader of the opposition that there were no penalties included in this bill except those provided by another law, .namely, section 164 of the Criminal Code. It was my intention to ask that a section should be added to the bill providing that the provisions of section 164 of the Criminal Code should not apply to this act. I am not going to press this matter if we can get a commitment from the Prime Minister that the government will not invoke the provisions of section 164 of the Criminal Code in respect to this bill.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I think one would have to be very unrealistic if he thought that provision of this kind could be enforced by court or police action. I do not think it would be appropriate to say that parliament passes any law that would not be covered by section 164 of the Criminal Code, but to think that that is an effective way of having the will of parliament followed would be most unrealistic in my opinion. We know that when there is a large section of the population involved, as there is here, that measure just will not work. However, I do not think it would be appropriate to exclude the possibility that it might. Section 164 should be read in conjunction with section 1035 which provides that, whenever imprisonment is a penalty under the Criminal Code and a corporation is being prosecuted, the judge has the discretion to impose a fine. I think those provisions should remain applicable because I believe their removal might be looked upon as an implication that this was a law that parliament had no interest in seeing enforced or obeyed. The only practical enforcement of laws of this kind is the weight of public opinion and the desire of all our people to see our democratic institutions function.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall I report the bill?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


George Alexander Drew: On division.
Bill reported on division.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I would hope that I might have the consent of the house to have the bill read the third time now so that it may go to the other place and receive consideration immediately. There is a possibility that it may be assented to tonight. Now that the die has been cast I do not think anyone could
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act have any objection to the adoption of the most expeditious procedure that can be adopted. I move the third reading of the bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. St. Laurent moves that the bill be now read the third time. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I agree that the bill should be proceeded with most expeditiously, and for that reason have concurred, along with others, in proceeding with the motion for the third reading. I wish, however, to avoid any question as to the basis upon which objection has been taken to the measure. That has been indicated before and will be a matter of record. I do not intend to debate the subject but I intend to introduce an amendment which will speak for itself and will call for a recorded vote. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming):
That Bill No. 1 be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole for the purpose of striking out section 5 of the bill.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Does anyone doubt that the amendment is in order? If not, and if the house wants the question put now, I will do so.


Mr. Speaker:: The question before the house is that this bill be now read a third time. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion agreed to on division.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. St. Laurent moves, seconded by Mr. Howe, that Bill No. 1 do now pass and that the title be as on the order paper.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Bill passed on division.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, though we agreed to sit without interruption until eleven o'clock I think it might perhaps be the desire of all hon. members that you do now leave the chair to return possibly at nine-thirty. We shall have some information at that time as to whether or not we are to be summoned to the other place. If that meets with the consent of hon. members, we shall follow that course. As announced last night, of course, when we come together again at nine-thirty the address of His Excellency the Governor General on the opening of parliament will be the subject for discussion.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, before we rise it might perhaps help in considering what is to be done in the debate on the speech from the throne if we were told at what point the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) will be presenting his report, and whether that is to be dealt with by motion or what the procedure will be for the consideration of the military matters that will be before us.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: My understanding is that the traditional procedure is that the leader of the opposition is recognized after the mover and seconder have spoken, and if at that time he preferred to adjourn the debate no objection would be raised by this side. We shall endeavour to do whatever seems most appropriate to suit the convenience of all hon. members.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, it would appear to me that I did not make myself sufficiently clear. I was asking what course is going to be followed in presenting to the house the report of the Minister of National Defence.

1 ask particularly whether, following the presentation of his report, we shall be dealing with it by motion for approval or some such procedure. I ask that question because it would clearly have a bearing on the course to be followed during the debate on the speech from the throne.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Might it be possible for me to have a word with the leaders of the various groups as to what they would prefer to have done in that connection? When we return at nine-thirty I hope it will have been possible to ascertain what would appear to them to be the course most likely to expedite the consideration of the other matters for which this session has been called.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The likelihood is that tonight there will be-


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The member for Winnipeg North Centre should be allowed to ask his question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is it clear that the likelihood is that when we come back at nine-thirty tonight there will be only the two speeches, namely those of the mover and seconder of the address?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That is something which I should like to discuss with the leader of the opposition and the leaders of the other groups, or whoever may be representing them in the conference which we can have at once.


Mr. Speaker:: With the unanimous consent of the house I do now leave the chair until nine-thirty o'clock this evening.



SITTING SUSPENDED

[Stage Direction]
At 7.15 p.m. the sitting of the house was suspended until 9.30 p.m. this day.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed at 9.30 p.m.

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Ottawa, August 30, 1950
Sir:
I have the honour to Inform you that the Honourable Patrick Kerwin, judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 30th of August, 1950, at 9.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving royal assent to a bill.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
J. F. Delaute
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General
Business of the House ORDERS IN COUNCIL
TABLING OF SUMMARY JUNE 1,	1950, TO


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that I might have permission to revert to motions and to table the summary of the orders in council passed during the period June 1 to July 31, 1950.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Louis Stephen St-Laurent: During the recess, I met the leaders of the various groups and from my conversation with them I gathered that the most appropriate procedure by which to deal with the speech of His Excellency would be to have the mover and the seconder move and second the mbtion for an address in reply, and then to have them followed by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) to give an account of the international situation referred to in the speech from the throne and by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) who would follow him and put before the house a statement of the measures the government is recommending as being required for increased national security and international co-operation. From that moment on the customary order of participation in the debate might be followed.
In view of the fact that there are only three minutes before the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General will be here, it might be convenient not to commence the debate on the speech from the throne until afterwards. Then if it were the feeling of the house that after this long and arduous day we might rise and proceed with the consideration of His Excellency's speech at three o'clock tomorrow afternoon, I think that probably would meet with the convenience of most hon. members.



PLACING OF DIVISION BELLS IN RESTAURANT AND CAFETERIA

Mr. Speaker:: It has been brought to my attention that when the division bells rang this afternoon before one division took place in the house, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) and possibly other hon. members were either in the restaurant or in the cafeteria and the division bells could not be heard there. Accordingly I am giving instructions that a bell be placed both in the cafeteria and in the restaurant so that on future occasions every hon. member will hear the bell.

The Royal Assent


Mr. Bonnier:: I was in the restaurant. I heard the bell; I left my table and I came down to vote.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I think my hearing is pretty good, but I did not hear the bell.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Right Honourable the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly the house went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned':
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give in His Majesty's name the royal assent to the following bill:
An act to provide for the resumption of operations of railways and for the settlement of the existing dispute with respect to terms and conditions of employment between railway companies and their employees.
On motion of Mr. Howe the house adjourned at 10.05 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, August 31, 1950