1958-07-24

[Stage Direction]
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough) presented the fourth and fifth reports of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, and moved that the fourth report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
Third report of standing committee on banking and commerce.-Mr. Cathers.
Third report of standing committee on agriculture and colonization.-Mr. Stanton.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make an announcement with regard to dominion government assistance in the movement of fodder into the drought areas of Manitoba and Saskatchewan and the movement of livestock out of these areas.
Some three to four weeks ago the situation in these drought areas looked extremely serious, and it appeared at that time that very large quantities of feed would have to be moved in and a very large liquidation of livestock would have to take place. Fortunately, during the past two to three weeks widespread rains have greatly improved the feed situation. However, it appears that a considerable movement of both fodder and livestock will still be necessary.
The government has decided to participate in emergency programs to aid farmers and ranchers hard hit by drought on the prairies. One-half of the freight assistance now being offered by Manitoba and Saskatchewan will be paid by this government, and the policy will be effective as of July 1, 1958. Both provincial governments have undertaken to help farmers in the stricken areas in the shipment of haying equipment, fodder and livestock.
Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway will reduce by one-third existing freight rates on hay and straw moved
into drought areas and on livestock moved out of these areas up to a maximum of $10 a ton, from August 1 to April 1 next year. I wish to express my appreciation to the railways for agreeing to participate in these drought relief measures. The western provinces will negotiate with trucking companies for rate reductions similar to those agreed to by the railways.
Hay shortage in affected areas in Saskatchewan is estimated at 100,000 tons and in Manitoba at 15,000 tons. There is some surplus hay in certain northern areas of both provinces and in Alberta. It is hoped that this will be sufficient to meet the needs, but it may be necessary to import some hay from adjacent parts of the United States.
The Saskatchewan relief program went into effect June 16 and the Manitoba program followed on June 23. Both provinces are paying full railway freight for the round trip when equipment is moved to where hay is harvested. When trucks are used, 50 cents per mile is paid one way only. In Manitoba a 25-mile limit is stipulated and in Saskatchewan the limit is 30 miles. On homeward movement of fodder, provided the distance is more than 25 miles, Manitoba is granting 5 cents per ton mile up to $8 per ton. If fodder is moved by rail, two-thirds of the freight is paid to a maximum of $10 per ton. The railways, of course, will be absorbing the other one-third.
In Saskatchewan 5 cents per ton mile is paid on harvested fodder moved by truck provided the one-way distance is 30 miles or more and up to a maximum of $7.50 per ton. Half the railway freight on harvested and purchased fodder is paid to a maximum of $10 per ton. However, there is a Saskatchewan stipulation that 4 cents per ton mile will be paid on hay that has been purchased provided the one-way distance is 30 miles and up to a maximum of $7.50 per ton.
In both provinces, when livestock is moved out of the drought areas for pasture or winter feeding, freight assistance is granted. Manitoba pays 2 cents per head per mile on the one-way distance for cattle and horses over one year old, and 1 cent per head per mile for cattle and horses under one year and sheep of all ages. Saskatchewan grants 2 cents per mile per head on the one-way distance for cattle over one year and 1 cent for cattle under one year.
2602	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry
Fear of heavy liquidation of breeding stock with resultant losses to owners and long-term damage to agriculture in the drought areas, together with some general depression in livestock market prices, prompted the decision on federal aid.



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare if he is aware of the fact that today is the six-month anniversary date since Professor Huson, who had been commissioned by the government to examine into the old age and survivors system in the United States, announced to the country and to the Prime Minister his inability to make his report within the period prescribed by the government of the day? Pursuant to the announcement made by the Prime Minister on January 24 last that he had to accept Professor Huson's resignation because of the limitation of three or four months in which to make the investigation-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -may I ask the
Minister of National Health and Welfare if the report has been prepared, if it is now in his possession, and if the commitment made to the country by the Prime Minister in this respect is going to be lived up to?


Hon. J. W. Monteilh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, of course all commitments made to the country will be lived up to. The report has not been presented to me yet. I have not got it in my possession but, as I explained to the hon. member for Essex East in the house only a short time ago, preparation of the report is progressing very satisfactorily.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask the
Minister of National Health and Welfare why he says the commitment has been lived up to when this is the six-month anniversary date?


An hon. Member:: Twice as long.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Another election promise discarded.


Mr. Hees:: You started in 1919.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Election promises don't mean anything.


George Harris Hees: You never quite made it.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate asked me whether any changes have been made in the sampling procedures for arriving at the dominion bureau of statistics figures, and I took the question as notice. The answer is that no changes have been made.



BRITISH COLUMBIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Has the attention of the minister been drawn to a report in this morning's Montreal Gazette which states that the British Columbia minister of labour charges "the federal government with an obvious attempt to bypass the provinces in seeking a solution to unemployment problems"-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I take it that this is a reference to the matter which is to come before the house later today?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Harold Edward Winch: -and a further charge by the provincial minister "that the provinces were not given an opportunity to make submissions". Has the minister any comment to make on the charges by the minister of labour of British Columbia?


Hon. Michael Slarr (Minister of Labour):: This conference on winter unemployment was called, Mr. Speaker, and all the provinces were invited to participate. As a result there were nine provincial ministers of labour in attendance, and one who was ill and could not attend had his representative there. All the labour ministers representing the provinces had an opportunity to discuss fully, in committee, all aspects of this problem. They had full opportunity to put forth any suggestions they had. The chairmen of these committees summarized the findings and submitted them, or will submit them, in final form to me for consideration by the government. The charge, therefore, which the hon. member says appeared in the newspaper I would say is not true, because every opportunity was given for participation in this conference and for any recommendations by the provinces.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, some days ago the hon. member for Chapleau made an inquiry regarding the proposed change in train service between Montreal-Quebec and Senneterre-Noranda. The hon. member for Villeneuve also raised the question. I am advised by the board of transport commissioners that as the proposed change is scheduled to take place on August 10 arrangements were made immediately to send an inspector of the board to Noranda and Senneterre and meetings are actually to be held in these two cities today in this connection. I understand that all interested parties in the areas have been notified of the meetings.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Sidney E. Smith (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, on July 16, Wednesday of last week, the hon. member for Kootenay West addressed a question to me. In order to give the house some appreciation of my reply I am obliged to read part of the question:
In view of the report in the Financial Post of July 12 to the effect that Alberta highways minister Taylor flew to Washington some time ago to encourage Washington to build a link to Alaska from the United States via Alberta and the Alaska highway, and in view of the fact that this proposal is in opposition to the proposals being made by the government of British Columbia, would the minister inform the house if these proposals by the representative of a province are being made after consultation with the Secretary of State for External Affairs?
The answer to that part of the question is no. There has been no consultation. The second question was, "Is this procedure regular, according to protocol?" I would say in reply to that question that there are no prescribed and definite rules with respect to protocol. Protocol depends upon good judgment, and the decision in a particular case must be considered in the light of the good sense of the persons concerned in every instance.



SOFTBALL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John MacLean (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I
Inquiries of the Ministry should like to ask the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that members of the house acquitted themselves so nobly on the field of athletic endeavour last night, has the Prime Minister considered the possibility of applying on their behalf for a franchise in the international baseball league?



IRRIGATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. O. Cooper (Rosetown-Biggar):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. When will the agreement on the Saskatchewan river dam be signed?


Douglas Scott Harkness: It will be signed tomorrow morning.



REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF MONITOR SYSTEM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of prior utterances of the Prime Minister in this house to the effect that here he is among his peers, can the Prime Minister inform the house what consideration is being given to extending the privilege of an office monitor on Commons debates to others of his peers, including ministers, the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the C.C.F. group?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: I think the suggestion, Mr. Speaker, is one that deserves attention. I am particularly impressed with the suggestion on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition. If the hon. gentleman is in a position to speak with authority on his behalf I would say that certainly is something that deserves immediate attention.



REFERENCE TO AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEM IN CHAMBER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twil-lingate):: I wanted to ask the house leader whether it is true that since air conditioning units have been installed in the ministers' offices-and I understand they have been established there-the air conditioning in this chamber has been dispensed with?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):: So far as I know, Mr. Speaker, no air conditioning units have been established in any of the ministers' offices. Certainly there is none in my own. May I say that

Inquiries of the Ministry there is something to be said for not improving the air conditioning in the Commons chamber.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have a supplementary question. Would the minister consider not improving the air conditioning but restoring it to what it was in happier days?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I checked this matter with the officials of the Department of Public Works some days ago, and they tell me there is a great deal more hot air in this chamber now than there was before.


John Whitney Pickersgill: With 208 Tories.


Howard Charles Green: I might add, Mr. Speaker, that the information I get from the experts is that it is all coming from across the way.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. R. Mitchell (Sudbury):: May I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has a committee, as suggested in the speech from the throne, been established as yet to inquire into small business? If not, when can we expect that to be done?


John George Diefenbaker: I have not a copy of the speech from the throne here, but in so far as small business is concerned every investigation is being made to the end that small business shall receive the implementation of the terms in the speech from the throne.


David Rodger Mitchell: That is not exactly the question I asked. I asked if a committee has been set up as yet.


John George Diefenbaker: I can say no committee has been set up as yet, but the matter is being investigated by the experts. Here is the reference in the speech from the throne:
In order to assist small business, there will be established a small business section within the administrative machinery of government.
Hence the question, of course, surprised me in that reference was made to a committee. In the speech from the throne no reference was made to a committee.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Can the Prime Minister say what department of government will be charged with responsibility in this matter?


John George Diefenbaker: That matter is still under consideration as between two departments of government.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: desire to direct a question to the Prime Minister. I direct it to him because it may involve government policy and because I think the house would like to have a definite answer. Will the public accounts committee be convened this session? If so, when? If not, why not?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, certainly the public accounts committee will be convened, and at the earliest possible date.



REQUEST FOR ANSWER TO QUESTION ON ORDER PAPER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know to which minister to direct this question; it may involve more than one. On May 29 I placed on the order paper a question, No. 43, relating to certain expenditures of government departments. I wonder whether I could have any indication as to when it might be answered.
Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Acting Secretary
of Slate): Mr. Speaker, I shall inquire into that matter for the hon. member.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State or in his absence to the minister acting in his behalf. Would the Secretary of State or the Acting Secretary of State inform the house whether the privilege extended to civil servants of early closing of the work day during times of excessive heat is also extended to prevailing rate employees; and if not, why not?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Acting Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, that is a matter into which I shall have to inquire. I was under the impression that it was so, but I shall be glad to find out for certain and inform the hon. member.



CANADIAN PACIFIC STEAMSHIPS


Michael Starr: the second reading of Bill No. C-42, to

provide for the resumption of the British Columbia coast steamship service operated by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to bring about a settlement by agreement of the differences between the parties to this dispute which has, of course, a long history.
We have been directly interested and concerned in this matter, as I told the house yesterday, since July of 1957, but its origins date back considerably beyond that time. The question is now being brought before parliament in this way because of very special circumstances not usually present in a normal impasse between labour and management. Among other circumstances are, of course, the extreme hardship to which a substantial number of Canadians who are in no way parties to the dispute are being subjected by the failure to reach agreement between the company and a part of its employees. It might be well at this point to emphasize that over half the employees of the company have signed a two-year agreement providing for an 8 per cent increase in pay. It is the difference between the company and the remainder of its employees which creates the present situation.
The hardship imposed on those who are not directly involved is very real. It is not merely a matter of inconvenience or discomfort to them; in many cases the livelihood and welfare of both individuals and communities are threatened. As a matter of fact, it is not too much to say that for many it involves serious problems in their supply lines for the necessities of life.
In this situation the government is faced with two alternatives. We can either do nothing, allow the strike to take its course and at the same time allow these communities to suffer, or we can take positive action to bring home to both parties the seriousness of the situation and provide new procedures under the authority of parliament which will supply a new initiative and, perhaps, a new climate in which settlement by agreement may be reached.
The bill provides, in the interim, for the immediate resumption of this essential service by the appointment of an administrator with the necessary powers. In effect the bill ends the strike so far as its impact on innocent bystanders is concerned, but it provides for the resumption of negotiations between the parties vitally concerned within the existing rights of each. To this extent it may be said to reactivate the normal procedures of collective bargaining which have broken down after 12 months of almost continuous settlement attempts.
Canadian Pacific Steamships
Yesterday I gave the house a resume of these attempts and indicated the many steps which have been taken by the Department of Labour to bring the parties together through the good offices, first of the conciliation officer, then of a board of conciliation, then of an industrial commission of inquiry and, finally, of the minister himself, in personal intervention and direct talks with the principals of both parties.
The situation has been further complicated by a dispute which tied up the only alternative water communication between the mainland and a number of island communities. That is now before the courts, and I will say no more in this connection except that the uncertainty of this situation is one of the factors which was taken into account before a decision to introduce this bill was reached.
In addition to appointing an administrator and providing for the renegotiation of differences, this bill also makes provision for the establishment of an additional procedure in the event that the dislocation of vital communications and the resulting hardship to large numbers of people develops into emergency proportions. I do not predict, Mr. Speaker, that this will happen. The government will use every resource at its command to prevent it from happening. But should it happen the consequences would, in our opinion, be tragic if all we could say to those who were suffering was that our hands were tied and that there was nothing we could do about it, whether because parliament was not in session or for some other reason. That would be the position if this bill were not to have the assent of parliament, because-and I wish to emphasize this-we have already availed ourselves, and so have the parties to the dispute, of every statutory provision now existing for reaching a settlement.
The bill, therefore, provides that the parties themselves, if they wish, may refer any matter on which they are unable to agree for decision by an independent board. It will also be possible, as a last resort, for the governor in council to refer any matter to the board under emergency conditions. The board would be empowered to act within the limitations of the revision or amendment of the existing collective agreement, either at the request of the parties or by the decision of the governor in council.
The bill also provides that the governor in council may make regulations to give effect to the decision of the arbitrator. The bill includes provisions to safeguard the right of employees who may have gone on strike to return to work without fear of being discharged from their employment because of

Canadian Pacific Steamships the strike action. It provides for the immediate withdrawal of the notice of strike, which will become invalid when this bill becomes law.
Many members of the house represent areas which because of their geographical situation could not be as vitally affected by a strike of this kind as the residents of the British Columbia communities in question. I need hardly say that many of the problems which face us as Canadians are geographic, and this is particularly so in matters involving vital communications. It is for this reason, of course, that the question of the proper limitations and responsibilities affecting government intervention very often arise in the communications field.
In the case of British Columbia on the one hand and our eastern maritime provinces on the other, the disruption of water communication over an uncertain and extended period can have widespread and serious results. In moving the second reading of this bill, I think I may properly request the sympathetic consideration by all members of this special aspect of the problem which underlies the bill before the house.
In conclusion, it may be well to explain to the house that there is an immediate provisional 8 per cent increase in the rate of wages. This will have the effect of providing a wage increase for the group of employees who will now go back to work, in line with the increase granted to the majority of their fellow employees, under the two-year contract effective June 1 of this year. This in no way prejudices the position of either party in the negotiations which will now continue.
I should advise the house that I will be asking one of my colleagues to move an amendment at the appropriate stage to provide that instead of a reference at the request of the parties or otherwise to a single person, the reference will be to a board of three, and this amendment will be made to clause 7.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposiiion):: Mr. Speaker, the bill which is before the house, and it is certainly a bill of an unusual character, is based on a resolution which was introduced in this house yesterday afternoon. Because of the urgent consideration which was requested, quite rightly, that resolution was passed through all its stages in this house in a couple of hours. The bill was then printed overnight, placed in the hands of hon. members this morning at about ten o'clock, and we are debating second reading of the bill at 3.15 this afternoon. Surely, therefore, there can be no suggestion that the opposition is holding up this bill or showing any other consideration than that of awareness of the urgency of the problem.

Nevertheless, we have our responsibilities to discharge in connection with this bill, and we intend to do that. Incidentally, when I say the bill was in the hands of hon. members at ten o'clock this morning I should add in fairness that it was in my hands in mimeographed form last night at approximately seven o'clock. I appreciate that courtesy, which I assume was also extended to the leader of the C.C.F. party.
The chronology of this unhappy business of a labour dispute which began, as the Minister of Labour has just reminded us, over a year ago and of a strike which began on May 16, is a monument to an inept governmental performance of which British Columbia has been the victim. As we see it-and there is a great deal of evidence to support the view and I hope to produce some of it-this procedure has exhibited a careless unawareness of a labour problem which was permitted to develop into a crisis, and which has created loss, distress, great inconvenience and business dislocation to an important section of the Canadian people. In the words of the minister himself it has caused "extreme hardship", and it has caused that extreme hardship not for days but for a good many weeks.
The question then that faces us in this house is this. Does the public interest which must be paramount now, require the end of this strike by legislative action of the kind suggested, with a renewal-and this is certainly indispensable-of the process of collective bargaining in some form?
Certainly the situation, as I have said, has been serious in British Columbia for a good many weeks now. I have read, and the information is no doubt founded in fact, that the strike has already resulted in the loss of $2 million to the tourist industry alone on Vancouver island, and that 30,000 tourist reservations in that island have been cancelled this summer. I suppose it is too late now to restore the position of the island in that regard.
I submit that an energetic and determined effort to solve this problem, not days ago but weeks ago, would in all probability have prevented what the minister has called this extreme hardship. Certainly it is true, as he has suggested, that Vancouver island has been effectively cut off from the mainland so far as Canadian water transportation is concerned or, as perhaps the people in Vancouver island might prefer to put it, the mainland has been cut off from Vancouver island. That is a situation, of course, that somehow must be ended even at this late date; and I take it this bill is designed-but as we see it not well designed-for that purpose.

We submit that if the right kind of action had been taken earlier it likely would not have been necessary to produce this kind of bill or indeed any bill. It would not have been necessary to rush it through parliament in a few hours after the bill was printed, without sufficient opportunity to study it and to consider whether amendments could be drafted to make it a better bill for the purpose in mind.
I have been informed that one hon. member of this house, the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard, in a telephone radio statement last night has criticized the opposition for obstruction and holding up this bill, for delay, when the bill was in the boxes of hon. members at ten o'clock this morning and we are debating second reading at 3:15 this afternoon. I do not think anybody is likely to be very much impressed by that kind of argument.
We are now faced with the situation that has been created, and we agree that in view of that situation water communication between the mainland and the island as a public service-because it is a public service, however it may be conducted-must be restored. We will not, therefore, oppose the bill, but we will certainly condemn the government for allowing a situation to develop which makes this bill necessary because of urgent practical considerations which makes this kind of hasty emergency legislative action necessary, the kind of action that should only be required of this house in times of great national emergency. Perhaps when we reach the committee stage we will be able to submit some changes in the light of the discussions that have taken place which will improve the bill. We will have to consider that as the discussion proceeds.
Let us look at the situation, Mr. Speaker. This strike, as I said, began on May 16 and is now in its 69th day. The seafarers' international union, a union which has more than once in recent years been the centre of controversy, representing 303 employees of British Columbia coast steamships, called its members off their jobs following the failure to reach an agreement with the company. The principal issue of course was, and remains one, of wages. As the Minister of Labour pointed out to the house yesterday afternoon, and he mentioned it again this afternoon, negotiations began with this union in the summer of 1957 and the existing contract expired, I think, on September 15, 1957.
No progress was made during those negotiations between the company and the union and on July 29 of last year, at the request of the union, the Department of Labour, as the minister has pointed out, appointed a conciliator
Canadian Pacific Steamships who met with the parties to the dispute I believe on five occasions. The conciliator reported on August 30, 1957, to the Minister of Labour that he had failed in his efforts to bring about an agreement; therefore a conciliation board was appointed at that time by the minister.
That board began its hearings on October 28 last. It filed its report with the minister on February 11 of this year. As the minister knows, three members of the board agreed unanimously on the recommendations covering 13 items in dispute, and the chairman of the board and the representative of the employer agreed on recommendations, I think, covering 10 other items in dispute; but in the matter of wages, which was the most important matter before the board, each member made a separate recommendation. The minister was good enough to put on Hansard yesterday what those recommendations were.
The chairman recommended a two-year contract; that wages be increased as of Sep-temper 15, 1958 by 16 per cent in the first year and 9 per cent in the second year, or a total increase over the term of the contract of 25 per cent. The employer representative -and this is interesting in the light of what is happening now and what is provided for by this legislation-recommended an increase of 12 per cent in the first year and if the agreement was to extend into the second year, a second increase in that year of 8 per cent, I believe.


Michael Starr: Five per cent.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Five per cent, or a total of 17 per cent. The employee representative recommended something that I think would have given in terms of percentage about a 31 per cent increase over the period of the contract. Well, these recommendations of the board were rejected, and following that rejection the government on May 27 of this year appointed a commissioner of inquiry, Mr. Eric Taylor, who failed to bring about a settlement.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, May 27 of this year was the time when the government should have stepped in, or just after May 27, when the commissioner of inquiry reported that he had been unable to bring about an agreement; but that did not happen. The commissioner was asked to go back and try again. He failed and recommended voluntary arbitration, a recommendation which I understand was accepted by everybody but the seafarers' international union. There is a strike not only of this union but also of members of the association of marine engineers and the merchant service guild, and I shall do no more than just mention that fact.

Canadian Pacific Steamships
Now, Mr. Speaker, for over six weeks in this house the opposition asked a good many questions of the government as to what they were going to do both to recognize the seriousness of this situation and what they were going to do about it. I have those questions before me. Incidentally, there was only a single Conservative member in this house from British Columbia who asked a question on this subject during this period, and that question was asked by the hon. member for Victoria last May.
Why, Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in the house yesterday, we were told as late as Tuesday of this week by the Minister of Labour-after the Canadian Press had indicated that legislation was going to be introduced-merely that the government was giving serious consideration to the matter. That was said in answer to some questions asked by the hon. member for Laurier. Why, nine days ago on July 15, according to the press, the Prime Minister wrote to the president of the associated members of commerce of Vancouver island to the effect that the government was restricting its efforts to mediation. Presumably at that late date there was no suggestion to the parties in dispute that legislation might have to be introduced by the government.
We did not take very much time yesterday in discussing the resolution, but we did take enough time to try to find out whether the parties to this dispute had in fact been informed in advance that in default of agreement there would have to be legislation. Surely, Mr. Speaker, this is a very important matter. It has a very important bearing on the possibility of settling this dispute without legislative interference. When we asked this question yesterday the Prime Minister said, as reported at page 2578 of Hansard:
I think it was made very clear that unless some amicable agreement was arrived at it would be necessary for the parliament of Canada to act.
Shortly afterward, on the same page of Hansard, the Minister of Labour said the government had not given any intimation during the discussion that any such action would be taken. But having said that, he went right on in the same intervention to say, and I quote from page 2579 of Hansard:
-but we did point out that if the parties did not arrive at a solution themselves action would have to be taken.
Well, that statement in its two parts seems to me to be contradictory and therefore somewhat confusing. That statement was supplemented by the minister a minute or two later, when he said:
This particular action was discussed last night in all aspects with one of the parties interested.

By "last night" I presume he meant Tuesday night. Naturally we queried him about this, and he amended that answer as follows, as reported on the same page of Hansard:
We explored every avenue and had discussions with both parties about the possibilities of legislation at this time.
Well, I am quite sure that leaves the house in a state of confusion, doubt and uncertainty about this very important aspect of the problem. Surely, therefore, Mr. Speaker, we have the right to know when the parties to this dispute were told that legislative action might be necessary. In what terms were they given that information, namely that if they did not come to an agreement themselves parliament would be asked to act? Because I can imagine no more important incentive to get the two parties to agree than to tell them that if they did not agree, tell them in specific terms at the earliest stage possible, last May, if you like, that if they did not come to terms parliament might be asked by the government to act.
The conclusion that we on this side of the house have come to is that the government did not act energetically and effectively to meet this situation and did not show an appreciation of the seriousness of developments. I think it is quite unwarranted to say, then, that everything had been done that could have been done.
The Vancouver Sun said on June 5, and I quote from that paper, that the present situation-
-was brought about, in part, by the federal government's failure to find a means of settling the C.P.R. strike. These vessels, unlike those of Black Ball, are under federal regulation. Ottawa seemed apathetic so long as the Black Ball line was open for business. It appeared that Ottawa was content to play for time.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that that was not the time to be playing for time. On July 17, three weeks or so later, the same newspaper had this to say:
The federal government persists in treating British Columbians-and Vancouver island residents in particular-as second class Canadians.
For two solid months now it has neglected or refused to take decisive action to bring an end to the strike tying up the Canadian Pacific's Princess fleet.
In the same editorial we find the following:
The Canadians living in these two parts of British Columbia certainly deserve as much consideration as Canadians living elsewhere. So far they aren't getting it.
Why, Mr. Speaker, earlier in May, immediately after the strike started, the mayor of Victoria and many others on Vancouver island and in British Columbia generally did their very best to impress on the government the seriousness of the developing situation.

The mayor of Victoria is reported by the Vancouver Sun as saying in May that acting under the authority of an emergency meeting of business and civic leaders he had tried to reach the Prime Minister or transport minister Hees by telephone for a whole day, and that he was unsuccessful. He wired the Prime Minister, according to this newspaper report, asking a telephone call at the Prime Minister's convenience, but he had not received one and he added, "I am disappointed and very concerned that the people of this area are being ignored." That was last May.
On June 11, of course, it is true that the Minister of Justice was in British Columbia after the failure, I take it, of the federal mediator, Mr. Taylor, to find an acceptable solution to the dispute. The minister is reported as having said at that time that attempts would be made at another level to reach agreement, and that the matter would be put before the labour department in Ottawa. The matter had been before the labour department at that time for a good many months, and that kind of response does not seem to me to indicate an awareness of what was happening.


Michael Starr: What report are you reading from?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am reading from a newspaper report in the Vancouver Sun. I will be glad to send it over to my hon. friend. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this somewhat easygoing procedure is in startling contrast to that followed by the previous government in connection with the railway strike in 1950. Some hon. members will remember that the strike began on August 22 and that parliament acted on August 30 to end it, eight days later. That was only 12 days after the mediator appointed by the government on that occasion had announced that he had failed in his task. In other words, 12 days after the mediator appointed by the government to end the strike announced that he had failed, the strike had been ended by parliamentary action.
Notwithstanding the speed and efficiency, as I believe, with which the government of that day acted, which was due in large part, as hon. members who were here will remember, to the vigorous personal intervention of the prime minister of that day to bring the strike to an end, what did the opposition then say about the steps that were taken? The present Prime Minister, who was then a member of the opposition, had this to say as found on pages 73 and 74 of Hansard for August 30, 1950:
Urgency there has been for months. While the urgency of the situation required action by this
Canadian Pacific Steamships government and while our economic position in this country was worsening week by week, the government was vacationing.
And again:
-for days . . . the government did nothing. The government was not giving that leadership which the people of Canada had a right to expect.
The present Prime Minister castigated the government of that day for not taking action sooner than one week after the strike had been called.


John George Diefenbaker: The trouble had been going on for months.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The trouble had been going on and action was being taken by the government. A strike took place. A special session of parliament was called, and within a week of the strike being called the strike was over. What are we then to say about a government which has been unable to take effective action in connection with a transport strike which has been going on since May 16?
As a result of this inability to bring the strike to an end in any other way, we now have a bill before us, a bill which as I understand it-some of my colleagues will have more to say about its details later-seems to me to be unclear in spots, which perhaps may create as many problems as it solves, and certainly warrants a great many questions being asked about it. Parliament is now being asked to intervene by passing legislation compelling strikers to go to work. That is a very unusual role for parliament and one that no member of parliament enjoys. However, that is what we are being requested to approve at this time. The first question that comes to mind, of course, is what principle is the government acting under in submitting this legislation? The Prime Minister had this to say yesterday on this point, as found on page 2578 of Hansard:
-it would be necessary for the parliament of Canada to act; that public security and maintenance of a proper regard for the rights of others would demand the introduction of such legislation.
Presumably that is the principle he had in mind in asking the parliament of Canada to act. I can see all sorts of possibilities of danger in the adoption and extension of that principle, "a proper regard for the rights of others", as justifying parliamentary action in a labour dispute. The Minister of Justice also had something to say on this point. As found on page 2582 of Hansard, he said with respect to the question of the principles under which the government was acting:
Of course, Mr. Speaker, the government recognizes that it is a matter of concern to the government on behalf of the people of Canada to see that the people of Canada are served with adequate transportation facilities, and I suppose that is the broad general principle involved in the bill.

Canadian Pacific Steamships
Then he went on:
We-
The government.
-felt the interests of the company required it.


Mr. Fulton:: There is a misprint there. It should be "country".


Lester Bowles Pearson: Then I withdraw my observation. It read "in the interests of the company" and I was about to say-


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have no hesitation in saying that what I intended to say and what I think I said was "country" and not "company". I think my hon. friend will agree that that is borne out by the context.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I accept without hesitation the correction of my hon. friend. In that form, of course, it is a perfectly proper observation to make.
We felt the interests of the country required it; we know we have the legislative jurisdiction to do it, and we propose to submit this proposition to parliament for its approval if parliament agrees with the course being adopted.
This bill, Mr. Speaker, orders strikers back to work by section 4. That, of course, is an unusual and very significant provision in a legislative enactment, and one which is bound to arouse a good deal of questioning in every member's mind. Every member of the house wants to be absolutely certain that he understands what is meant by this and that he has some appreciation of the government's position in justifying it, because the clause now reads that every employee who is now on strike shall return to the duties of his employment. It includes everybody, every employee who is now on strike.
This is not a situation such as existed in 1950 in the railway strike, when the strike had only lasted for a few days and the employees were available and ready to go back to work if a settlement could be reached.	This strike has been going on
since May 16, and now legislation is being passed ordering every employee on strike to go back, every employee who presumably was working on May 16, which is quite a long time ago. What about those employees who may have left the province during these weeks? What about employees who may be, if you like, out of British Columbia and in Nova Scotia? Are they to be ordered to go back and resume employment as it was on May 16, with the changes submitted in the legislation?
What about the situation that has been created by the Canadian Pacific disposing of two ships? Must the men who worked on those ships, and who are no longer in the employ of the company, be given work; or

must they, under this legislation, be compelled to go back to work on ships which are now no longer part of the company's fleet?
Yesterday when we were discussing the resolution the hon. member for Laurier asked this question, which appears at page 2580 of Hansard:
What is the position with respect to the other members of the other union, that is the S.I.U.? Do they go back at an increased wage?
The Minister of Labour is reported in Hansard as replying:
I cannot say with certainty that they would go back, but I expect and have every hope that they will-
I hope we will hear something from the government side as to the exact meaning of this compulsory back to work order. What happens to men who were employees of this company last May and who now either desire not to go back to work or are not in a position to go back to work?


Edmund Davie Fulton: If the hon. gentleman would just read two more sentences he would find the answer to his question.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have not found it yet.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I read it to the hon.
gentleman then, because it says on page 2581-


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps the hon. member
will be intervening in the debate-


Edmund Davie Fulton: I thought it might save my hon. friend some time. If he will just read two more sentences he will find the answer to his question.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I shall be glad to do that. Let me ask another question, and perhaps my hon. friend will be as happy in his own mind in clearing this up as he has been with the one I have just asked. Clause 6 of the bill reads:
The company and each union shall forthwith enter into negotiations with a view to the settlement of any matters presently in dispute between them as to the terms of an amendment or revision of the existing collective agreement-
-and so on. There is no time limit in the bill with reference to the period during which this resumption of negotiations may continue.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that he is getting pretty close to the details of the sections, and those would be more appropriately discussed when we are in committee. If he can he should keep his remarks as closely as possible to the matter of principle. I do not object to a section being read to illustrate a principle, but it seems to me he is now getting into the details of the wording.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: I believe, Mr. Speaker, in view of the peculiar circumstances connected with the consideration being given to this bill, and it having been in the possession of the Leader of the Opposition only since last evening, there would be no objection raised and the application of the ordinary rule should be abrogated.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I shall do my best to keep my remarks within the ordinary application of the rules on second reading, and restrict them to questions of principle. There is, of course, an important principle involved in clause 6 of this bill. The principle is that collective bargaining is to be resumed, and nothing could be more important than that in a bill of this kind. However, Mr. Speaker, this principle is not subject to any time limitation, and the proceedings could go on indefinitely. Yet there is no incentive, indeed there is quite the reverse, to reach an agreement within the terms of this legislation by the ordinary processes of collective bargaining.
For instance, the men are going back to work with an increase in wages of 8 per cent, which is considerably less than that offered to them by the employer's representative on the board. Surely that is not a proposal which is going to commend itself to the men, when it is less than they would have obtained from the employer representative's recommendation. Nor is it going to be an incentive to the company to make an agreement with the men, when the administrator is operating for the company on the basis of an 8 per cent increase. Aware of this difficulty, and aware of the possible complications raised by the fact that nothing in this bill puts a time limit on the negotiations and bargaining at the end of which perhaps the matter might again have to be looked at by the government, we asked the Prime Minister yesterday, if there was no agreement what happens then?
The Prime Minister said, as reported on page 2579:
On this occasion-
He was contrasting the procedure with that of 1950.
-we simply make provision to get the men back to work and the ships in operation. ... If other eventualities arise, and I am not here for the purpose of trying to envisage what the possibilities might be, then in that case, of course, we will be placed in a position where, if other action is necessary, it may be taken at that time.


John George Diefenbaker: That is provided for in
clause 7.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is right; but there is
no specific statement to the effect that if at the end of 30 days, 60 days or 90 days no
Canadian Pacific Steamships settlement has been reached, then other action will be taken. There is merely a provision that at any time the government can step in and take other and presumably more effective action.
As the Prime Minister points out, this provision is in clause 7 of the bill. While I do not wish to infringe the rules by quoting clause 7, it is true that this is a very important principle in this legislation. The government, by order in council, can take any action it desires in connection with this bill. Unlike the legislation of 1950, which, whether you approve of it or disapprove of it, did provide certain definite provisions by which the parties concerned knew exactly where they stood. Perhaps that was one of the reasons why the compulsory arbitration provision of that legislation was not required. We do not know what will happen under this legislation. We do know that there is not going to be a very great incentive to the company to bring about an agreement with the union when the members of the union are being paid an increase less than the employer's representative recommended.


John George Diefenbaker: May I ask the hon.
member a question? Would he elucidate what he meant a moment ago, when he said that is why compulsory arbitration was not then required. What did he mean by that statement?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I meant that in connection
with the railway settlement under that legislation, agreement was reached and the compulsory arbitration provisions of the legislation were not required and were not used. I am suggesting that in this legislation there is provision for compulsory arbitration in this clause, because the governor in council has the power to take action to that end if the government feels it is necessary. But it is an indefinite provision, and there is no time limit. There is, of course, no certainty that it will ever be used, or that that kind of action might be taken. I suggest, however, there are great possibilities of confusion and danger in that kind of indefinite, unlimited power being given to the governor in council.
There are other provisions in this legislation with which we will be able to deal when we are in committee. But quite apart from the particular issue of the strike and the desirability or necessity of getting this service resumed, I suggest we should take advantage of this situation to bring this whole matter very forcibly to the attention of the House of Commons so that we as a parliament may give consideration to a new policy for communication between Vancouver island and the mainland under modern conditions, and perhaps prevent this kind of

Canadian Pacific Steamships situation developing again in the future. Surely it is obvious to all, in the light of what has happened, that the island now must have adequate all year round secure water connection with the mainland.
The question is not, as I understand it, whether or not it is profitable. That matter is important, just as it is important when a new six-lane highway that is considered to be essential has to be built. But while the question of profit is important the question of service is even more important, and indeed is a paramount consideration with regard to this matter. It would therefore perhaps be well at this time for the government, if it saw fit, to initiate immediately a federal-provincial survey by experts to examine and report on the most efficient and least costly method for a combined highway and short-haul service between the island and the mainland which might even be considered if you like, as part of the trans-Canada highway system.
There is also, Mr. Speaker, the even more important, indeed the fundamental question of federal policy and federal responsibility with regard to the settlement of industrial disputes of this kind in the light of changing conditions. As early as 1950, in connection with the railway dispute of that year to which I have already referred, the present Prime Minister made a strong plea for a parliamentary committee to re-examine and restate the principles of collective bargaining. He will remember his plea; it can be found in Hansard 1950 at page 74. Again on January 9, 1957 he advocated-and I quote from the Hansard of that day-as follows-
-a revision of the conciliation methods and procedures in the interests of flexibility and the prompt settlement of industrial disputes.
He also advocated, and I quote further- -improvement and modernization of the machinery for conciliations.
Perhaps this situation in British Columbia has driven home to us all the necessity for doing something along those lines. On March 9, 1958, during the election campaign the Prime Minister is quoted by the Vancouver Province as stating in that city that his party wanted legislation to prevent long delays in settling industrial disputes.
I suggest to the Prime Minister and the government that this is a good time to carry out or begin to carry out that promise. That kind of action may help the government in avoiding in the future the kind of deplorable situation which has developed over this strike; and certainly, Mr. Speaker, it should save the people of British Columbia and of other parts of Canada from the unhappy consequences in the future of a situation such as that with which we are faced 

today, when the intervention of this parliament is required to settle an industrial dispute.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, in rising to deal with the second reading of this bill I should like to say first that I certainly associate myself with the general remarks of the Leader of the Opposition as they apply to the great delay that has taken place in dealing with this question. I may not agree with some of the other things the hon. gentleman said but with his approach, from the general point of view that there has been unnecessary delay, I agree.
I think first we should probably look at the conciliation machinery under the Department of Labour at the present time and attempt to determine why it has failed to operate in this case-because it resulted in a strike some weeks ago-and why it has generally failed to be of much benefit to labour-management relations over the years. In attempting to look at it in that light we might find part of the reason why this government found itself in a quandary as to what to do with respect to the situation on the west coast of British Columbia.
We have had the same machinery in effect for some number of years now and have used it in the same manner without any attempt on the part of the government-and I am not confining my remarks to this particular government; I refer to the governments that were in office during the period of time this legislation has been operative and up to now -to appear to grasp changing psychological forces that were at work in labour-management relations. This criticism is not confined to the federal field either; it applies equally well to all the provincial governmental conciliation proceedings that I know of. Ever since the end of the war there has been a failure to realize that changes are taking place, that there are different attitudes on the part of management and on the part of the unions also, and that there is a different industrial picture now from that which existed some years ago. Nevertheless the legislation and the philosophy of the people administering it have not kept pace with those changing times. That is probably one of the major reasons why we find this particular situation at the moment.
Certainly the closing remarks of the Leader of the Opposition with respect to an overhauling of the legislation and an overhauling of the machinery were most pertinent. That is something that is certainly long overdue. If this government will undertake to realize that fact and attempt to deal with the matter, perhaps in the future we shall have the type of legislation and the type of attitude on the

part of the people administering it that will be conducive to the settlement to differences of opinion between employees and employers when matters get to this stage.
While the government spokesmen have indicated from time to time over the past few weeks that they had this matter under consideration, I would submit that the only reason they finally took action to deal with it was that the government was forced into it. They were forced into taking action from the point of view, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, of the Black Ball ferry service being discontinued as of last week, the result being the cutting off of all shipping services between the mainland and Vancouver island. In addition I would submit also that the government was forced into action by a number of Conservative backbenchers who apparently have been under considerable pressure from their constituents to get some action on this particular strike.
We all know that probably every part of the province of British Columbia has a willingness and a desire to see the service reinstituted and to see a settlement of this dispute. We all know, especially those of us who come from British Columbia and who have travelled on these steamship lines between the island of Vancouver and the mainland on many occasions, the detrimental effect the strike has had on people living on Vancouver island, especially during this tourist season. We here in the House of Commons, in considering this bill, must look at it having in mind the great responsibility we have to the general public and for the economic welfare of the area affected by the strike.
It is true that the bill has only been in the hands of hon. members for a short period of time. It will, I think, require fairly lengthy discussion, and we will have to analyse main principles and some of the subsidiary principles involved before proceeding to an examination of the various clauses. We must look at the bill in the light of discharging our responsibility to the general public, and if an extended discussion does arise I hope the house will not consider that those who ask questions or make comments are doing so merely to delay the proceedings, but that they are merely seeking to understand the bill and its implications adequately before consent is given to its passage.
In this regard, while I did not see the news report to the effect that the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Taylor) had, over radio or television or in a telephone interview, last night deplored the fact that the opposition was delaying the passage of this bill, I think that if he did so-and I do not know whether he did or not-he owes an apology to members of the opposition
Canadian Pacific Steamships parties, especially since he knows that the bill was not in our hands this morning until twenty minutes or fifteen minutes to ten o'clock. Certainly, last night there could have been no possibility of delaying the progress of this legislation.
I think it may be well to explain in a little detail some of the events which took place during the negotiations leading up to the cessation of this service, because I am sure that not only those who are directly affected by this service, or lack of service, but all members of the house would wish the employees of this company to be amply rewarded for the work they perform. It may be that a review of some of the wage rates and some of the changes that have taken place over the years would be of interest to the house and the country in considering this matter.
According to information compiled by the British Columbia federation of labour and the Vancouver labour council, the average wage rate paid to the seamen, to the employees, on these runs at the time of the strike, was from $1.31 to $1.35 an hour, which may be compared with the minimum wage in a number of other industries in British Columbia of $1.60, $1.70 and $1.75 an hour.


Mr. McPhillips:: What about their perquisites, the perquisites they get in connection with their employment, such as free meals and free board.


Frank Howard: I was talking about wage rates. Free meals and other things are in addition to that, but I mentioned wage rates because both the minister and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) indicated today that this question was the main problem at the root of this strike, not board and lodging. That is all I am talking about. The only increase these men have had since 1953 has been in the neighbourhood of $19 a month and, averaged over a 40-hour week-it would work out less if averaged over a week longer than 40 hours-it means an increase of approximately 10 cents an hour since 1953.
The junior chamber of commerce of Victoria had an interest in this matter, and I am sure the hon. member who asked a question just now may be familiar with the investigation which was carried out by that organization. In an attempt to provide a public service, in accordance with one of the objects for which it was formed, the junior chamber of commerce interviewed representatives of the C.P.R., representatives of the union, and Mr. Taylor who was the commissioner appointed to consider the dispute, and posed a number of questions to the individuals concerned.
2614	HOUSE OF
Canadian Pacific Steamships I am not going to read this three-page document in toto, but if any hon. member would like to see it he would be welcome. Chamber of commerce representatives posed some questions to a Mr. Frame of the C.P.R. on the wage structure and its relation to the fare structure, and so on. Four or five very important questions were put to Mr. Fraine in an attempt to discover, for instance, what a certain wage increase would mean with respect to a fare increase; the comparison between the transportation rates of the C.P.R. and those of other companies; the effect of special fare structures during particular seasons of the year; and so on. To all these important questions Mr. Fraine's answer, generally, was: "I do not know", or "We are not too sure on this point." The conclusion reached by the junior chamber of commerce, was that the union has considerable merit in its demand for increased wages. This, the conclusion added, would appear to be supported by the fact that the company's nominee and the chairman of the conciliation board respectively advocated increases of 17 per cent and 25 per cent. The report added:
We feel the onus is upon the company to take the lead in view of the fact that the union has dropped from its original exorbitant demands to a figure similar to that recommended by the chairman of the conciliation board and further because the company's nominee recommended a figure approximately the mean of the company's present offer and the union's current demand.
The question of whether or not either of the parties, or both of them, have up to now been bargaining in good faith is one that need not be referred to at this time and, probably, one person's interpretation with regard to this will be just as valid as another's.
In our efforts to discharge our responsibility to the public who are suffering hardship because of this strike we must be careful not to destroy any of the fundamental rights of either of the parties in dispute. I do not think we should attempt to interfere with what we have developed in Canada, with what is considered as the free play of forces between industry and management in labour negotiations. I doubt very much whether we are not, by considering the passage of this bill, or some parts of it, laying the ground for the destruction of some of these fundamental relationships between union and management. Questions such as penalties have to be considered, but that we can deal with later on in the bill.
Apart from the principle enunciated yesterday and today that this bill represents an attempt to get the line back into operation, there is another principle set out in the bill. In this regard the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) was questioned yesterday about what would happen if the bill passed and


if, after the parties sat down to negotiate, they failed to reach agreement. What steps would be necessary following upon that? I believe the Prime Minister misled the house or did not give us a complete account of what was likely to happen when he made his answer. I quote his remarks as recorded at page 2579 of yesterday's Hansard. I believe the Leader of the Opposition quoted these remarks, too, although for a different purpose. The Prime Minister said:
In 1950, of course, provision was made for compulsory arbitration under the legislation, and we opposed that at that time. On this occasion we simply make provision to get the men back to work and the ships in operation.
I take from the remarks of the Prime Minister yesterday that he and the members of his party were opposed to compulsory arbitration in 1950. Surely they should be consistent and oppose it now. Although he said this bill would simply make provision to get the men back to work and the ships in operation we find there is another purpose to this bill which lays the groundwork for the cabinet or the governor in council to institute compulsory arbitration in this particular instance.
We in the C.C.F. have not changed our position in this respect since 1950 and I can appreciate why the Leader of the Opposition did not make reference to this. Our position with respect to compulsory arbitration is the same as that we held prior to the election in March and prior to the election last June. Of course on close examination of the bill we note that it provides for compulsory arbitration and we can see, therefore, that the opinions of other parties in the house in this respect have changed. The establishment of the principle of compulsory arbitration is just another indication of how little real thought the Conservative party gave to the statements it made when its members sat on this side of the house. It is merely another attempt on the part of the Conservative party to doublecross those whom it espoused during the election.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Frank Howard: Hon. members can "oh, oh" as much as they wish. The fact remains that during the election campaign the Prime Minister and other members of the cabinet went from one end of the country to the other with their arms around the working class people and said "All you have to do is vote for us"-they even had some literature printed about it-"and we will renounce compulsory arbitration as an instrument for settling industrial disputes". In fact, the features of the Prime Minister appeared on the front page of a document published by the Conservative party in which excerpts from

speeches of the hon. gentleman were quoted. One of them reads in part as follows:
-we reiterate our opposition to compulsory arbitration as an instrument for settling industrial disputes.
Comments were made about this matter during the debate on the railway strike in 1950. I have one or two references about which I should like to remind hon. gentlemen opposite. I have one or two quotations taken from the remarks made by Mr. Drew, the then leader of the opposition, but because he is not here I doubt if it would serve any purpose to place them on the record. I shall only mention that they indicate that he was opposed to the feature of compulsory arbitration. Dealing with this question, on August 30, 1950, as reported at page 73 of Hansard of that date, the present Prime Minister had this to say:
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 70 years.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Of course, in the 1950 bill no provision was made for what is real compulsory arbitration.


Frank Howard: Of course, I could not be expected to understand what the hon. gentleman was thinking about when he made that statement but those were his words.
The hon. lady who is now Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mrs. Fairclough) had some comments to make also as reported at pages 75 and 76 of Hansard of this same date on which occasion she said:
I hold very strong views 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.
The hon. lady was opposed at that time to the very same thing that is now being proposed by her colleagues which undoubtedly has received the endorsation of the hon. lady in the cabinet. I can only speculate to that extent.	.
I merely want to point out that there is a feature in the bill which is most objectionable. It was most objectionable to hon. members opposite when they were seeking votes and when they sat on this side of the house attempting to criticize in every possible way the attitude of the previous Liberal administration. I think they had ample justification
Canadian Pacific Steamships for criticizing that attitude. But we find today that the views they held then have now been abandoned and this bill lays the groundwork for compulsory arbitration and that is the part of the bill that I find most objectionable. When we reach that particular clause of the bill I am sure other hon. members as well as myself will have additional comments to make.
Before concluding I wish to make a comment or two, one in the form of a question. My question refers to a matter about which the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) probably intended to inform the house. Before we are asked to give formal approval to this bill in second reading I think he should inform us about it. A great deal of authority is being given to the administrator by this bill. I should like the minister to inform us who this person is to be, if that decision has been made, and I rather expect it has because I know the government feels an urgent desire to proceed with this bill as speedily as possible. It should be made clear to the house who this individual is going to be because certainly the attitude and approach of the administrator will have a great bearing upon the relationships between himself and the company. I feel that the house is entitled to know who that person will be.
My hon. friend, the Leader of the Opposition, made some reference to particular clauses of the bill and notably to clause 5 pointing out that one of the failures of that clause was that no time limit was provided. It was suggested, of course, that there should be a time limit and the hon. gentleman mentioned, I believe in speculation, 30, 60 or 90 days, or something of that nature. I should like to point out to the hon. gentleman that it would be most detrimental to impose a time limit on the duration of the negotiations which we expect will arise if the bill receives approval. We find in many cases of labour-management discussions that it is not possible to impose a time limit for reaching a decision no matter what the time limit might be. Let us suppose a time limit of 30 days were to be imposed. What position would the parties find themselves in if on the 29th day at the eleventh hour they felt they were in a position to reach a decision but had not quite reached it because there were some matters left to be determined? What position would they then be in?
They would be bound by the 30-day restriction in the legislation to arriving at a decision or not arriving at a decision, and if they did not arrive at a decision they would be subject to the other features of section 7
2616	HOUSE OF
Canadian Pacific Steamships of the bill, namely compulsory arbitration, which is the only natural and logical step that can follow.
I think the hon. gentleman should revise his suggestions that there should be a time limit, not only from the point of view that the parties may find themselves in the position of almost reaching a settlement at that time but also from the point of view that if there was a time limit it would tend to aggravate the situation and project the resolving of those differences into the hands of an arbitrator or an arbitration board appointed by the governor in council, and I am sure he would not want that to happen.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I have comments to make similar to those of the Leader of the Opposition with respect to passenger communication and automobile communication between Vancouver and Vancouver island. As I say, they are similar to what the Leader of the Opposition suggested with respect to the establishment of those facilities probably through a revision of the present provisions relating to the trans-Canada highway. I see the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) who has all kinds of money that I know he would like to spend, and he would certainly be agreeable to this particular suggestion.
Any hon. gentleman who has been out to that part of the country will realize that between the lower mainland and Vancouver island there are a group of islands called the Gulf islands. The trip from Vancouver across to Nanaimo by the C.P.R. boats takes approximately two hours. It takes a little less than that time by the Black Ball ferry line as they have a little shorter distance to go. I suggest it would not cost the country a great deal to investigate from the engineering point of view and the cost point of view the possibility of a bridge between Vancouver island and Gab-riola island and the construction of a road along Gabriola island on a 50-50 sharing basis, as is done in the case of the trans-Canada highway, and the establishment of a crown-operated ferry between the lower part of Gabriola island and the mainland. The trip could be made in about 45 minutes. The construction of such a ferry certainly would not require the capital expenditures that the Canadian Pacific railway has found necessary to put into the operation of their boats. I think it could be done for much less cost. I commend it very seriously to the consideration of hon. gentlemen opposite, knowing full well that it will not be done next week. But there is next year, Mr. Speaker, and we hope that some steps will be taken to provide some alternate means of transportation, some more speedy arrangement for transportation between the mainland and the island.


I would like to close with the remarks I made at the opening. This situation has developed on the west coast because of the ineffectiveness of the Department of Labour to deal with it up to now, and the inability or the ineffectiveness of Mr. Taylor, even though I understand he is a very reputable and capable person in this field. His ineffectiveness to resolve the dispute should give ample indication to the government that it is necessary completely to revise the outmoded conciliation procedures which are established under the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. We find many, many times, both in provincial fields and in the federal field, that conciliation officers and conciliation boards have no great deep-seated desire to settle disputes. They merely sit and listen to the parties argue and say, "well, we will make some sort of report and we hope it is accepted." We find people being appointed as conciliation board chairmen who in some instances have no conception or no understanding at all of labour-management relations and have no intention or no desire to solve a dispute or to attempt to solve it. They merely say, here, I am a retired banker, or something of that sort, and here is an opportunity for me to rake in some government money, I will take the appointment but I will not do anything drastic to solve the dispute. I hope the parties solve it among themselves; if they do not, it is too bad. That is the unfortunate attitude that has developed over the past few years.
This government, Mr. Speaker, and the Liberal government before it, are equally guilty in failing to grasp the circumstances arising out of changing times and in failing to grasp the changed attitude of both parties to an industrial dispute, the changed psychological approach they have, and the government has failed to adjust the legislation accordingly. So long as we have the present legislation on the statute books which is outmoded and has relatively little effect, we are going to continue to get in these sorts of difficulties. We have to bring our legislation up to date. I hope this is one political promise which the Tories made which they will live up to, namely revamping our legislation.
(Translation):


Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, in spite of what was said by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Taylor), it is important in my view that we should take the trouble of analysing the principle of this bill. In my opinion, the bill is both delicate and dangerous, for it might affect the terms of the collective agreements aris-

ing out of organized labour, and even the discussions preceding the adoption of such agreements.
I have no intention of repeating the very appropriate remarks of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson). I merely wish in these remarks to blame the government for introducing a resolution at the last moment, after negotiations which had been going on for a year, and 86 or 67 days after the strike had been called, and for asking us to rush it through without having had time to consider it, and then for introducing a bill which must be carried after a cursory examination since we have had no time to give it due consideration.
As the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) has said, the members from British Columbia, particularly those from Vancouver, are directly concerned since their electors are affected by the present situation. However, members for other constituencies in the country are also interested in studying employer-employee relations, and that is why I say that the government, by introducing that bill at the last moment, puts us in a practically impossible situation.
The government followed that same procedure in connection with the bill extending the period of unemployment insurance benefits, at the beginning of this session. It was altogether unexpected and, as we had no time to discuss it, we subsequently found out that mistakes had crept in which could have been avoided.
In this case, since we are not as directly concerned as members from British Columbia, we from the rest of the country are not in a position to know the underlying causes of that strike.
We know that discussions had been going on for a year, and that the strike is now 66 or 67 days old, but we know nothing of the labour conditions prevailing before that time. We have no knowledge whatever of the wages these men had been getting or of their present demands; nor do we know anything about the cost of living in that particular area of the country. We do not know of the financial situation of the Canadian Pacific with regard to that company, neither do we know anything of the effects of that strike on people who live in that area. So I say, information on all those points should be given to the house so that hon. members 57071-3-165
Canadian Pacific Steamships might intelligently consider a bill as important as this one.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Speaker, one hon. member is smirking because I said that we should consider this bill intelligently. His reaction does not surprise me, because some members have already been referred to as "trained seals", and this behaviour actually proves that the species does exist in this house.
I am entitled, it seems to me, to ask for more details in order that we may better understand the situation.
In all parts of the country, negotiations are taking place between employers and employees. There are some at present going on in the eastern part of the country between the pulp and paper companies and pulp workers with regard to a new labour agreement. How can we consider this particular labour agreement if we know nothing of the conditions prevailing in British Columbia?
That is why I claim that the government having waited a year before taking any action, having allowed the strike to go on for 60 days, could very well have given us a few days more-I am not offering this alternative as an amendment but merely as a suggestion- could very well have referred the matter to the industrial relations committee, where union representatives and C.P.R. officials could have been called to testify and to answer questions that have to be put in such circumstances.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that the government is attempting to slip this bill in by the back door. It is a dangerous bill because it involves compulsory arbitration in the field of labour relations.
I admit that in certain circumstances, when public interest is at stake, the government has to step in, but it should always do so before the harm is done. Indeed, the government should have intervened before the strike was called, because it knew that the unions had made proposals to the Canadian Pacific in order to settle the situation. Union leaders even told Canadian Pacific management that, if the situation was not settled within 30 days, they would take a strike vote. The Minister of Labour must have known, and his officials must have kept him informed of the fact that there would be a strike. There should simply be no waiting until the harm is done before intervening.
2618	HOUSE OF
Canadian Pacific Steamships
Not only does the government lay down the dangerous principle of compulsory arbitration, but I say that it has not given us a chance to examine the bill intelligently, and I again ask the Minister of Labour to kindly allow us to refer the matter to the industrial relations committee so that we may be able to call in witnesses who would enlighten us, in the rest of the country, on prevailing conditions. We would then have a chance to consider the matter seriously. Perhaps we would then be willing to support the bill heartily.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that those who understand French will make it a point to translate my remarks to the minister. Better still, I will repeat them myself in English, so that he may understand me.
(Text):
I will translate into English the last part of what I said in French. This is an important bill. Those from the east do not know the conditions existing. We do not know the working conditions. We do not know the wages paid before the strike. We do not know the demands made by the union. We have no knowledge of the cost of living in the region affected. We do not know the situation of the C.P.R. with respect to this service. We do not know the situation created by the strike so far as those living in the area are concerned. Therefore in order to be able to study properly a bill of this importance in which forced bargaining is being brought about I think that the bill should be sent to the industrial relations committee so that we can call representatives of the unions and of the C.P.R. in order to study the matter more completely. We will then be in a better position a few days from now to decide upon the matter. The situation has been pending for a year and the strike has been going on for 65 or 66 days. Therefore I say if we could have a chance to discuss the matter with witnesses we would be better able to decide upon it.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, this bill as I read it this morning contains four principles upon which the government intends to proceed in order to dispose of the dispute. One of these principles is the appointment of an administrator who shall act as the agent of the company for the purpose of controlling and carrying on the business of the company. Another is that forthwith upon his appointment the administrator shall resume the carrying on of the business of the company which was suspended because of the


strike and that every employee of the company is directed by this legislation to return to work. Another of the principles laid down in the bill is that there shall be an increase of eight per cent over and above the amounts contained in the collective agreement which existed prior to the enactment of this legislation. Finally, as soon as the ships have been put into operation the steamship company and the union shall enter into negotiations with a view to a settlement of the matters in dispute under the authority of the administrator.
I should like to say that while the opposition will support the legislation because of the urgency of the situation and also because of the special circumstances involved in the dispute, nevertheless it should be pointed out to the government that there are a number of inherent defects and weaknesses in the legislation. I should like to couple my remarks with those of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) in his reference to the delay that occurred prior to the introduction of the legislation. Yesterday in answer to a question the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) gave reasons indicating that there had been no delay and proceeded to put on Hansard in chronological order the actions taken by the Department of Labour. While it is true that the normal processes of the Department of Labour were available during a large part of the duration of the dispute, still the position remains that the government should have indicated much earlier that this legislation was necessary. I am somewhat surprised at the statement the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) made earlier today that the government found itself faced with two alternatives. One of those alternatives was to do nothing and allow the strike to carry on, the other alternative was to proceed by way of legislation as it is doing now.
I say to the Minister of Labour, and to those associated with him on the other side of the house, that if they had proceeded in this manner with reference to another strike, namely that of Canadian National Steamships, perhaps they would have succeeded in saving those eight ships of the crown corporation. Instead of doing this, however, they did absolutely nothing in connection with that dispute. They did exactly what the Minister of Labour says was represented by one of the alternatives before him in the present circumstances, they did nothing and allowed these steamships to be transferred to the flag of one of the West Indian countries. They even went so far as to allow a number of the crew from the West Indies to be flown to Canada. It is true that in the middle of the flight instructions were given to have the crew returned to the West Indies.

I do not want to transgress the rules of this house by laying too great stress upon the dispute of Canadian National Steamships, other than to say this. The circumstances were not entirely different. It is true that, having regard to the stoppage of steamship service on the west coast, this dispute was much more serious than the other. Nonetheless, many of the circumstances which we find here were found with reference to Canadian National Steamships, and in that case I repeat the government took no action, whereas if it had acted as it has in this case, then that service would have been saved.


Paul Joseph James Martin: And they interfered with the rights of labour.


Edmund Davie Fulton: These profound observations.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is true.


Lionel Chevrier: There is another observation which comes to my mind, and it is this. What is the basis for this legislation? Upon what basis does this legislation rest? When the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) answered that question yesterday he said that public security and the maintenance of a proper regard for the rights of others demanded the introduction of this legislation. I shall not comment upon that statement, other than to say this. This legislation, in effect, sets aside the normal process of collective bargaining. If no settlement is reached in accordance with the first part of this legislation, then the government may impose a new settlement under the terms of clause 7 (b) in part and (d) in full. The right to strike has been taken away by this legislation by means of the provision directing the employee back to work, as set out in the section to which I referred earlier, the last half of clause 4. The right of the employee to strike has also been set aside if the government finds it necessary to resort to the conditions set out in clause 7 of the bill.
While I am dealing with clause 7 I should like to remind the house that the governor in council has taken upon himself a great deal of power and is, in effect, legislating on this very important subject by order in council. I remember how violently the opposition criticized the former administration because of that sort of legislation.
This is, in my opinion, compulsory arbitration because it means that the company need never agree to the terms and hence it will, of necessity, if that is the case bring into operation the regulations of the governor in council as set out in clause 7 and lead, in the final analysis, to compulsory arbitration. I should like to make another observation, if I may, with reference to the question which I asked yesterday. I asked the Prime Minister 57071-3-165J
Canadian Pacific Steamships under what authority this legislation was being introduced. He seemed not to understand the question I put, and perhaps I did not put it clearly. I repeated it, and there seemed to me to be in his reply, as well as in the reply of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) a confusion as to the authority under which this legislation is being introduced.
The legislation which was introduced in 1950 was introduced because the railways were national in scope and because of the authority which parliament has under section
91	of the British North America Act. In this case, I ask under what authority is this legislation being introduced? Is it under the terms of section 91 or is it under the terms of section
92	of the British North America Act? It seems to me that section 92 does have some application in the case. Perhaps I should read section 92:
In each province the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to matters coming within the classes of subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,-
10. Local works and undertakings other than such as are of the following classes:-
(a) Lines of steam or other ships, railways-
I skip over a few words.
-connecting the province with any other or others of the provinces, or extending beyond the limits of the province.
This would mean that if the operation of these steamship services comes within the exception, then it falls under the jurisdiction of parliament. I am told that a portion of these services does fall within the exception. I am informed also that there is a portion which does not fall within the operation of this exception because that portion of the service is exclusively within the province. Of course, if this service has been declared to be a work for the general advantage of Canada, then that is another matter.
I am asking the question whether or not the legislation would apply to that part of the service which is entirely within the province. I am sure the Minister of Justice will want to deal with that point, and that is really what I had in mind yesterday when I asked the question, and the reply that was directed to me failed entirely to answer that. If, of course, the operations of this company have been declared to be a work for the general advantage of Canada then I must admit that there is no basis for the question which I am asking. If it has not, then I think as to that part of the service operating between the province and a foreign country, there is jurisdiction. But as to the part which operates wholly within the province there appears to be some doubt, unless, of course, it is declared to be a work for the general advantage of Canada.

Canadian Pacific Steamships
Then it seems to me that this legislation is ineffective as to a large part of the services if the question which I have put has any validity. I am sure that the government must have given consideration to that aspect of the case; and if it has done so, I hope that there will be some reply. The Leader of the Opposition has dealt with the position of employees who have found other jobs and also with the position of the employees on the ships of Canadian Pacific Steamships that have been sold and I shall not deal with that matter again. However, I should like to take that argument a step further and ask the government whether there is not in this bill some authority to prevent the company from selling one or all of its remaining ships. Is this steamship service to be restored in its entirety the way it was before? If it is, then consideration must be given to the question of the two ships that have been sold. What is going to be done about other ships that may be sold? Is there in this legislation any provision to prevent the steamship company from disposing of any of its assets?
Then, of course, the main weakness of the legislation, to my mind is that there is no finality to it. In that respect I must respectfully disagree with my friend the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) who seemed to think that the position of the Leader of the Opposition in that respect was not the correct one. It strikes me that there should be a limit to the negotiations; because if there is not a limit to the time in which these negotiations can be carried on, while it may result in a position such as that referred to by the hon. member for Skeena in so far as employees are concerned, what will be the position as far as the employer is concerned?


Frank Howard: Precisely the same.


Lionel Chevrier: I disagree. It may well be that the employer will be dissatisfied with the proposal that will have been made and, according to the legislation, he will be able to refuse to accept it for a period of many years. Then the government is driven to exactly the thing to which I was objecting at the outset, namely arbitration by compulsion or again arbitration by order in council.
For instance, if I may carry that argument a step further the points which seem important to me are these. Are the wages or the increases in wages to be paid by the federal treasury or will they be taken out of the operating revenue of the company? If, as would appear to be likely from a statement made by one of the officers of the corporation, a deficit results from the operation of the service by a federal administrator, is

that a charge against the federal treasury? If an operating profit results, on the other hand, does this money belong to the federal treasury or does it belong to the company? If the operation of the fleet is entirely a financial concern of the federal treasury, is the C.P.R. to be paid a rental to cover depreciation and use of the vessels?
These financial questions are important in view of the remarks made by the company in rejecting the conciliation board recommendations in the dispute with the seafarers' international union. The C.P.R. said that British Columbia coastal steamships did not cover its full operating costs from operating revenue last year. It rejected all recommendations made by the three members of the board of conciliation because the company, to use the words of the employer "could not undertake further expense" in the light of this operating loss. The company concluded by saying that after the most careful consideration of each of the recommendations the C.P.R. could not contemplate accepting any of these. I think the house is entitled to know what the position will be if an operating deficit continues or exists after the administrator has taken over.
Then again I pose this question, referring to the two ships that have already been sold. Once the new legislation is passed, is the C.P.R. prevented from selling its vessels? There does not appear to be in the legislation any section which would prevent this action. Hence, on the whole, Mr. Speaker, there appear to me to be a number of serious weaknesses in this legislation. I protest the aspects of this bill that have to do with the powers which the governor in council will be taking by virtue of section 7. But we on this side of the house, and I am sure all members of the house, are interested in one thing, namely the resumption of services between Vancouver island and the mainland. I realize that it is impossible to segregate the resumption of services from the other objectionable features of the bill which, to my mind, are quite objectionable.
However, I am sure that in the drafting of this legislation many of the hon. members on the other side of the house, particularly those who sit on the treasury benches, must have recalled with some concern the statements they made when they sat on this side of the house when similar legislation or legislation similar in principle was introduced in 1950. As was stated by the Leader of the Opposition and by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill), in 1950 it was not necessary to put into operation the compulsion part of the legislation. I am sure that the government feels the same way

about this legislation. However, there is no assurance, because there is no time limit, that such will not be the case.
For the reasons I have outlined, we on this side of the house will support the legislation.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, without doubt this is a most important piece of legislation that is now before the house. I think we all realize that it is possible, from many points of view, to rise in one's place and to speak with emotional emphasis on the bill from varying angles. It would be possible to be righteously indignant at a company not being able to say that it is no longer going to operate a business because its power is interfered with, because this bill is going to put in an administrator to operate the business. On the other side of the picture I know, as a trade unionist since 1924, that one could really wax indignant about a bill which, as mentioned by a previous speaker, basically removes the right to strike.
Or one could, I imagine, as the previous speaker had in mind, at least, make a lengthy speech on the constitutionality of the bill itself. It is not my intention in what little I have to say to do any of those three things. I believe the introduction of this bill should compel all members of this house, industry and labour, to face up to the realities of the Canadian economy with regard to what is taking place in this country and, also, to face up to the question as to just what are our responsibilities as employees, as employers and as government, and consider just how far we should go in any one of these aspects motivated by individual thought or by individual action when it comes up against a social reaction.
I am not quite certain whether I have got the wording exactly as I wanted, but what I have in mind is that I believe the introduction of this bill means far more than would appear on the surface. We have here a situation where men are legally on strike, where they are on strike because they have been unable to obtain from their employer satisfaction of what they think are their just demands. The company also is in a legal position, but because of the nature of the situation the effect of this conflict has gone far beyond those directly concerned. A few moments ago an hon. member was making a recommendation that this bill should be referred to a standing committee of the house because there are so many things concerned with this situation about which hon. members who do not come from British Columbia are ignorant. I can understand that point of view. But we must also realize that the time has come when something has definitely got to
Canadian Pacific Steamships be done because one segment of the population of British Columbia-some 200,000 people on Vancouver island-has been cut off from the mainland. We can wax as indignant as we like from any point of view. I know I may be criticized for this some other time, but I am trying to be honest now, and I say we have got to face up to this situation, and whether we like it or not we must accept the fact that this service has got to be resumed.
Although I regret the necessity which has led to the bringing in of this bill, I think the fact that the government has found it necessary to do so may be the spark that will cause both industry and the trade union movement and parliamentarians, too, to face up to their problems and responsibilities. We could -and I know I could-spend a long time in recriminations. We could spend a long time, and rightly so, in pointing out differences between what the government says now and what it said on some previous occasions; between what it does now and what it did earlier on. Very definitely, recriminations could be based on the fact that it has taken so long to get action. However, I do not think, from my own point of view, that this is my responsibility at the present moment. My responsibility, as I see it, as an elected member from Vancouver, is to get the service back into operation as speedily as possible while protecting the interests of both parties concerned. Therefore, I intend to support this bill in principle, but I will make a suggestion -one that is not new; it has been made by others-that the measure be changed in one respect at least to remove the part that deals with compulsory arbitration.
I feel, after studying the bill and reading it several times, that the desired results can be achieved without that part in section 7 which deals with compulsory arbitration. Under the terms of this bill-and I think I understand the situation-if the industry and its employees cannot get together and hundreds of thousands continue to suffer hardship, the only group which can move is parliament, and parliament is being asked to move -and it is very unwilling to do so, I think- and through parliamentary action we provide that the service has got to be resumed. Right. I imagine they will obey the law.
After resumption the owners of the industry and the representatives of the workers will get together and try to settle their differences. There is no time limit. As I interpret the act the government will maintain their administrator there until there is agreement between the employer and the employees, whether it takes a day or a year. Then you do not need that vicious principle which so many of us oppose, the introduction of compulsory arbitration.
2622	HOUSE OF
Canadian Pacific Steamships
I could be wrong, but I do not think I am, in saying that the C.P.R. does not want the government running its business. It wants to operate its own C.P.R. line and I believe it will do everything it can to get its business back into its hands. I consider this will be their approach. Equally, the employees will not want to continue working with only an 8 per cent increase in wages. They will want to work out something which will approach more closely their original demands, or what they were offered in varying degrees by various people. From the point of view, of the employees, then, it will be desirable to reach an agreement with the company. It may be asked: why have they not done so in the past? The answer is that they were not able to do it. The company had the power of lockout, and the employees had the power of strike and, as a result, agreement was not reached.
But now, with the action which the government has recommended, and with the service being resumed, there is no basis on which the two parties can proceed except that of trying to get together and negotiate a settlement. So, from a logical analysis, I say they are going to work out an agreement and because of that I sincerely recommend to the government that they remove from this bill a provision which is not required and one which is hated by almost everybody in this country, that is compulsion. I ask the government to remove something which is certainly hated by the trade union movements, namely compulsory arbitration. I am convinced that the entire intent of the bill can be met even with the removal of that clause and I commend that thought to the government.
I am going to conclude with just a little repetition and say that it would be extremely easy to wax wrathful about this type of legislation, to condemn one side and commend another, but I am not going to do that. I believe that as we ask industry to have a sense of responsibility and as we ask trade unions to have a sense of responsibility, then I must accept responsibility also when I stand in my place in the House of Commons and so I say, in these remarks, that much as I dislike the legislation I do not think the government could have done anything else in the circumstances and it will have my support.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am going to take the time of the house very briefly indeed. I may say with about the same reluctance and for some of the same reasons I take the same view as was taken by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) about being willing to support this legislation. I represent a province which is largely an island


and though it has almost twice the population of Vancouver island-I might point this out to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) -still, there are over 250,000 Canadian citizens on Vancouver island who have been deprived of a service which has existed for a very long time and which is, in my view, an essential national service. We know that the service to Newfoundland and to Prince Edward Island, the other two large inhabited islands on our shores, is guaranteed by the constitution and while the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) refuses to be drawn into any discussion about whether Canada has any obligation to maintain this service, it seems to me that by the fact the government has seen fit to introduce this extraordinary legislation it is admitting that.
I am very troubled not only about the feature of the bill that the hon. member for Vancouver East is troubled about but also about the failure of the government to enunciate any principle on which this action is taken. I think perhaps we can discern the principle. I have tried to suggest a principle that there is an obligation in the case of Vancouver island that perhaps does not exist in the case of Pelee island although we do subsidize a ferry to Pelee island, as I happen to know. In other words, this is such a large segment of the total Canadian population that it is a national problem. I am personally of the view that it is a national problem. It seems to me that by its failure to state any principle on which it is acting and by its failure even to state clearly, as the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) pointed out, on what section of the constitution it is basing its action, the government may be, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) suggested, letting itself in for an awful lot of trouble and pressures of all kinds in the future.
This is a precedent that none of us likes any more than any of us who were associated with it-and I was not in parliament at that time though I knew something of the circumstances-liked what was done in 1950. It is a very disagreeable thing for the parliament of Canada by law to oblige or compel people to work. Indeed, some of the bitterest struggles in the history of our country were over the question of whether or not we should compel people to fight when the very life of our country was at stake. Here we are picking out a small segment of our population and saying that these people have no right to choose where they shall work, that for an absolutely unlimited and undefined period of time-because there is no time limit in this legislation-the members of this union unless they die or become incapacitated-and I presume they would be

let out on those grounds-are going to be compelled by law to go on working for this company or for the administrator acting in some capacity in connection with this company.
It is difficult for me personally and I believe it is equally difficult for all hon. gentlemen on this side of the house to understand why all the workmen who went on strike on May 16 should be compelled to go to work whether they have moved to Newfoundland or Nova Scotia in the meantime -presumably as long as they are within Canadian jurisdiction-in view of the fact that there may be no work for them. There is no similar compulsion in the bill for the company to keep all the ships in operation.
In the Vancouver Sun of July 23, 1958 we read that two of the strike-bound ships have been sold. What are the crews of these ships going to do when they turn up in obedience to this law and find there are no jobs for them? There are obviously not going to be as many jobs as there were on May 16 as was pointed out by the hon. member for Laurier a few moments ago. Which employees will the government compel to go to work? How will the government choose which employees will be those who will be compelled to go back to work?
It seems to me this is one respect in which the legislation is not fair as between the employer and the employees. All the employees have to go back to work but apparently the C.P.R. does not have to put back in operation all its ships and we have heard rumours to the effect that two more ships may be sold. The government should insert a provision in this legislation by which the C.P.R. could not sell any more of its ships as long as this statute is on the statute books. There has been a lack of foresight and forethought here on the part of the government.
I am sorry that the hon. member for Vancouver East is no longer in the chamber.


Harold Edward Winch: Right here.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I want very respectfully and with due regard to his very much greater experience in this field than mine-and I do sincerely respect the hon. gentleman's experience-to point out that under the conditions that will be created if we pass the bill in this form there can be no fair collective bargaining once this bill is in operation because the C.P.R. will have no incentive whatsoever to agree. It is going to be paying an 8 per cent wage increase. The union is asking for a lot more. Why should not the C.P.R. continue to pay the wage prescribed in this statute and never reach an agreement? There is no incentive on the side of the company whatever. If we do not have some way of
Canadian Pacific Steamships terminating this provision there is an indirect compulsion on the men far greater than any direct, clear and unequivocal compulsion stated by parliament in the law could possibly be and the legislation as now drafted is not fair as between the employees and the employer. It does not hold the balance fairly between them but creates a very strong bias on the side of the employer against the employees.
There is another thing about the legislation that troubles me very much and which I thought would have troubled the Minister of Justice, the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and most of the hon. gentlemen who kept us here for over a month in the summer of 1955 debating the Defence Production Act because it gave certain extraordinary authority to the governor in council to be exercised in secret and with no time limit on it. The powers that Mr. Howe was asking for at that time did not include the power to compel human beings to work for an indefinite time at a fixed wage. That was one thing that was not included in the Defence Production Act. Here we are being asked to pass a statute without any time limit on it. If the Minister of Justice would like me to remind him of it, he will find on page 4733 and again on page 4737 of Hansard for June 13, 1955, his eloquent pleas for a time limit on that arbitrary legislation. I am not going to break the rules of the house by reading clause 7 but we are being asked in that clause to give the governor in council power to prescribe any kind of arbitration that he deems expedient.
When the government in 1950 brought in the maintenance of railway operations legislation, what did it do? It prescribed precisely what the arbitrator could do. It said, in the first place, that he could not reduce the wages under any circumstances. This bill does not say that. It said furthermore that he must begin his determination within 30 days, and that it was to be done according to prescriptions carefully laid down by parliament on behalf of the Canadian public whom we represent. Here we are being asked to give to the governor in council to exercise in secret -as hon. gentlemen opposite were so fond of saying, as the Prime Minister made most of his political reputation by saying-by order in council the powers, and they are asking that this arbitrator shall have the power to make any kind of arbitration, that some day when this parliament is not sitting, when we are away at our homes and the government gets into another panic, as they did over this strike after 68 days they will suddenly decide to ask the arbitrator to do something.
I do say that this is not good enough. I do think that the government should either do

Canadian Pacific Steamships what the hon. member for Vancouver East suggests, knock this provision out of the bill entirely-though I see grave difficulties about that because it means that these men are going for an absolutely indefinite period to be subject to this wage, to being compelled to work at this wage for an indefinite period- or else the government should put a time limit on that portion of it and parliament should be allowed to prescribe the conditions of the arbitration in great detail.
I would not object to the idea so much that perhaps the governor in council might decide to meet the point of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), that the governor in council might have the power to prescribe some longer period if the parties were getting together and were in the midst of negotiation, but it does seem to me we should not have timeless legislation of this character. That is the argument the hon. gentlemen put up.
As I say, the powers of the other legislation did not include-and I repeat this-the right to compel a small group of Canadians to go to work and to stay at work at a fixed wage for an absolutely indefinite period. This, it seems to me, is important and I go back to my first point. It is essential to restore this service. I am happy that all parties in the house are agreed on it; I am happy, particularly because I do represent an island, and I know how the people on an island feel about the isolation there can be if communications are interrupted. I have even experienced interruptions which are caused not by man but by nature and know something about how inconvenient and awkward they can be; but, at the same time, I do feel that to ask us to pass legislation that is to stay on the statute books indefinitely, that has no time limit of any kind upon it, as the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Laurier have pointed out, is to ask us to do something which hon. gentlemen opposite made the main point of their campaign in the session only three short years ago.
It seems to me there is another point-and this is the only other point I wish to make at this stage-which troubles me a good deal about this legislation, and this was also mentioned by the hon. member for Laurier. I am merely repeating perhaps to underline it. In the case of the maintenance of railways operations legislation in 1950, parliament was restoring the operation of the two great railway companies, one of which is owned by the taxpayers of Canada, and if it incurs any deficit that deficit has to be met by the parliament of Canada, anyway. The other at that time was quite clearly not losing money; therefore, there was no question that this legislation would be putting directly or indirectly any charge upon the taxpayers.
[Mr. Pickersgill.)
But it does seem to me that we are not at all clear as to what this legislation is doing to the exchequer. The minister should tell us that there should be some provision in the legislation itself which makes clear whether, if these ships are operated at a loss, that loss is to be borne by the Canadian Pacific railway or, if not, is it to be borne by the taxpayers of Canada and if so on what authority is the government going to pay that loss? This seems to me to be a very serious question. Are we being asked to say that the people of Canada, through their parliament, are taking away the private property of a company, operating it at a loss, if that happens, and then making the shareholders of that company pay that loss? That is a very new principle, a very new thing to be doing, if that is what we are doing. If we are not doing that, what are we doing? The legislation, it seems to me, does not give us any clue, any answer to that question.
If there should be a fortuitous profit, which I assume is very unlikely, but which might conceivably happen, what would be the situation? But that question is not nearly as serious as the first question. If there is a loss incurred in this operation, particularly if it is a greater loss than the Canadian Pacific railway has been experiencing-I believe they claim that they have not been operating those ships at a profit; we do not know much about it, at least I do not know anything about it- under what authority is parliament imposing that on the C.P.R. or on the taxpayer? Surely, it is one or the other, and we should not pass legislation that does not cover that contingency.
But I come back to what seems to me the most serious thing of all and what has been emphasized by my leader and by the hon. member for Laurier, and what I feel I must emphasize again. Here we are in this legislation engaging in a kind of compulsion, which I think is even worse than compulsory arbitration, namely compelling men to go to work at a fixed wage for an indefinite period. That is what we are doing. Let's face it. That is what the law says and they are subject to the penalties of the law. If they do not go back to work they are criminals, and we are not even saying that there is to be work for them when they get back because of the two ships being sold, if they have been sold. But what is most serious of all is that we are giving to the governor in council this power to provide for any kind of arbitration that the governor in council may see fit. We are being asked to do that. I do hope that the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice or the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) will rise in his place and tell us that some kind of

definite prescription will be put into section 7 of this legislation and that some kind of time limit will be put either on this provision that those people must work at this wage or that in some way or other there will be some definiteness about this matter.
Because it is an emergency, because we recognize that Vancouver island should not be cut off from the mainland, we do not feel that we should oppose the principle of what the government is trying to do any more than the hon. member for Vancouver East felt that he should, but we do oppose the indefinite character and the effect of this legislation. I know the government can say, just as we said with far better reason three years ago, that we would not do any of these things, we would not let that go on indefinitely. The hon. gentlemen will not forget, and certainly I will not, the debate we had at that time about that time limit, and that was only about the power to do things to things, not the power to do things to people. Here we are being asked to take action for an indefinite period, we are being asked to give the government, or the administrator appointed by the government, the power to compel men to work at a fixed wage with no guarantee of any kind that for all that period the wage will be changed regardless of changing conditions.
It seems to me that this is so grave a defect in this legislation that, while we are most anxious to co-operate with the government in getting this thing through as quickly as possible in order to end what I am ready to regard as a national emergency, we still think that they should do something about those points that I have raised and which, I may say, were raised previously by the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Laurier.


Michael Starr: 


Mr.   Speaker-Mr. Speaker@: I must inform the house that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Mr, Starr:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to express my appreciation of the participation of hon. members in the debate on second reading of the bill and the many suggestions that have been given us. As to the questions that have been asked, may I suggest to hon. members, and I think they will agree, that they were directed to certain clauses of the bill and in my humble opinion these same questions can be asked when we are in the committee stage. We will endeavour to provide satisfactory answers to them at that time.
However, I do wish to make some comment on what has been said in the debate so 57071-3-166
Canadian Pacific Steamships far. It has again been put forward by those participating in the debate that the government caused delays with regard to this situation. I want to reiterate that that has not been the case. This whole problem has been of deep concern to the government, particularly to the labour department. We have used our facilities to the fullest extent. Because of the fact that we believe firmly in collective bargaining we have endeavoured to use every means we possibly could think of to bring about a solution to the situation through collective bargaining between the parties and through mediation and the facilities of our department.
May I say that in the appointment of the commissioner of inquiry every possible formula was exhausted by him that could be thought of and he spent four to five weeks doing this in conjunction with the parties to the dispute. During that period of time there was nothing else the government could do as long as the negotiations were in progress. However, the stage was reached where the commissioner of inquiry reported to the Minister of Labour that he had exhausted all efforts and he made certain recommendations. Therefore all in all throughout the whole negotiation of the dispute there has been no time lag whatsoever.
The hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron) suggested that the bill should be referred to the standing committee. Under ordinary circumstances that might be the right procedure but at the present time, with the situation as critical as it is in this particular instance, I say that would certainly cause greater delay and greater hardship. The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) wanted to know who the administrator would be and whether we were prepared to announce his name. I feel that should not be done now when we are in the process of dealing with the bill but the name of the administrator will be announced after the passage of the bill by parliament.
The hon. member also referred to having a look at the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act to see whether the legislation could be brought more up to date in order to deal with present problems. I might say to him that one of the first actions I took on assuming office was to ask for advice and suggestions from labour, management, in fact all interested groups in the country, as to how the act could be amended and improved to bring about better conciliation procedure and better collective bargaining between management and labour. I have received many suggestions but some of the more important bodies have not sent theirs to me
2626	HOUSE OF
Canadian Pacific Steamships yet. I know that they are working on them and that they will be in my possession in the not too distant future.
With respect to the appointment of conciliation board chairmen, I have looked over the roster of those who have been used in the past and I am quite satisfied that the chairmen appointed during my term of office at least have been men with a great deal of experience and a good background in the field of industrial disputes. I feel certain that the procedure we have followed has been most fair and I might say that our industrial relations record in the settlement of disputes in the federal field of jurisdiction has been most excellent and is of high rating.
The hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) asked a number of questions. I suggest to him that he ask them in committee on the clauses of the bill and we will endeavour to supply the answers. However, I might point out that the administrator will be an agent of the company in the operation of the steamship line so that the financial responsibility, whichever way it is, will be a responsibility of the company.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Only for the purpose of carrying on the business of the company.


Michael Starr: And financial responsibilities, the operation. I want to thank the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) for his remarks, particularly with regard to the responsibilities of management, labour and government. I think he is right. There is a great deal of responsibility and the time may be coming when we must look at the situation to see where responsibility lies so that each of us will carry out our own responsibilities in the hope that we will bring about a situation that will be harmonious in the future.
Mention has been made of what I am loath to call compulsory arbitration. I would prefer to call it binding arbitration. In this regard I can only say that the power is there to impose arbitration of the differences remaining after, and only after, the other procedures provided have been exhausted and there is danger of an emergent situation of serious proportions arising. However, as I have indicated, implementation of that particular provision in the bill will only arise if and when circumstances at the time indicate that it is required. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, it is the hope of the government that by having this power in the bill this in itself will make it unnecessary to use it provided, of course, that the parties involved in the dispute display a reasonable sense of the public interest and, of course, their own interest in this matter.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As they did in 1950.
[Mr. Starr.)


Michael Starr: I am hoping that reason will prevail in the discussions that will be held on a collective bargaining basis. I do not think a time limit can be put on them. As long as people are willing to talk about a problem they have between them, most certainly we should not impose a time limit because that is the system upon which we have based collective bargaining and it is a system acceptable to both management and labour. That is all I have to say at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is the following-


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to correct what may be a misunderstanding of my earlier remarks to which the minister referred. In my reference to conciliation board chairmen I was not confining my remarks to those appointed specifically and purely under federal jurisdiction but was referring to my knowledge of conciliation board chairmen as they have operated both in the federal and provincial fields.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. Is the house agreeable that this matter be put into committee before we rise?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Rea in the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock. On clause 1-Short title.
Frank Howard: Perhaps I might first ask a question of the minister and, following his reply, depending on what it is, I may have a 57071-3-1664
Canadian Pacific Steamships comment or two to make. This may not be the proper section on which to raise this particular question, but I do not see any other clause in the bill under which it could arise. My question deals with the subject of penalties arising out of failure to comply with the act.
In reviewing some of the comments which were made on the bill of 1950 I see reference was made to the Criminal Code. I wonder if the minister could indicate whether section 107 of the Criminal Code is the provision that sets out the penalties?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Perhaps I might answer that question, Mr. Chairman. I am not able at the moment to give the hon. member a reference to the section, but I will answer him before I sit down. Perhaps at this point I might answer a number of the other questions which were raised on second reading.
First, there was a question as to the principles on which this bill is founded. The Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Laurier, and the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate all raised this point and asked if we would indicate the principles on which this bill is based. Some hon. members said we had not indicated yesterday what was the principle of the bill. I would suggest to them that both the Prime Minister and myself indicated fairly clearly yesterday what was the general principle on which we were founding this legislation. The Prime Minister said yesterday, as reported at page 2578 of Hansard that
Public security and the maintenance of a proper regard for the rights of others would demand the introduction of such legislation.
And I said, as reported at page 2582:
The government recognizes that it is a matter of concern to the government on behalf of the people of Canada to see that the people of Canada are served with adequate transportation facilities, and I suppose that is the broad general principle involved in the bill.
I would suggest to the hon. member who raised this question that these two passages are an adequate expression of the reasons, if you like, why the government of Canada should take action at this time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask a question on that point? The Prime Minister gave us the reasons-and they are now repeated by the Minister of Justice-namely public security and the rights of others, as a justification. That seems very plausible, but surely there must be some other principle behind the raison d'etre of this bill, because every time management or labour takes a decision, that involves the rights of others. That kind of intervention would not justify action by

Canadian Pacific Steamships the government of the kind now proposed. I am sure the hon. gentleman would not argue that this is the case.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If the hon. gentleman would read the two extracts together, as I suggested they should be read, he would have the answer to his questions-that this is the maintenance of an essential service which the government of Canada recognizes as being a concern of government. It is on that basis we felt it was essential to act.
The hon. member for Laurier pursued in somewhat more detail the question of the constitutional validity of the legislation. He asked whether in view of the provisions of section 92 this matter came within the legislative competence of the parliament of Canada. I would answer him by saying it has been generally recognized over the years that this service is an essential part of the transportation system of the Canadian Pacific railway and that the transportation system of the Canadian Pacific railway is one which falls under federal legislative jurisdiction. And inasmuch as the service connecting the mainland of British Columbia with Vancouver island is an integral part of the Canadian Pacific railway's transportation system, it is therefore clearly within the exceptions contemplated by section 92, paragraph 10(a) and thereby comes under the general provisions of section 91, paragraph (29) of the British North America Act.
In addition, I would refer the hon. member to a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada as to the validity and applicability of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act recorded in the 1955 supreme court reports at page 524 in which the question of the jurisdiction of the dominion government in connection with labour disputes arising with respect to steamship companies of this sort was decided. The court had before it for consideration the applicability of section 53 of part II of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, and I am reading, now, from page 534 of the supreme court report:
53. Part I applies in respect of employees who are employed upon or in connection with the operation of any work, undertaking or business that is within the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada including, but not so as to restrict the generality of the foregoing,
(a) works, undertakings or businesses operated or carried on for or in connection with navigation and shipping, whether inland or maritime, including the operation of ships and transportation by ship anywhere in Canada.
The court found that the parliament of Canada had complete legislative jurisdiction in connection with navigation and shipping. The operations of the British Columbia coastal steamship service by the Canadian Pacific


Railway Company falls immediately and directly under that section of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. At that time Mr. Justice Kellock, as reported on page 561, found in part as follows:
In my opinion, therefore, such matters as wages, hours of labour, and agreements relating to conditions of labour upon ships, whether operated in local or interprovincial or international waters, are within the exclusive jurisdiction of parliament.
I may say that the court by a majority found that parliament had exclusive legislative jurisdiction in connection with labour matters on ships in Canada.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a question here? The point the minister is making is that there are two areas under which parliament would have jurisdiction. There is the case he has just referred to, and which I am not in a position to assess without giving it some consideration, and the proposition that it has been recognized over the years that the British Columbia coastal steamships service is an essential part of the transportation system-


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think I said it was an integral part.


Lionel Chevrier: Whether it is one or the other does not seem to me to make any difference. Let us say it is an integral part of the transportation system of the C.P.R. I do not think that is sufficient. I should like to see some evidence that that is the case. I know that is not the case with reference to the Canadian National Railways. It is not all the steamship services of the Canadian National Railways that are considered as an integral part of that railway. The minister did make the statement and I am not in a position to deny that it is accurate but I do know of certain instances in which it has been argued that the steamship services of the Canadian Pacific railway were not for other purposes an integral part of the transportation system. That is the reason I was raising the point. I wondered if the bill were referred to a committee, which of course it cannot be under the circumstances, and if it were possible to ask these questions of the steamship officers, they would be able to provide answers with which I would be perfectly satisfied unless, of course, after reading the decision, that proved to be the answer. However, I did want to make that observation with reference to the steamship services because I am not convinced it is in all cases an integral part of the railway system.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not think it is necessary for the purposes of this legislation to argue that point in too fine detail. As I said yesterday, it is, I think, accepted without question that the parliament of Canada has jurisdiction over the Canadian Pacific Railway Company

and on that broad general principle we rested our general case. In addition, there is the specific finding of the Supreme Court of Canada that, with respect to labour relations on steamships of this nature, the parliament of Canada has exclusive jurisdiction, so I do not think there is really room for doubt but that this legislation is within the competence of parliament to enact.
The question was raised as to the financial relationships between the government and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company once the administrator is appointed and assumes responsibility under this bill.


Lionel Chevrier: May I see the decision?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Laurier has asked me to show him the decision. I should say I have not attempted to summarize all the judgments. It was a majority decision of the Supreme Court and the passage from Mr. Justice Kellock's judgment seemed to me to be representative of the majority opinion.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Before the minister leaves the question of the principles on which the legislation is based I wonder if he would elaborate on that principle which he has mentioned and which was invoked by the Prime Minister yesterday, that of public security. He will be aware, as hon. members of the committee will be aware, that when the provincial government of British Columbia took over the administration of a shipping line the other day they invoked that principle of public security in its civil defence aspect. Is that what the government has in mind when it refers to the principle of public security as a principle, among other principles, justifying this legislation?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I have tried to indicate that the decision of the government was that the public interest demanded legislation of this sort. I should add only that the federal government has jurisdiction in this field. And so you have the two things: the public interest demanded it-and all my hon. friends on the other side of the house who spoke this afternoon agreed with that statement-and then I went on from there to try to satisfy the hon. member for Laurier by saying that not only did we have that basis for the legislation but we had the solid constitutional basis on the authority of the principles that I have laid before him in the last few minutes.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I quite agree, Mr. Chairman, that public interest can undoubtedly be used as a valid principle for this legislation and I take it from what the minister is saying that by public security the Prime Minister meant
Canadian Pacific Steamships public interest because public security can be a much more limited concept than public interest.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I dare say that the hon. gentleman is quite right and I take it that there is no quarrel but that it is in the public interest and there is, therefore, justification for intervention at this stage by the federal government. I think we are all on common ground in that connection.
Then the question was raised as to the financial relationship that would be created between the government and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company as a result of the appointment of the administrator and whether or not the government would be liable for the losses, if any, incurred by the company and whether or not any surplus would accrue to the government. I suggest that the simple answer to both these questions is found in the fact that the administrator will be the agent of the company and I have not yet heard of an agent who was responsible or liable for the losses of his principal or an agent who could put into his pocket any profits made by his principal. I think that is the simple answer.
With respect to the other aspect of this question, the relationship of the administrator to the company, hon. members asked whether or not the company could suspend service or sell its ships or do other similar acts when this bill comes into effect. I should like to point out to hon. members that the bill provides that the administrator is appointed for the purpose of carrying on the business of the company. I suggest, therefore, that the wording of that clause would indicate that the company cannot arbitrarily dispose of its business or arbitrarily suspend services while the administrator is empowered to carry on under the terms of this legislation.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question on that point? What the minister is saying, I take it, is that the company operating the ships under the administrator, if this legislation is passed, cannot now dispose of any of those ships irrespective of any operating losses that might be incurred in the management?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I would answer that by saying that the administrator is appointed with the powers and under the provisions of clause 3 of the bill and further the governor in council is empowered to make regulations for carrying out the purposes and provisions of the bill and for ensuring the operation of the business of the company and for directing the administrator in the carrying on of the business of the company pursuant

Canadian Pacific Steamships to this bill. By virtue of those two provisions that sort of question with relation to the business of the company would have to be reviewed before any decision was made in connection therewith.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Surely my hon. friend left out an important word in that clause. Clause 7 (a) reads as follows:
(a) for ensuring the continued operation of the business of the company;
I agree with the minister that he may ensure the operation of the business of the company but the significant phrase is the continued operation of the business of the company.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman is correct in that respect. By virtue of that provision and, as I say, the provision of clause 7 (b), any such proposal, it seems to me, would have to be reviewed before any action was taken thereunder.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister is now in a position to answer my question?


Edmund Davie Fulton: With respect to the question asked earlier by the hon. member for Skeena, he is correct in his reference to section 107 of the Criminal Code as being a general penalty clause but with respect to the position of corporations under that section I would refer him to section 623 of the Criminal Code tvhich provides in effect that although you cannot put a corporation in jail you can substitute for a jail sentence a fine imposed against a corporation.


Frank Howard: Can the minister tell me what the amount of the fine is to save me looking it up?


Edmund Davie Fulton: There is no limit provided by the section; it is in the discretion of the court.


Frank Howard: In that light, Mr. Chairman, if I have it correct, section 107 would provide for a jail term of a period of two years. There is no provision under section 107 for the court varying the length of the sentence?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Two years is a maximum sentence. It may be anything up to two years.


Frank Howard: In conjunction with or in lieu of a jail sentence for a contravention, could a fine be imposed by the court?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Not as I understand it against an individual, but an individual could receive a suspended sentence.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We are still dealing with the first clause under which there may be a general discussion. I have a number

of questions on the very point that my hon. friend is making and I want to follow up the answer that the Minister of Justice has just made with regard to the continued operation of the company but I would think that at this stage we ought to be discussing the more general terms and deal with that particular point when we come to section 7, and I think my hon. friend's point would come under section 4.


Frank Howard: I should like to deal with the question of penalties, if I may.


Edmund Davie Fulton: With the permission of the hon. gentleman, may I make a correction. It is pointed out to me that under section 622 there is provision for a fine in lieu of a jail sentence against an individual.


Frank Howard: If the suggestion is that we cannot deal under section 1 with the question of penalties, which is a general matter arising out of other sections of the legislation, Mr. Chairman, it would seem to me that this would be the most appropriate place to deal with it; for, arising out of the discussion, it might be felt wise to make some revision in the bill or have additional clauses added or changes made in the present clauses respecting penalties. I would think that this would be the more appropriate place to deal with the question of penalties than section 4 or any other specific section. I should like to proceed along that line, if 1 may, Mr. Chairman.
The question of penalties is a rather important one, because certainly the bill sets out that there shall be certain things done and certain things shall not be done, or people should refrain from doing them. Specifically, every employee is supposed to return to his duties. The company is to refrain from discriminating against or discharging employees by reason of their having participated in the strike, and things of that nature. I would submit that the providing for penalties under the three relative sections of the Criminal Code which the minister mentioned is certainly not in keeping with our past practice or understanding with respect to penalties arising out of contraventions of the present Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, illegal strikes and things of that kind.
With my limited knowledge of the federal labour code or the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, I would point out that there is no provision in that act for jail terms being imposed on employees who contravene the act with respect to failing to work. I am thinking particularly of this. If this bill passes and a group of employees, in concert with one another, decide to refrain

from working, then they would be in contravention of the act and in all probability- this is a legal point-it would also be an illegal strike.
The other phase of it is that while the administrator is charged with the responsibility of carrying on the business of the company and assuring its continued operation, yet if the company likewise acted to prevent the employees from carrying on or working for it there would be in effect an illegal lockout. I would like to know what is the position of the company or of an employee or a group of employees who find themselves for one reason or another in an illegal strike or in an illegal lockout? Would they be subject to the penalties set out in the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act which provides merely for fines in the case of an employer who declares or causes a lockout contrary to the act? He is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $250 for each day the lockout exists and every person who acts on his advice, and so on. Every trade union which declares or authorizes a strike is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine of $150 for each day, and every officer or representative of a trade union which authorizes or participates, and so on, is guilty of an offence, and again a fine is imposed.
It seems to me that we would be well advised to keep the question of penalties in line with the application of penalties for similar acts under the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. I suggest that the providing of a penalty of a jail sentence, albeit the court may suspend it, up to a maximum of two years, is certainly not in keeping with the principle that we have adopted in contraventions of the present Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. I would appreciate it very much if we could have some clarification of that. In any event, I think we would be well advised to put a further section in the bill before us now restricting penalties for contraventions of it to the penalties which are set out in the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I had better outline the general position under this bill and then deal specifically with the points raised by the hon. member for Skeena. Actually, several hon. members in the course of the debate on second reading asked the question, what happens to employees who are not now in the area and what happens, for instance, to employees who formerly were working on the two ships which were sold between the time of the commencement of
Canadian Pacific Steamships the strike and the present day? I would direct the committee's attention to the terms of section 4, which is the operative section here, which states, reading from line 12:
-every employee who is now on strike shall return to the duties of his employment-
So that an employee who is no longer an employee of the company, and who is not on strike but has left and taken other employment is obviously not covered, and not bound to come back to the work which he was doing on May 16, or before May 16, when the ships were still sailing. That is the first point that should be realized. The only ones who will be obliged to go back to their employment are those who now regard themselves as and are in the position of employees of the company and who are prevented from returning to work by the fact that there is a strike in force. Those are the only people to whom this legislation will apply.
Then, in the second place, the provisions of the Criminal Code, to which I referred earlier, will apply, in so far as employees are concerned, only to those who refuse to go back to work notwithstanding the provisions of this act. Once they have gone back to work, once the operations have been resumed and the men are working again then, as I understand it, with respect to the employees, the company, and the unions as bargaining agents, the penalty provisions of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act will apply. It is only with respect to persons, if any, who defy the provisions of legislation enacted by parliament and refuse to go back to work, or refuse to resume operations, in the case of the company, or continue to counsel men not to work, in the case of a union, that the penalty provisions of the Criminal Code to which I have referred would apply.
Let us be quite frank about this. We do not contemplate, in fact we are confident that neither men nor unions nor company will defy legislation enacted by the parliament of Canada. It is for that reason, amongst others, that we have not put a special penalty provision in this legislation. The situation is, therefore, that we are satisfied that men, unions and company will co-operate to resume operations. Once that is done, then, as I have said, the provisions of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act will apply. There will be a collective agreement in force by virtue of the legislation and if there should be any cessation of employment on the part of the men by strike action or lockout action by the company then, because there is a collective agreement in force the

Canadian Pacific Steamships provisions of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act will apply.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, first of all
it was not my suggestion that a special provision should be put in the bill with respect to penalties but that the penalties applicable under the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act should apply under this legislation. The question of employee-employer relations is involved, with which the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act also deals, and in my opinion to provide for penalties under section 107 and the other two relevant sections of the Criminal Code in the initial instance is to make special provision with respect to infractions of this legislation. In order to make things equitable across the board and to treat this dispute as we have treated all other industrial disputes or relations between employers and employees under the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act in the past, I submit that the penalties under that act should apply and that we should not make the special provision of a two year jail sentence by way of penalty.


Albert DeBurgo McPhillips: It is not a special provision; it is the law of Canada.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think what my hon. friend
does not appreciate is that what we are doing here is enacting a statute to get the men back to work and to get the company to resume operations. It is only if there is defiance of the legislation that the penalty under the Criminal Code applies. I would ask my hon. friend whether he does not really agree, if there is concerted, deliberate defiance of a statute of parliament enacted to bring about the resumption of this operation that the penalty provided by the Criminal Code should apply, especially in light of the fact that once the operation is resumed, the ships are operating and the men are back at work then it is only the penalties provided by the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act that will apply. It seems to me that that is a reasonable situation to provide.


Frank Howard: I understand the minister's interpretation of the application of penalties but I shall submit that the penalties should be set out in the bill and that they should not be as severe as those under section 107 of the Criminal Code in the initial instance involving an infraction related to not doing what the legislation provides in order to get operations resumed. The minister may have in his own mind a good understanding of the definition of "employee" and whether or not an employee is or is not on strike but I would submit that the interpretation he has given does not clear up the question. Some

years ago, when the O.B.U. and the industrial workers of the world were formed they attempted to establish the principle that when a group of employees went on strike it was not compatible with their theory of conducting strikes that any of the people on strike should go to work somewhere else. They attempted to establish the idea that if a person was on strike he was on strike and that was it. He walked up and down on the picket line and was not supposed to leave the picket line to try to earn income from some other source.
Since that time that attitude has changed. A number of unions now have strike funds and receive contributions from other unions with which they attempt to make relief payments to the people on strike. But they also promote the idea of as many employees as possible finding employment elsewhere during the period of the strike.


Albert DeBurgo McPhillips: Take another man's job away from him.


Frank Howard: If the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) wants to participate in the debate in more than an interjectory fashion I suggest that he do so in a formal way by catching the eye of the chairman. I would also submit that his observations in this regard are probably no more accurate than those he made with respect to the efficiency of the employees working on these boats a few months ago. A person can be on strike and can be gainfully employed with some other company than the one against which he is on strike. Inasmuch as that situation now applies, is that person on strike or is he not? In his own mind he may say: "I am on strike against the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, B.C. coast steamships but I am working somewhere else in the meantime." Many people do it.
It is a question of the attitude of the individual whether he is or is not on strike and you cannot define the attitude of the individual in a statute. I submit that there will be a great deal of difficulty in attempting to apply the provisions of clause 4. I only deal with it because the minister raised the matter but I think it may be just as well to do so now. You will have a difficult time applying the provisions of clause 4 with respect to individual employees. Some employees may find work elsewhere and some who would like to work in some other occupation may not be able to. What is the difference between the two classes of employees? Unless we spell out the definition of "employee" more clearly there will be difficulty. It can be done under clause 2 or maybe under clause 4. I do not think that matters too much but we should spell out the

definition of "employee" more clearly so that it does not include individuals who consider in their own minds that they have left the employ of the company or individuals who, subsequent to the enactment of this legislation, decide that they no longer want to remain in the employ of the company. If you will spell that out clearly I think you will be in a much better position and will overcome the almost impossible task of legislating with respect to the feeling that an individual employee has when he is on strike and may be working elsewhere.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think the point that the hon. member has overlooked is that the bill does not override the right of the workman to quit his job. Therefore in the case of a man who no longer is working for and does not regard himself as an employee of Canadian Pacific steamships there would be no offence under this legislation.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is not what clause 4 says.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The hon. gentleman knows very well-


Mr. Nowlan:: We are not on clause 4 yet anyway.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -that there must be the element of intent. The man must regard himself as an employee and say, "As an employee I refuse to go back to work because I am not satisfied with the wages or other conditions". But if a man says, "I am not working for the C.P.R. any more, I am working for a lumber company" or "I am travelling to the interior of British Columbia", then he is not an employee who is on strike, and the matter is just as simple as that.
This does not say that no one can leave his employment with the Canadian Pacific. A man can say, I do not want to work for the Canadian Pacific any longer; I am not an employee of the Canadian Pacific Railway coast steamships.
What this is designed to accomplish is that no employee or group of employees can say to themselves or to their fellows, "We will continue the strike against the Canadian Pacific boats, notwithstanding the provisions of this legislation". It does not prevent any employee from resigning from his employment with the steamship company.


Mr. Crestohl:: He is bound by a contract.


Frank Howard: I will accept the explanation and interpretation given by the minister at this time, but I still submit it is fraught with difficulties and the intent of the bill could easily be overcome.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think the point raised by the hon. member for Skeena is a real one,
Canadian Pacific Steamships but perhaps we will be able to return to it when we reach clause 4 of the bill. I should like at this time to raise a point which I think cannot be raised except under clause 1 of the bill which we are discussing now. My point is one which was mentioned by more than one speaker this afternoon. It is the fact that there is no limitation of any kind in this bill in respect of time. There is no date set when this legislation could come to an end. Under this bill the process of collective bargaining can go on indefinitely or not go on at all. As I understand it, under the bill, the government can intervene in that process at any time it sees fit. There is no limitation of any kind in respect of that power of the government.
Hon. members will recall that in the 1950 bill provision was made by which, after a certain length of time-I think it was 30 days-if agreement had not been reached other steps had to be taken. When those steps were taken-as it happened under the legislation they were never required-


Edmund Davie Fulton: They were taken.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Not steps in respect of compulsory arbitration.


Edmund Davie Fulton: An arbitrator was appointed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The parties agreed to the recommendation.


Lester Bowles Pearson: In any event, the point remains that after a certain length of time action had to be taken under another clause of the bill. There is no provision of that kind in this legislation.


Michael Starr: May I just set the record straight in respect of that point. In 1950 Mr. Justice Kellock was appointed arbitrator under the Maintenance of Railway Operations Act, section 5, and the date was October 17, 1950. He handed down his award under date of December 8, 1950 and the terms of his award were incorporated in the collective agreement between the railway companies and the union.


Lester Bowles Pearson: There was agreement reached under the act before the expiration of the date after which compulsory arbitration had to be undertaken; that is the point I was making.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The record does not agree with that because 30 days had gone by. The bill was enacted on August 30, 1950; the arbitrator was appointed on October 17, 1950, one month and 17 days later. I do not know all the facts because my hon. friend and his friends were in power at that time but it is my recollection, and the record seems to bear it out, that the compulsory features
2634	HOUSE OF
Canadian Pacific Steamships had to be resorted to because of the time limit that the government of the day had written into the bill.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We will be able to give our version of the record in due course. The fact remains that in that bill there was a time limit after which action had to be taken. When that action was taken, the effectiveness of the bill lapsed, as did the powers of the government under the bill. There is no such limitation of that kind in this bill. As I have said, the process of collective bargaining can go on and on or not go on, and at any time in the indefinite future the government, by order in council, can take the power which is laid down in this legislation.
We think, and my hon. friends opposite ought to appreciate the importance of this argument in view of what the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate pointed out this afternoon, in arguing that there should be such a limitation in this bill. I am not now concerned with the arguments, pro and con, that there ought to be a limitation on the time within which collective bargaining should be exhausted. But I do think there should be a time limit upon the bill itself. It seems to me, and my friends will tell me if I am wrong in this, the only way that this can be done is by the addition of a clause at the end of the bill which would provide that the act would expire at a certain time unless action were taken to keep it alive.
When we come to that time, Mr. Chairman, and I suppose it will be at the end of our consideration of the clauses, we think that this sort of clause should be inserted in the bill. I am merely suggesting this to the government for any action which they might see fit to take, and if they do not see fit to take any such action we will, ourselves, submit an amendment at the appropriate time to the effect that the bill shall expire no later than the fifteenth sitting day of the next parliament.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I should like to make one or two brief general observations, as I have not thus far participated in this debate. I agree, of course, with what the Leader of the Opposition has just said that in a matter of this importance, in order to preserve the freedom which is implicit in the principle of collective bargaining, there must be some limit, otherwise that freedom is not guaranteed.
Now, all of us in this house are confronted with a fait accompli presented by the administration. I must say, speaking for myself, I have had some difficulty with the position I took before six o'clock in registering my vote on this matter. I was 

influenced by the fact that the members in this house from British Columbia, particularly those who sit to my immediate right, thought that the statement of facts as presented by the government warranted their support. I do not know what is the situation in British Columbia. All I have is the statement made by the Minister of Labour, in whom I have great confidence, that the situation is one which, to use the ambiguous phrase of the Prime Minister, comes within the ambit of public security and the rights of others, but what I would prefer to regard in the light of the phrase used by the Minister of Justice, involves the public interest.
This situation is not unique. This kind of situation has arisen before within fairly recent times and the government did not bring forward the unusual legislation that is now before the house. When we were in power in 1955, I believe, there was a strike involving the Princess Helene which operates between Digby, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick. This situation resulted in a considerable amount of dissatisfaction and provided great inconvenience for the population of the area. No steps were taken such as those now proposed by the present administration.
But the government of the day has a responsibility and in the light of its responsibility it says to us "This is the situation; this particular procedure must be followed in the national interest". I think a member would be bold who disregarded the implications of that statement by the government. But as the Leader of the Opposition said this afternoon, it is one thing to be confronted with a particular situation and it is another thing to ask why that situation had to arise at all. My leader charged that the government had been dilatory in allowing this situation to eventuate; and because it has happened, we in this parliament are confronted with the necessity of taking the unusual step that is proposed. Was the government dilatory?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Minister of Justice says no. I am going to deal with his visit to British Columbia in a few moments, a visit that might have some bearing on this point. What about the negotiations that took 65 days? Could they have been firmed up if the government had taken steps consistent with those now proposed? In any event we learned from the press on June 21:
There are unconfirmed reports that, as a result of on-the-spot observations made by two members of the cabinet, the government may act and appoint a controller to run the C.P.R. ferry service between the island and Vancouver.

Then we know that on the next day or rather on July 23 from reports appearing in the local papers,-this one appeared in the Ottawa Citizen-the government was being spurred on by rebellious B.C. Tories and that it was still expected that there would be some delay in announcement of government policy but that a statement setting out the government's position would be made on July 23. Then it was indicated in this same newspaper story that opposition to the idea had developed within the cabinet itself:
It is not believed that the chief complaint is with the principle of seizing the fleet, a course advocated by the Conservatives in the 1950 C.P.R. railway strike, but with the terms under which the striking seamen will be ordered back to their jobs.
Then the story continues:
While cabinet thrashes out the problem, west coast M.P.'s are continuing to apply pressure. A delegation of four confronted Prime Minister Diefenbaker Tuesday afternoon demanding action to end the nine-week tie-up.
It was the second outburst from impatient British Columbia Conservatives. At a party caucus last week several joined in a noisy criticism of the government's inability to reach a decision.
Are these the facts? Is it a fact that members from British Columbia sitting on the opposite side who were close to the situation felt that the government last week and earlier should have taken steps suggested by them that are now being adopted by the government? If that is the case, then certainly the charge made by the Leader of the Opposition is well based. This government yesterday indicated the unusual course it proposed to follow. Did the government at that time have the bill ready?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend says yes.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You obtained it last night.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We obtained it last night but I suggest to this house that when the Prime Minister spoke yesterday morning it would seem-


Edmund Davie Fulton: He spoke in the afternoon.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes; yesterday afternoon.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Don't be confused.


Paul Joseph James Martin: When he spoke yesterday afternoon it would seem that the government's law officers had not yet prepared the bill that is now before the house. We received the bill for the first time at ten o'clock this morning.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Wrong as usual.
Canadian Pacific Steamships


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend says wrong as usual. If that is the case, why was a mimeographed copy given only to the Leader of the Opposition late last night?


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is all that was asked for.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Let us not be
mistaken about what is happening in this measure. It is all very well to suggest that this particular situation can only be corrected in this way. It may be that that is the situation at the moment as a result of allowing some 65 days or 68 days to pass without any action being taken by the government as a whole.


Michael Starr: That is not true.


Paul Joseph James Martin: By the government as a whole, except through the Minister of Labour and more particularly through Mr. Taylor who was his commissioner in the matter. But compare this situation with the situation that confronted the government of Canada in 1950 when the prime minister of that day was, to the knowledge of every man in this house and of the country, engaged every minute for many days in continuous negotiations with both management and labour, so much so that when he announced the settlement of the strike the representatives of the union paid the then prime minister of this country a most unusual tribute when they referred to his ceaseless efforts, efforts which alone they said were responsible for the advantage which they had achieved. Compare that situation with the situation involved in this matter. The Prime Minister's only known participation was the announcement yesterday that the government proposed to bring forward or to carry out this unusual procedure. There was no indication of real effort being made day in and day out to avoid the necessity of coming to parliament and asking for unusual powers, powers which the present Prime Minister and others criticized with such great vigour in 1950. They said that freedom had been denied and that the lights of freedom had gone out as a result of the policies of the previous administration. As recorded at page 73 of Hansard of August 30 of that year the Prime Minister said:
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.
And he continued:
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
2636	HOUSE OF
Canadian Pacific Steamships
principles of collective bargaining, much good will result in labour relations. Evolution makes change necessary.
But let there be no mistake that what we are doing here is granting uncontrolled and untrammelled power to one person. This bill is a bill that gives untrammelled power to one person and it is introduced by a government headed by one right hon. gentleman who used this argument as a mighty weapon against the former administration. This is one more example of chickens coming home to roost. This is one further example of the Prime Minister's being forced to eat his own words, of finding that when in office there is not the same freedom and the same luxury which he enjoyed for such a long time in the opposition.


An hon. Member:: Careful; the Prime Minister may be listening.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Someone says
that the Prime Minister may be listening. If he is listening, he will shortly come into the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Incidentally, why is he not
here?


Michael Starr: You were not here when the vote was taken.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: If those words of the Prime Minister in 1950 were valid in respect of the legislation then offered, what about the legislation that is now proposed?


An hon. Member:: Would you agree that they were not valid then?


Murdo William Martin: In the light of the situation of that time with a national disaster confronting the country I felt that the government had no other course open to it in spite of the exhaustive efforts by the government of that day, including the prime minister, to bring about a settlement between the parties. We have had no evidence whatsoever here of those efforts being carried on by anyone other than by the Minister of Labour in the limited way indicated by him.


Michael Starr: To the fullest extent. Not limited in any way at all.


Murdo William Martin: The minister corrects me. Now what I am seeking to establish is that these words of the right hon. gentleman that were quoted all over this country and used by him at Rotary clubs, Canadian clubs and political platforms to demonstrate his love of human liberty, now confront him tonight, and he should be the first to acknowledge that there are situations which would cause him to revise those statements made in 1950, particularly in respect of a measure which goes much further than the measure of 

1950. That is why the Leader of the Opposition has suggested there should be a limitation of time. Otherwise, the company would be put in a position of being able to exercise over the men a form of control that would negative any assertion that there existed the right of collective bargaining for the period of the contract under the control of the administrator to be appointed under section 7 of this act.
In addition, this particular measure not only provides for an unlimited period of operation but it provides that the men shall go back to work on conditions of income return which represent the lowest recommendation made by one member of the conciliation board. My hon. friend corrects me. It is lower than that. That was not the situation with regard to the bill of 1950. With regard to the bill of 1950 the men were given an economic advantage that would encourage them and encourage the company to arrive at an agreement through the processes of collective bargaining. This does not exist in these particular circumstances because of the fact that the men will receive eight per cent instead of, at least, the middle recommendation. They will operate in circumstances that are the least generous of any of the awards made by the members of the board of conciliation.
And so, as we deal with this unusual measure, reserving for ourselves each in the light of our own conscience what our attitude will be towards some of these clauses, let there be no mistake about it-this government which criticized the previous administration so much for the course that it took has placed itself, as a result of its own dilatoriness, in a position where it has had to take a course similar in principle.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We have just seen the traps into which simulated indignation can lead exemplified in the speech of the hon. member for Essex East. He has, on the one hand, attempted to suggest that this government should be condemned for doing, as he alleges, what his government did in 1950 while on the other hand he says we should be condemned because we are not doing it fast enough. He says we are putting this provision for compulsory arbitration in the bill.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I never mentioned the words "compulsory arbitration".


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, the hon. gentleman did not have the courage, because he does not like to be reminded of what they did in 1950 and what we have scrupulously avoided doing.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Wait till we come to section 7.


Edmund Davie Fulton: But the hon. gentleman tried to make out that we are doing it and says

that we should be condemned for doing it, and then he says: why do you not hurry up and do it, why do you not have a timetable and do it even faster.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You have missed the point.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The hon. gentleman is trapped coming and going and he is not even sure of the direction he is going in and he does not know what direction he would like us to go in either.
We are quite clear in our minds and intentions as to what we are doing, and we are clear that it is in the interests of the country and in the interest of the parties to the dispute. Let me remind hon. gentlemen opposite when they talk of the great courage they showed and the celerity with which they acted with regard to the railway strike of 1950, when they imposed compulsory arbitration with a time limit of one month, that there was another strike more comparable with the present one-a strike of the SS Princess Helene in the maritimes,-in which case they allowed the strike to go on for three months and did nothing.
Let hon. members opposite complain because we are doing something here tonight.
I was not quite sure, when I heard the hon. member for Essex East at the opening of his remarks, whether he was complaining because we had failed to act soon enough or because we had heeded and paid attention to the pleas of the people and to the pleas of hon. members from British Columbia. The committee will remember that he quoted with obvious relish a newspaper report about pressure being applied by what he called "rebellious British Columbia Tories". I am not surprised that he found that extraordinary, because there was never a Grit member on the backbenches, or a private member on that side who dared to rise in his place-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not many of them have risen over there.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I see the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is back in the committee having avoided voting on the bill.
We are glad that we have members who make their views known in the house and outside the house and in the caucus and that our members dare to raise their voices in caucus. We do not have a C. D. Howe running our caucus, and certainly we have listened to the views of hon. members from British Columbia, as we have paid regard to the interest of the people of British Columbia. What we are doing here is quite clear; we are providing that there shall be a resumption of operations; that the company's
Canadian Pacific Steamships service shall be continued and that the men shall go back to work. Then we are providing for a principle in which we believe, and that is a resumption of negotiations looking to a settlement by the processes of free collective bargaining, and when hon. members opposite suggest we should be ashamed of having waited for 68 days, that is evidence of the difference between our party and their party when it was in power.
We believe in the processes of collective bargaining; they believe that governments should step in, and apply compulsion immediately, and they are trying to persuade us to do that. And then they believe that, having stepped in, governments should put a gun to the heads of the parties and say: you have a time limit within which to negotiate. Not only do they want to see in this bill the principle of compulsory arbitration, applied to the settlement of disputes, but they want a time bomb put in with the short limit of 30 days. That is what they did in 1950.
What they did in 1950 and what they want us to do today is to come to a situation in which the parties have negotiated for weeks and months and find themselves in fundamental disagreement, and then to say, "Now, you get back to work and negotiate and if you do not find a solution within 30 days then your negotiations are going to be blown sky high", so that violence will have been done to the principle of free collective bargaining.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question. Is he not aware of the fact that it was his own colleague from British Columbia, the Minister of Public Works, who suggested the period of 30 days?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, on that point may I point out that the former prime minister suggested 15 days and I suggested that it should be at least 30.


Mr. Fulion:: In other words, Mr. Chairman, then as now, my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works was twice as good as any of our friends opposite.
That, sir, is a short summary of the situation. My hon. friends opposite still believe in the principle of compulsion and they want it applied now. In fact, they wanted it applied yesterday. They say we should not have waited as long as we did, that we should have applied compulsion before. We have brought in the bill and they say, "Don't give the parties any time".


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Another question?
2638	HOUSE OF
Canadian Pacific Steamships


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend said that we have urged compulsion at this time and he keeps repeating that. My hon. friend knows he has said something that has not been urged by any hon. member on this side of the house.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, from the Leader of the Opposition down to the hon. member for Essex East, those on that side of the house have said, "Apply compulsion and apply it tomorrow. Write a time limit into the bill". In effect they have said we should have done it as soon as the strike was called.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is absolutely untrue.


Douglas Scott Harkness: You were not in the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was absent only when the Prime Minister was wasting the time of the house by an unnecessary vote.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We do not operate in that way, Mr. Chairman. We have introduced a bill based on the principles I have outlined, namely that the people of British Columbia should continue to be served by getting these steamships back into operation, and that the parties should now be required to resume the process of negotiations without any time limit. Because we believe in the good faith of the Canadian people and we know that these parties are Canadians just as hon. members in this house tonight are Canadians, we believe they will recognize their responsibilities and accept that what the government did today was done of necessity after giving all the time that could be given up to now; and that with this bill in effect the parties will resume negotiations through the process of collective bargaining and will be able themselves to bring about a just and equitable settlement of the dispute.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with a great deal of interest to my friend the hon. member for Essex East defending the action of the Liberal administration hither and yon with both barrels and condemning the government-although he probably did not mention it in those words-for introducing the question of imposed or compulsory arbitration. I have also listened to my hon. friend the Minister of Justice with equal relish attempting to decimate the Liberal forces and make reference to their attitude now and previously. It is one of the few occasions in my life when I find that I am in agreement with both hon. gentlemen.
However, I should point out that what these hon. gentlemen have been saying is incorrect for they both know-and my friend the hon. member for Essex East certainly should know-that the Maintenance of Railway Operation Act that was passed in 1950


contained words that definitely placed it in the category of legislation that imposes compulsory arbitration. He cannot get away from it no matter how he attempts to twist the words for in section 5 of that act the following provision appears:
-the governor in council shall appoint an arbitrator to decide all matters not then agreed upon between them that appear to the arbitrator necessary to be decided-
Whether or not the parties agreed to this was immaterial. The governor in council was to appoint an arbitrator if the parties failed to do certain things.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is not compulsion.


Frank Howard: My hon. friend says that is not compulsory arbitration but I submit that it clearly is the imposition of compulsion. That is the imposition of an arbitration board upon two parties to a dispute without their agreeing to it.
There are two ways in which you can obtain arbitration in labour disputes. One is for the two parties to agree to go to arbitration which has happened in the past and which, in fact, happens practically every day of the week in the interpretation of collective agreements and in the determination of whether or not a person was discharged for proper and just cause. In cases of that kind it has been mutually agreed between the parties that they should have arbitration. When arbitration is imposed on them from an outside source as it was in 1950 under the Maintenance of Railway Operation Act introduced by the former Liberal administration it is compulsory arbitration.
It is made compulsory, in the first place, that they participate in arbitration proceedings and the next logical step is that it is compulsory for them to accept what the arbitrator decides. It is the same principle as that enunciated in the bill before us, a principle with which hon. gentlemen opposite disagreed so strenuously when they were in opposition and concerning which they spoke in the last two election campaigns when they stomped up and down the country with their arms around the working class people saying, "You will never have this imposed on you in the future if you elect us".
This bill imposes compulsory arbitration because the matter must be referred to an arbitrator. I understand that subsequently this will be amended to read a board of arbitration but it is immaterial whether it is an individual arbitrator or a board because it is still compulsory arbitration. The principle outlined in this bill is that outlined in

the Maintenance of Railway Operation Act of 1950 and no matter how hon. gentlemen in the front benches of the Liberal party attempt to juggle the English language and no matter how hon. gentlemen in the treasury benches of the government attempt to twist the wording of this bill when referring to it, they cannot escape the fact that both parties have been guilty of introducing legislation that imposes compulsory arbitration upon parties to a dispute. This is the very principle that members of the government denounced in the last two elections and in years previous to them.
I have entered into a discussion of this matter only because it appeared that it was the intention on the part of both the supporters of the government and of the official opposition to say that this legislation and the act of 1950 to which I have referred are something that they are not. I think it would be well to put the question to the Minister of Labour point blank and ask if he agrees with compulsory arbitration or not.


Leon David Crestohl: Mr. Chairman, I should like to revert to the question of sanctions and the omission of any reference in the bill to sanctions or penalties which were mentioned by the hon. member for Skeena. There are at least five clauses in the bill which may provoke the imposition of sanctions of some kind either for any one refusing to return to work or submit to arbitration or for refusing to obey the directives of the administrator or in the event of disobedience to the provisions of clause 9 of the bill.
The Minister of Justice quite properly explained that sanctions or punishments are imposable under section 107 of the Criminal Code and he relies on that section for imposing punishments for disobedience or the violation of any sections of the proposed act.
I do not think it is the intention of the Minister of Justice or of the government to be as severe as the act allows in the imposition of punishments upon an employee who refuses to go back to work or who disobeys an order issued by the administrator because the punishment under section 107 of the Criminal Code is very severe, in my judgment. That section provides for the imposition of a penalty of two years imprisonment without the choice of another form of punishment.
The minister also referred to section 622 of the Criminal Code, which might provide for a money penalty in lieu of imprisonment. If he will read section 622 I think he will find that that is not a fact. Under that section you cannot impose a money penalty in lieu of imprisonment.
Section 107 of the Criminal Code, following the application of law, says very clearly, or
Canadian Pacific Steamships the judgments say, that the provisions of section 107 do not apply where the statute itself provides a penalty and a mode of punishment. The legislation now before us makes no reference to and provides for no mode of punishment whatsoever; consequently, in any penalty or punishment that was imposed we would have to fall back upon section 107 of the Criminal Code, and I do not think that that is the intention of the government.
I think the hon. member for Skeena did make a practical suggestion to remedy the situation. Perhaps the bill could be amended to say that in so far as a breach of any of the provisions of this legislation are concerned the punishment should be punishment similar to that which is contained in the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, or some similar reference. I respectfully submit to the Minister of Justice that under good law, and in the application of the principle of law he should indicate in legislation of this kind the mode of punishment. If it does not say it directly, it should refer to some other statute which is similar in spirit and circumstances, and make the practice accordingly. I think that would certainly solve the question of the imposition of sanctions which I respectfully submit should be contained in the bill itself.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think I can only answer the hon. gentleman along the same lines as I answered the hon. member for Skeena, namely that this is not-if you like to call it that- a continuing statute which is liable to be the subject of continuing contravention in which you provide a scale of penalties. When enacted this will be a piece of legislation by which parliament directs a certain course to be followed in a certain set of circumstances. Therefore, it seems to me that the hon. gentleman himself, on reflection, would agree that where there is a wilful defiance of a statute enacted by parliament to deal with a specific set of circumstances the penalties made applicable by the Criminal Code should be allowed their normal operation. And, as I have pointed out, once there is a compliance with the direction of parliament-not of the government but of parliament-once there is compliance with that and there is a resumption of operation and return to work, then the penalties for infraction of this statute do not apply but the penalties provided by the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act will apply, because operations are in process and work is in progress and there has been compliance with this statute. Those penalties will, therefore, no longer be applicable.
I do point out, however, that section 107 creates a penalty for which there is a maximum sentence, not a minimum and, therefore, under the provisions of section 622, there is

Canadian Pacific Steamships the alternative of a fine and in both of those provisions it is in the discretion of the court, having regard to the nature of the offence, the state of mind of the accused and all the surrounding circumstances, to impose the appropriate penalty up to the maximum and only the maximum which is provided by the code.


Leon David Crestohl: I respectfully disagree with the minister. I am simply observing that section 622 does not provide an alternative. It might provide an alternative where there is an additional form of punishment, an additional punishment to the imprisonment imposed. There is an alternative on the second level of punishment but not on the original.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
On clause 3.-Administrator.
Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, on second reading I asked the Minister of Labour whether he could indicate the name of the administrator and he indicated that he would do it on the passage of the bill. I do not know whether he meant second reading or the passage of the bill by both houses of parliament.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I meant that when the bill is passed by both houses of parliament then we will announce the appointment of the administrator.


Frank Howard: Has the government someone definitely in mind and has that person accepted?


Michael Starr: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Why the secrecy?


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I do not think it is right that we should announce the administrator when parliament has not even passed the bill.


Frank Howard: According to a subsequent portion of this section of the bill the administrator is to be an agent of the company. Will he be paid and employed by the company or will the crown enter into any financial arrangement with respect to his remuneration as administrator?


Edmund Davie Fulton: If I might answer that, I think the appointment of the administrator is provided for in the section which we are now discussing, not by a later section, but by subsection 2 of the present clause.


Frank Howard: I said a subsequent portion.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am sorry. Subsection 2 provides that he will operate as the agent 
of the company and he will therefore not be paid, as I understand it, by the company but he will be-


Paul Joseph James Martin: He will not be paid by the company?


Edmund Davie Fulton: He will not be paid by the company in accordance with the present intention. For the purposes of the operation he will be carrying on as the agent of the company.


Lionel Chevrier: And paid by whom?


Frank Howard: By whom will he be paid, if anybody?


Edmund Davie Fulton: If he is not paid by the company, surely the hon. gentleman can draw his own conclusions as to who will pay him.
I do not want, by a sort of question and answer process, to open the door to a process of elimination as to who the administrator will be, but I think I can say that the present intention is to appoint somebody who is in the government service at the present time.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Will he be a government employee? The question is important, sir. If the man is paid by the company and acts for the company, then he is responsible only to the company.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have just said the man will not be paid by the company.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, may I ask for some enlightenment with reference to the second part of subsection 2 of section 3 which reads:
__except that the company does not have any
right to control the business of the company-
Will the administrator have the power to prevent the sale of additional ships?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would say that under the terms of the statute he would have the power to do so.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask another question? As to the employees who are on the ships which have been sold, what is their position and how is it covered in this section?


Edmund Davie Fulton: My answer is that they would no longer be employees of the C.P.R., no longer employees of the company.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister said that the agent would have the power to prevent the sale of the ships. The important question is, as the agent is responsible to the governor in council, what is the policy of the government with regard to that? Will the government permit the sale of the ships?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member is asking me a question based on a hypothesis. We have discussed these matters with the company and, as I said last night, I

have no knowledge of any present intention on the part of the company to sell their ships so the question does not arise.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, it surely does in this way, that the company under the bill will have no right to control its business. That will be done by an administrator appointed by the government and subject to any instructions he may receive from the governor in council. Therefore if the company finds that it is operating this service at a great loss it has no control over its business and would not be able to take steps to reduce that loss by disposing of ships or in any other way without the approval of the administrator and, presumably, without the approval of the governor in council which gives instructions to the administrator. Therefore it is not the company now but the governor in council which will decide the operating policy of this shipping company under the administrator.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not know whether I would go quite as far as to say that we will decide the operating policy of the company under the administrator. The intention is quite naturally that the day to day physical operation of the ships will be carried on by the company. There is no intention of putting in an administrator who will interfere and make radical changes with respect to the operation of the ships. He will not be qualified to do that. He will not have the staff to do it.
As to what would happen in the event of the eventualities arising to which the Leader of the Opposition has referred, I do not think it is possible or sensible for us to attempt to answer at this time because it will depend upon the circumstances in existence at that time. The purpose of the bill is to cause the resumption of operations and the hope and expectation is that the dispute will be settled within a reasonable time and a new collective agreement brought into force at which time, of course, the administrator will immediately be withdrawn.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, this is undoubtedly one of the most important features of the measure. The minister has said that the agent will be able to prevent the sale of the ships. He expanded on that in his answer to the Leader of the Opposition. We in this house are about to take the very important step of imposing upon both management and labour unusual obligations in the matter of labour negotiations. The company has already disposed of two ships. The men are going back to work on the basis of an increase of eight per cent in the rate of wages established by or pursuant to the
Canadian Pacific Steamships agreement. That represents the lowest recommendation made by one member of the board.
If there is any danger of these ships being disposed of, we should know that now. The minister said that at the present time he did not know of any intention but the government should go further. The government should say that as long as men are subjected to this particular form of imposition they shall not be prejudiced by having the rug pulled out from under them by the sale of the ships which might be approved of by the administrator and, pursuant to the regulations envisaged in clause 7, by the governor in council. There should be an unequivocal statement by the government on the matter of the disposition of the ships.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think that the short and simple answer to that very bold and brave statement by my hon. friend is, did his government ever make a statement as to whether or not they would prevent the C.P.R. selling their ships when they were in power? The answer I have given already is the obvious answer to the situation and the only one that can be given. When and if circumstances arise in which it comes to our knowledge that the company wishes to pursue a certain course of action with regard to the ships, the course of action of the government and of the administrator will have to be determined at that time. It is not possible nor would it be sensible to attempt to write into the statute at this time a course of action which would govern for an indeterminate period because I might point out to the hon. gentleman that if in fact there were no strike, if this situation had not arisen, neither we nor he could stop the C.P.R. from selling its ships.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is a different situation.


Lester Bowles Pearson: In reply to what my hon. friend has just said, perhaps he should be reminded that when we were in power the cabinet never ran a shipping company but under this clause this shipping company will now be run, not by a crown company, not by the company itself, not by an administrator but by an administrator getting his instructions from the cabinet. Under those instructions he can do all such things as he thinks fit for the purpose of carrying on the business of the company. We now have, and I think it must be the first time in history, a government directly operating a shipping company through an administrator, and that is why we are so very interested in the policy of the government in this regard.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The hon. gentleman is not quite right. In fact, he is far from right. There

Canadian Pacific Steamships were three occasions when the previous government appointed a controller as they called him, not an administrator. They appointed one to run shipping on the great lakes, and I doubt very much, if they had been pressed-


Lester Bowles Pearson: That was in wartime.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -as to what they would have done if one of the companies had come along and said that it wanted to sell its ships that they would have said anything other than what I am saying now, that if and when that eventuality arises, which is not likely, we will make up our minds as to what is the proper course to pursue.


Leon David Crestohl: Can the minister tell us
whether the controller to whom he has just referred also carried the title of agent of some company because here you have a paradox?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have not got the orders in
council here although I have read them, but as I recall it he was given even greater powers than we have given the administrator because he was given all the powers of the board of directors of the company.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, the minister has said two very contradictory things. He said earlier when we were talking about a time limit that he anticipated that the parties would bargain in good faith and that the statute would be in operation for a very short time. A few moments ago he talked about it lasting for an indeterminate time and said that it was therefore impossible for the government to say what it would do about these ships during that indeterminate time. The government should decide which of these two positions it is going to take in defending this bill. If the minister is right that it is only going to be a matter of a few weeks or a few months before the act is spent, then surely it is not unreasonable for the government to give us an undertaking that these ships will not be sold during that period. I say that, Mr. Chairman, because we should realize what we are being asked to do here. We are being asked to compel men to go back to work on these ships at a wage fixed by the government, at a wage that cannot be changed. Parliament is being asked to compel these men to go to work and to leave it to the governor in council to decide some day that the company can sell its ships, in which case the men will have no jobs. This is what we are being asked to do. It is a most arbitrary thing. The minister said that it was parliament that was going to direct this operation, not the government.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I said that parliament is going to direct the resumption of operations.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Exactly. In other words,
parliament is being asked to approve a bill which will have the effect of compelling men to go to work and compelling them to go to work at a wage fixed by the government.


An hon. Member:: You told us that before.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, it is worth repeating a good many times because, as I said earlier, this is much worse compulsion than any other form of compulsion in this legislation.


Edmund Davie Fulton: My hon. friend obviously has
not read the legislation of 1950 when there was a rate of wages fixed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. gentleman
would listen instead of being so anxious to interject, as he always is, he would have perceived that I was talking about this bill and not any other. I was saying that the compulsory feature in the bill that I find most objectionable is not even the suggestion that there may be arbitration at some future date. What I find most objectionable is that we are being asked, and I admit I agreed to go along with it, to compel a group of men to go to work and remain at work at a fixed wage. That is what we are being asked to do and it is a pretty grave thing to be doing. That is what we are asked to do, yet the government will not tell us whether they might one day allow the Canadian Pacific to sell the ships out from under these men and leave them without jobs.
It does seems to me that this legislation is so extraordinary, and what parliament is being asked to do is so unusual-the kind of thing we want to do as rarely as possible- that the government should tell us they will not permit any of these ships to be sold for the duration of this act, or if they believe circumstances have arisen whereby, in the public interest, the ships should be sold, the government will report the proposed transaction to parliament before it is carried out. It does not seem to me that is an unreasonable proposition to make. The inference was left with us that the resumption of this service was in the national interest. If the resumption of this service is in the national interest, surely parliament is entitled to know what the service is going to be, how many ships there are going to be. Is it in the national interest to have all these ships operate today? Is it going to be in the national interest to do something else in October when, presumably, parliament will not be sitting?
We are not suggesting, at least I am not suggesting that the government change the bill. I am quite willing to have the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Justice or the Prime Minister get up and say, we will not

allow the administrator to sell these ships while this bill is in force without coming to parliament. I would accept that at once, and sit down. However, I think we ought to be told.


Michael Starr: May I answer in part what the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate said about this bill forcing men to go to work at a fixed rate. May I bring to his attention the provisions of the act of 1950 which compelled employees to go back and resume operations. Section 3 of that act reads:
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.
Nowhere in that act was there any guarantee that the railways would not be sold or the assets sold.


Lester Bowles Pearson: What about answering the question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Surely, the fact that the minister produces the act of 1950 and says we asked men to go back to work at a fixed wage-I admit that right away; it was disagreeable then, and it is disagreeable now.


James Ross Fulton: You said this was the only time it was done.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, I said it was a most unusual thing that was being done in this bill. I think if the hon. gentleman will examine the record he will find I said it was the most objectionable form of compulsion in this bill. I still maintain it is, just as the similar act in 1950 contained this most objectionable part which none of us liked. I am not saying that doing it this time is any worse than it was in 1950. I am saying it is a very disagreeable thing to do at any time, and I do not think any of us are taking any satisfaction or any pleasure out of it.
I do say that when we resumed railway operations in 1950 we knew we were resuming the operations of all the railways in Canada. Here we are being asked to resume a service but the government will not tell us whether that service is going to be unchanged or whether some alteration is going to be made in it. It seems to me, if this is going to be a matter, as the government believes, of a few months they would save everyone's time if they would meet this request.


James Ross Fulton: I can say that while this bill is in force it is not our expectation that the ships will be sold, and they will not be sold without the governor in council knowing about it and having approved. As every member knows, this service is subject to seasonal variations, and in the wintertime
Canadian Pacific Steamships some of the ships are laid up. It is, therefore, not possible to write into this statute all the details of the manner in which the service will be conducted. It may well be that the Canadian Pacific will find, and will be able to convince the government or would be able to convince any reasonable person, that they can carry on this service just as efficiently in the wintertime with one ship less. We do not know.
If they did this, then it seems to me, as I say, one would have to take account of all the circumstances existing. It is impractical and it would be, as I see it, reckless to say in advance or to tie the hands of the government and the administrator in advance as to what course will be followed because no one can know at this time with what circumstances the administrator may be confronted. It is for that reason, or that is one of the reasons, the government is given the power to regulate the conduct of the administrator in this business, not because the government intends to regulate the day-to-day operations of the business, but the governor in council does have a residual right to review, and refuse or confirm any radical or important departure from normal operations.
I know very well that if my hon. friend thinks the matter over for a moment he will realize he is trying to make a debating point; that it is not a point which any practical administration would see written into a bill or on which they would be prepared or able to give a hard and fast undertaking in advance.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not going to pursue the matter further, but I want to make it quite clear that I am unconvinced.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We are all devastated.


Michael Starr: I know that what I am about to say will not convince the hon. gentleman, but I do want to bring to his attention that this is not a controversial rate that we have established, that is the eight per cent. Approximately 58 per cent of the present personnel engaged in this operation, represented by the brotherhood of railway and steamship clerks, have signed a collective agreement for an eight per cent increase. This was signed in the early part of June.
In drafting this bill we felt that we could not, in all fairness, ask the men represented by the other unions to return to work at anything less than the rate agreed to by the majority of the personnel engaged in this operation.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Canadian Pacific Steamships
On clause 4-Administrator to resume business.
Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a question with reference to the last part of clause 4. It has to do with the obligation of the men to return to work. Following the dispute of 1950 there was one question which was uppermost in the minds of hon. gentlemen on the other side, and I should like to ask it in this case. If the men do not return to work, what will happen to their pension rights? I ask this same question with reference to the latter part of this clause, what will happen to the pension rights of these employees if they should not return to work?


Michael Starr: I am advised, Mr. Chairman, that we cannot make a provision for pensions in this case because they are subject to an agreement between the employer and the employee. If the employee chooses to leave the employment of a particular employer, then of course he forfeits his right of pension, if it is an agreed pension plan.


Lionel Chevrier: He loses his pension if he does not return to work?


Michael Starr: No, it depends on the terms of the pension plan.


Frank Howard: I have one question to ask with respect to paragraph 2 of clause 4. I am sure one could debate the principle enunciated by the minister in establishing the rate at eight per cent. He could equally well argue for the 17 per cent which was recommended.


Michael Starr: No, one was contained in a collective agreement and the other was a recommendation of one party on the conciliation board.


Frank Howard: One could argue that if the 17 per cent were not acceptable then the 12 per cent originally recommended with respect to the first year's operation might apply. However, I do not intend to get involved in that. I do not believe, in view of all the circumstances with which I am familiar with respect to the conduct of negotiations, that the eight per cent is fair or justifiable. But I would ask this question. As I read subsection 2 it states:
(2) The terms of each existing collective agreement are provisionally amended forthwith on the commencement of this act by increasing by eight per cent each rate of wages established by or pursuant to the agreement.
I am not sure what wage rate is in effect with respect to each one of these operations or with respect to each of the categories. But I know that it is a common practice in many operations to set out according to the terms

of the collective agreement-as this one was -a certain figure or a certain rate of wages to apply for a certain job. For argument's sake, let us assume that the rate for the category of the job might be set out as being $2 an hour, and that because of the capabilities of the individual employee the company may determine that he should be paid more. In many instances it will happen that while the wage rate may be set at $2 an hour the company may pay him $2.25 or $2.50 an hour. They will pay him an extra amount over and above the wage set out in the collective agreement itself. I rather expect that if this situation exists in any one of the categories of wage rates applicable under any of these collective agreements or to any of the employees, then subsection (2) should be reworded so that the 8 per cent increase will apply not only on the rates set out in the collective agreement, if he is receiving that rate, but will apply to any additional wage rate that he is getting over and above the rate set out in the contract. Otherwise he will not be protected.


Michael Starr: As far as we are concerned, the rates are set out in the collective agreement and those are the only rates applicable to the classifications to which we can apply this 8 per cent.


Frank Howard: I submit that is not so. It is a common principle to follow in adjusting wages by wage increases to make those wage increases applicable on the wage rates being paid and not necessarily only on the wage rates set out in the agreement. Otherwise you could find-and this happens; attempts have been made along this line in some collective agreements-that an employer at one stage will determine that a certain employee, because of specific qualities that he may have and because of long-term service should be paid more and he may pay him 25 cents or 50 cents an hour more than the rate that is set out in the collective agreement. Unless the increase-in this case 8 per cent-is made applicable to that extra amount also, then the employee will not be getting a wage increase as are all other employees. Unless it is spelled out in there, it is going to mean that some people may get an 8 per cent wage increase and some may not.


James Ross Fulton: It is my understanding that the only thing we can look at and the only thing we can make this sort of legislation applicable to is the written collective agreement. Other matters are matters of negotiation outside the agreement. For legislation of this kind it would be improper to do anything more than

to cover the written agreement that governs the over-all relationship between employees and their employers.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask this question?


Frank Howard: On the same point, if I may, I should like to ask a question to clear this matter up.


Lionel Chevrier: Very well.


Frank Howard: Is the minister familiar with any of the clauses of any of the three collective agreements that relates to wage increases as having applied in the past? He may find, in looking at them, that the clauses will show that the wages shall be increased by so much. In that case those wage increases applied.


James Ross Fulton: May I point out to the hon. member that the wording of the section is as follows:
(2) The terms of each existing collective agreement are provisionally amended forthwith on the commencement of this act by increasing by eight per cent each rate of wages established by or pursuant to the agreement.
If therefore there was any specific clause in the agreement that had resulted in an increase in wages those would be increases established pursuant to the agreement and they would be increased by 8 per cent. The point which I think the hon. member is trying to make is met by the wording of the section.


Frank Howard: No.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the Minister of Labour this question? Will the crews of the two ships that have been sold be compelled to go back to work under this section?


Michael Starr: No, Mr. Chairman; they will not be.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I am rising to address an observation to the house leader. It is now one minute to ten o'clock. Obviously we are not going to be able to complete the clauses of this bill by ten o'clock. I think we must try to reconcile our responsibility at this stage to see that these clauses are given careful consideration with the desirability of getting this bill through as quickly as possible. I should like to make the suggestion to my hon. friend that perhaps we might sit after ten o'clock until this bill is completed.


Howard Charles Green: That course would be very satisfactory to the government, Mr. Chairman.


Leon David Crestohl: A few minutes ago I think the Minister of Labour said that as recently as June a collective labour agreement was
Canadian Pacific Steamships signed in which an increase of 8 per cent was given and that that is the basis of the 8 per cent that is referred to here. If such an agreement was signed in June and an 8 per cent increase will be granted as of the day of the coming into force of this bill, you are exposed to giving another 8 per cent on the 8 per cent.


Michael Starr: I wish to refer the hon. member to schedule A in the appendix to Bill C-42, in which the agreements are set out. He will find that the ones to whom I am referring who signed the agreement are not included and the bill will not apply to them.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I think I heard the minister say tonight that if they do not want to go back to work they will be prosecuted or if they refuse to go back to work they will be prosecuted. Is that not what the minister said? If anybody on strike at the present time refuses to go back, will he be prosecuted?


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I did not say what the hon. gentleman suggested I said. What I said was that if a man is no longer in the employ of the company, although he may have been an employee at the time the strike began; if he has left his job; if he has gone away; if he is working for someone else; if he is no longer an employee of the C.P.R., then he will not be subject to any penalty or any action if he does not go back to work for the C.P.R. under this bill. And as I also explained, neither will this bill have the effect of preventing a man from leaving his employment; that is to say from resigning from his job. It is only designed to prevent any man or group of men who are now employees and are on strike from refusing to go back to work because they say, "We still want to strike against the C.P.R.". That is the object of the bill and the only effect of the section.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I want to have this matter clear. If a man is on strike and refuses to go back to work, will he be prosecuted?


James Ross Fulton: If the facts in any particular
case-


Alexis Pierre Caron: The question is a simple one.
I think I ought to be able to get a simple answer.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James Ross Fulton: Of course a simple question deserves a simple answer. I am trying to give a straight-forward answer and one that will not be misleading. If the facts of a particular case establish that a man refuses to go back to work in defiance of this statute, he will be prosecuted.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Then he would be prosecuted?

Canadian Pacific Steamships


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Suppose he chooses not to work any longer on a steamship but is on strike. He does not work anywhere else but he has decided that he does not want to work any more on the steamship. In that case will he be prosecuted?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Oh, you can laugh if you want to do so.


Mr. Graffiey:: That question was answered hours ago.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Some hon. members laugh but they will not get very far. It is a clear question. If a man is still on strike but, of his own accord, as a result of deliberate action, chooses not to go back to work on the steamship, is he liable to prosecution?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I tried to suggest previously that in those circumstances, as I say, he would not be liable to prosecution; that is, if he says. "I no longer regard myself as an employee of the C.P.R., I do not want to work for the C.P.R. any more; I want to go to work for someone else". In that case he would not be liable to prosecution under this act.


Alexis Pierre Caron: But what about the case of one who does not work anywhere else at the time but who says, "I do not feel like going back to work on the job" but who is still on strike? What about the man who simply says:
I do not feel like going back to work on the ship? He is still on strike and he is a member of a union which is on strike.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think in the circumstances the man would, in effect, be saying "I quit", and I have never heard of a man being prosecuted because he says "I quit".


Alexis Pierre Caron: Well, it is not at all clear.
Clause 2(c) says:
"employee" means a person who is employed in the business of the company and is bound by an existing collective agreement.
The bill does not say what the minister has just told us.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I point out that a collective agreement does not prevent a man from resigning or leaving his employment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think I can put the point which I apprehend the hon. member for Hull has in mind in slightly different language.


An hon. Member:: Use nautical terms.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The way I put it is this: is the minister quite satisfied that there is a definite status, a status of striker, that will enable those charged with the enforcement of this law to know against whom it is

properly enforceable? That is what I believe the hon. member for Hull is trying to find out.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, I am quite satisfied about that. I am satisfied that the courts will have no difficulty in interpreting and applying the statute if the necessity arises. I want to say again that I am satisfied the necessity will not arise, but if it does, I am confident the courts will be able to apply this statute because, as hon. members are probably aware, it would be necessary to prove that the man intended to defy the terms of this statute and, as I apprehend it, a man who says: "I am not working for the C.P.R. any more", is not liable to prosecution under this statute.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I understand that under this clause every employee of the company who went on strike in May and who now returns to work will be given a job. There will be an obligation to see that he gets a job, and that would include, presumably the employees of the two ships that have been sold during that period.


James Ross Fulton: I would assume that those
men would by now have been laid off or absorbed in another part of the service.


Lester Bowles Pearson: But if they have not?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I assume they are not still employees of the company. The main obligation on the company by virtue of section 9 is not to refuse to permit an employee who has gone on strike- I am leaving out some of the words-to return to the performance of the duties of his employment. If the opportunity for his employment no longer exists, it would seem to me there is no violation of the statute, by saying to the man: your job no longer exists. It is only in cases where the job still exists that the company is prohibited from refusing employment to an employee who was on strike.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Surely that interpretation, if correct, justifies the observation made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. Here is an employee of the C.P.R. company who is out of work because the company has sold a ship on which he worked. The man still regards himself as an employee of the company although he is out of work and on strike. Now this act does impose great obligations upon the men as well as on management, and I am saying to the minister with great respect that if the interpretation that he has given is correct, then it is an unduly restrictive one so far as the men are concerned.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I understand the situation would be the same as if a strike were not in progress and the C.P.R. had sold these ships. It would

then be a question whether the men could be absorbed in alternative employment. If the ships were sold, then presumably employment for some men would cease to exist. The prohibition against the company is against refusing employment, merely because they have been on strike, if employment still exists for them.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is one problem that may arise; I do not know whether it will or not, but the minister may know, and this is important. I am not sure whether these crews are really distinct or whether the men were employed sometimes on one ship and sometimes on another, and this would have a considerable bearing on the answer the minister has given us.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am afraid I am not in a
position to give a detailed statement on that point. I understand that with regard to the deck and engineer officers there was a certain amount of rotation, although there was more permanent assignment than with regard to some of the other employees. But with regard to the seamen, particularly, there was a fairly large floating pool of employees and it would be difficult to say who was among the crew of a specific ship. I make that comment as a general observation setting out my understanding of the position.


Michael Starr: The deck officers numbered approximately 170 and they were employed practically the year around. The S.I.U. members had a turnover of about 300 seamen but in practice there was a hard core of some 68 in the operation of the ships.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.
On clause 7-Regulations.
Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I will ask my colleague the Minister of Justice to move an amendment to this clause as follows:
That paragraph (d) of clause 7 be amended as follows:
1.	By deleting the words "an arbitrator" where they appear in line 5 on page 3 and substituting therefor the words "a board of three arbitrators";
2.	By deleting the words "the arbitrator" in line 13 on page 3 and substituting therefor the words "the board of arbitrators".
We hope the necessity of appointing arbitrators will not arise and, as I have said before, that this matter can be settled by collective bargaining between the parties concerned. However, because of the fact that if an appointment became necessary it would result in one person being vested with a great deal of power therefore we feel that in order
Canadian Pacific Steamships to distribute the authority we should appoint three people and have a diversified view on this issue.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, the heart of this bill is to be found in clause 7 and in the regulations to be made thereunder. While we have been discussing the implications of the various clauses, not confronted with the actual regulations we might find we have been dealing with something that is secondary in importance. I am sure the regulations have not yet been drawn up but I should like to ask what procedure the government proposes to follow so that the regulations will be made available to the house. I presume they would automatically appear in the Canada Gazette but there is no requirement in the statute to that effect. If there is a requirement that they should automatically appear in the Canada Gazette a provision should be placed in the act so that they would be tabled in this house within a certain number of days from the date of formulation. I think the usual practice in respect of most bills is ten days or something of that sort.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I would have to check it to make certain but I believe my hon. friend will find it is all covered by the Regulations Act which provides that the regulations must be tabled in parliament within two weeks or 15 days of their passage if parliament be sitting and within a similar period after parliament next begins to sit if parliament be not then sitting.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Could my hon. friend advise us at the moment if that is the case?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am assured by the officials in front of me that it is but we are not certain of the number of days without checking.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Within 10 or 15 days of the passage of this act we will have the regulations tabled in this house?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Within two weeks or 15 days -whatever the period may be that is stipulated in the Regulations Act-of the making of the regulations they will be tabled in the house. I can assure the hon. gentleman that we will not violate the provisions of that Statute.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You hope.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Remember what happened to a previous minister of justice?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes. We shall not do that.
2648	HOUSE OF
Canadian Pacific Steamships


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I have some comments to make about clause 7 (d). While the amendment proposed and adopted by the committee with respect to a board of three arbitrators was acceptable in terms of the numerical structure of the board of arbitrators nevertheless as far as we in this group are concerned one of the general provisions in clause 7 (d) is certainly not acceptable. I refer to the provision that empowers the governor in council to impose compulsory arbitration on the parties to the dispute when he may deem it expedient. There has been ample discussion about it and I do not think it necessary to repeat what has been said or to refer to attitudes that hon. gentlemen opposite had in years past which are not compatible with the attitudes they have at this particular moment.
I have an amendment to propose with respect to clause 7 (d) which I should perhaps explain first. The amendment provides for an arbitration board to consist of three as is the case with the present provision but it would also provide that the establishment of the board of arbitration would be done in the same manner as is the establishment of a board of conciliation under the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. That is to say, each party to the dispute would select a member of the arbitration board. There would be a certain time limit-I believe of five days-during which these two appointees, one representing the union and one the company, would be able to decide whether they could mutually agree on the selection of a chairman of the board and if these two members could not so agree the Minister of Labour would appoint a chairman as is done in the case of a conciliation board at the present time.
The amendment would also provide that the arbitration board would have all the powers, functions and obligations of a conciliation board as stated in the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. It has been the experience of those engaged in labour disputes that where agreement can be reached between the two disputants in the selection of a chairman of a board of conciliation there is less disagreement following the award of the board than is the case where the chairman of the board has been appointed by an outside party. It must be kept in mind, of course, that the decision of this board is an arbitrary one but nonetheless disagreements do arise over the awards of boards. The chairman is the key person and where agreement exists as to his selection there is less likelihood of difficulties arising following the award of the board of arbitration.
The provisions of the amendment would also provide that the arbitration board be


established only at the mutual request of the parties and that it not be imposed on them by the governor in council. Accordingly,
I move:
That clause (d) be deleted and the following substituted therefore:
For referring to a board of arbitration of three members to be constituted and appointed in the same manner as is a board of conciliation and investigation under the provisions of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act and to have all the powers, functions and obligations of a board so constituted and appointed such matters relating to the revision or amendment of an existing collective agreement as the parties thereto may request, including the fixing of the term during which the new collective agreement shall operate and the day to which the agreement or any provision thereof may be retroactive, and for giving effect to any decision by the board of arbitration upon such a reference for the purpose of this act and the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, but no regulation made under this paragraph shall be deemed to limit or restrict the rights of parties to an existing collective agreement to agree to vary or amend any of the terms thereof and to give effect thereto.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman', before you put the question I wish to say this. We did give the composition of this arbitration board a great deal of thought. The suggestion of the hon. member for Skeena that we appoint an arbitration board on the same basis as a conciliation board most certainly is not applicable when you are dealing with a dispute in the arbitration stage. I say again that we have given thought to this matter and to proceed properly with this arbitration, if and when it reaches that stage, the only way we can do it is by the appointment of the three members who will compose the board. Because of that, Mr. Chairman, we must reject the amendment.


Murdo William Martin: Before this matter proceeds, we on this side in this group believe that this amendment should receive our support. As I indicated and as the Leader of the Opposition indicated the character of the bill is such as to impose an indefinite period of forced relationship during the period of work on both parties to the dispute. We are ordering the men back to work; we are telling the company to begin operations through the agency of the administrator. Those are unusual steps, and in view of those unusual steps which we have taken to get the ships back into operation we feel that the general circumstances of this particular situation are such as to warrant our accepting an amendment which I think will meet the situation as it will develop in the light of the indefinite period of negotiation that is enforced by section 6 on both parties to the agreement. For these reasons we shall support the amendment.


The Chairman:: Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment negatived: Yeas, 20; nays, 120.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: I declare the amendment lost. Shall the clause as amended carry?


Frank Howard: I have one other question to raise which was dealt with on second reading but I am not sure that there was an answer to it. Apparently provision was made in the act respecting the operation of the railways in 1950 to ensure that the arbitration board could not reduce the wages of the men or apply any conditions which were less favourable to the employees than those existing at the time they went back to work. I should like to know whether provision will be made to ensure that the arbitration board cannot reduce the wages of the men or apply any conditions which are less favourable to the employees than those existing under the collective agreement plus the eight per cent. Has any consideration been given to that or will consideration be given to it?


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, the answer to the hon. member's question is that only one union has agreed and has signed an agreement; the other three have not signed an agreement with the company; therefore it is only a provisional amendment.


Frank Howard: I did not get clearly what the minister said. Did he say that only one union has a collective agreement and the other three have not?


Michael Starr: That is right; only one union has signed an agreement with the company for eight per cent.


Frank Howard: Yes, but there are three, and they are named in the bill, which have no collective agreement but upon the passage of this bill they will have, they will be working under the terms of a collective agreement, the provisions of which have been extended.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, provisionally amended.


Frank Howard: By an increase of eight per cent.


Edmund Davie Fulton: But only provisionally.


Frank Howard: Yes, only provisionally; but it appears to me that there should be some guarantee given so that the board of arbitration in dealing with this, if it gets to that stage-incidentally, this does not apply if the board of arbitration is established by mutual consent, but it would apply if the governor in council set up the board of arbitration and in effect instituted compulsory arbitration. It does apply then and some guarantee should
57071-3-167
Canadian Pacific Steamships be given that the board of arbitration cannot reduce the wages for which the employees are working at the time nor establish conditions less favourable than the ones under which they are working plus the eight per cent. There should be some guarantee that the board of arbitration has no authority to impose less favourable conditions upon the employees than they are enjoying at the moment of arbitration.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What the hon. member is asking for is something similar to section 5, subsection 3, of the act of 1950.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I think the position is that a union has signed a collective agreement with the company for an increase of eight per cent and that union is not coming under the terms of this statute. Therefore, their agreement is not subject to variation or subject to the statute in any way. However, the other three unions or organizations have no agreement with the company. We felt that it would not be proper to contemplate sending men back to work at different wage rates. If we put nothing in here, then the stewards' union would go back with an eight per cent increase and all the others would go back with no increase, so we felt that for the duration of the period while the statute is in operation and while they are back to work under the statute they should all be back with the eight per cent increase.
Therefore the three unions which have not signed new collective agreements go back under their old collective agreements which are provisionally amended by an increase of eight per cent. If, however, they and the management are not able to agree on an increase then it seems that the thing should go back to the status quo, namely, where it is now. If there is no agreement as to what should be the increase in wages and negotiations proceed on that basis under the statute and if negotiation fails and arbitration becomes necessary, arbitration proceeds on that basis. It did not seem proper to us to ask parliament here and now to legislate as to what should be the terms of agreement between the parties so that when negotiation commences and if arbitration should commence the thing will be free and open to arbitration and negotiation.


Frank Howard: I object most strenuously to that sort of reasoning. It is quite true that this legislation will have no effect upon the employees covered by the brotherhood of railway and steamship clerks. They have already signed an agreement with certain provisions in it. But if the government is of the opinion, as it apparently is that when these employees go back to work they will

Canadian Pacific Steamships be covered by the provisions of the agreement that applied last year plus an eight per cent increase based on the fact that another union has already signed an agreement for an eight per cent wage increase, then the government has absolutely no right in my opinion to allow an arbitration board to undercut that eight per cent. If you think that is the floor that should be established-


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, no.


Frank Howard: -you are attempting to impose upon these employees something that is most unjust.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think the hon. gentleman must have misunderstood me. I did not say that we had established a floor. I said that we felt that it was inequitable to have one group of men going back to work with an eight per cent increase because they had signed an agreement and another group of men in effect going back to work under a statute without any increase at all. We felt that when they went back to work under the terms of this statute all the men who went back to work should go back to work at the same wage rates. We are not writing a floor under arbitration or negotiation. Negotiation will proceed on a free and open basis and if arbitration becomes necessary it will proceed on the same basis.


Frank Howard: Maybe mine is just the normal difficulty of the layman trying to understand the legal mind. It was not equitable for the employees to go back to work under wages and conditions that differed from those of other employees. They are all involved in the same dispute so we establish by legislation now a wage rate of what they were working for plus eight per cent. We have established that and decided that under the present circumstances that is an equitable wage rate for these employees at the moment.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It could be much higher. We do not know. Would you want us to establish a ceiling? We are establishing neither a floor nor a ceiling.


Frank Howard: Just a minute. We have already passed clause 4 but I should like to go back to it. It provides that the terms of each existing collective agreement are provisionally amended by increasing by eight per cent-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Provisionally amended.


Frank Howard: All right, but they are amended. The employees are going back to work at a wage rate of what they were getting before plus eight per cent.


Edmund Davie Fulton: But that is not a firm term of agreement. It is a provisional term of agreement as long as the statute continues in effect.


Frank Howard: I appreciate that it is a provisional term. Maybe I am putting my thoughts in words-


Edmund Davie Fulton: How can a provisional term be either a floor or a ceiling? If it could be a floor it could just as well be a ceiling and I am sure my hon. friend would not accept that. It is a provisional term and nothing more nor less.


Frank Howard: All right. You are also saying, and this is acceptable, that if as a result of direct negotiations without any interference by the governor in council the unions and the company mutually agree to establish any wage rate they want that is perfectly all right, whether it is above eight per cent, below eight per cent or is eight per cent. That is entirely up to them as a result of negotiations and has nothing to do with the argument. But if the governor in council is going to step in and impose compulsory arbitration, then to be equitable I think the government should guarantee that if a board of arbitration is imposed by the government the board cannot undercut the wages established provisionally by this legislation. The government should establish the basic floor of the old wage rate plus eight per cent below which a board of arbitration cannot go.
The government has no right to establish a board of arbitration which could grant by way of an award wage rates less favourable than their brother workers are getting under a collective agreement signed by their union of its own free will. All I am asking is that if a board of arbitration is imposed by the government that board should not be allowed to arbitrate below the present provisional rate. Whether such a board will or will not is another question as is whether or not the matter will ever get to that stage, but I submit that that protection should be given if parliament is to be asked to order people back to work, restore this service, appoint an administrator and particularly to give authority to the government to impose compulsory arbitration. Surely we have a right to ask for that little modicum of protection of the wage rates of the employees of the unions affected so that they will not go below the wage rates established by collective bargaining through another union.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I quite agree with the hon. member for Skeena. This is what was done, of course, in 1950, and if the minister will look at the statute of 1950

he will see that section 5, subsection 3, provides "the arbitrator by his decision shall not provide for a reduction in a rate of wages established pursuant to section 3". In other words, parliament did legislate at that time- I was not here-a provisional increase in wages and said that the arbitrator could not go below that. That was written into the statute.
Canadian Pacific Steamships


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, after signing an agreement with one union, the brotherhood of railway and steamship clerks, providing for an increase of eight per cent they offered the same increase to the other three unions but it was rejected by all of them.
Clause 7 as amended agreed to.
Clauses 8 and 9 inclusive agreed to.


Edmund Davie Fulton: My hon. friend forgets that at that time the company and the union had agreed on a basic four cents an hour increase. There was no area of disagreement on that point whereas here only the company and one union have agreed on the terms of the wage increase. We feel that we should write neither a floor nor a ceiling into this statute, that if it is not fair that we should write a ceiling it is not fair that we should write a floor. That is the great difference between this situation and the one to which the hon. gentleman refers.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I must say that I cannot agree with the minister on that point and for these reasons. The company has evidently been quite willing to agree to an eight per cent increase-


Edmund Davie Fulton: And they got an agreement as a result.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the hon. gentleman might allow me to finish my sentence. The company signed an agreement and was therefore agreeable to an eight per cent increase in the case of one union.


Edmund Davie Fulton: There was a settlement.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It would not appear to me, therefore, that there was the slightest injustice to the company in providing this floor across the board. That is what we are doing and the government must think there is no injustice to the company or they would not be asking parliament to do it until such time as a collective agreement is reached. Therefore it seems to me that what the hon. member for Skeena has asked is perfectly reasonable. We are asking that these men, after we compel them to go back to work, should not be compelled by an arbitrator or a board of arbitration appointed by the governor in council to take a wage lower than the wage set by parliament, and that could happen under the bill as it now stands. All that the hon. member for Skeena is asking is that we should do what was done in 1950, write that in as a floor and say that the arbitrator cannot go below it. It seems to me that that is an eminently reasonable request.
On clause 10-withdrawal of strike notice


Lester Bowles Pearson: You are now on the last
clause, clause 10, Mr. Chairman. The minister will recall that at the beginning of our discussion I suggested that there should be an additional clause to deal with the question which has been brought up by so many members on this side who feel that legislation of this kind should not be unlimited as to time. Our feeling on that matter is stronger because no change has been made by the committee to clause 7 (d), and the amendment which was proposed to that clause has been voted down. I did suggest to the minister, and perhaps he will tell me now his reaction to the suggestion, that there should be a new clause to the effect that this act shall expire no later than the fifteenth sitting day of the next session of parliament.


Michael Starr: I think the amendment would be acceptable if the hon. member would make it thirty days.


Lester Bowles Pearson: 
Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Shall the amendment carry? Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Schedule A agreed to.
Schedule B agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall this bill be read a third time? Now, by unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Michael Starr: the third reading of the bill.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Did the company not offer an Motion agreed to and bill read the third increase of twelve per cent to one union?	time and passed.
57071-3-167i

Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the leader could tell us what is proposed for the rest of the week?


Howard Charles Green: Tomorrow we shall take the debate on external affairs, which is a one-day debate by agreement. On Saturday, we shall take estimates, commencing with the Post Office Department, then take veterans affairs and if they go through we shall take the Department of Justice.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is it intended that Monday should be private members' day?


Howard Charles Green: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand that the house is prepared to give unanimous consent that a vote be taken tomorrow at ten o'clock. Is that so ordered?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
It being 10.48 p.m. the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Friday, July 25, 1958



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough) presented the fourth and fifth reports of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, and moved that the fourth report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
Third report of standing committee on banking and commerce.-Mr. Cathers.
Third report of standing committee on agriculture and colonization.-Mr. Stanton.