1960-12-01

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he can give any report or make any comment on the proposal that has been made by the supreme commander of NATO for the establishment of a pool of nuclear arms under NATO control.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, naturally I have read and heard of the representations made by General Norstad, and I can only say this. I believe there is a possibility of a meeting of NATO heads of government within the next few months, possibly next spring, to review the future of the North Atlantic alliance and, of course, to discuss all those matters which are of peculiar moment to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
There will, of course, be a meeting of foreign ministers and other ministers in Paris in just over two weeks' time. No doubt discussions will then take place regarding any matters that are considered to be of significance in connection with this important organization.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of a telegram sent yesterday and signed by L. K. Abbott, general chairman of the Canadian brotherhood of railway transport and general workers, stating that local railway officers in Moncton have indicated that 124 employees who were given lay-off notices would not be rehired unless traffic increases, although the presidents of both railways and other officers have publicly stated that lay-off notices had a bearing on the strike action, would the minister assure the house that all the 124 employees will be rehired and maintained in their positions on the continuation of railway operations?


Mr. Speaker:: I take it that the hon. member is expressly relating his question to the bill which is presently before the house providing for a continuation of railway operations. If I am correct in that, I would suggest that this is previous, because the house has not yet disposed of the bill.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am quite willing to wait until the bill is discussed in committee, but I ask this question now because I raised similar questions about these employees yesterday and the day before-though, it is true, the terminology was somewhat different-and a reply was promised by the minister. I hoped the minister would be able to give the house a reply at this time.


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minisier of Transport):: I have now heard from the Canadian National Railways in reply to my inquiry concerning the question asked yesterday by the hon. member. As far as the question he has just asked is concerned, I received notice of it only as I was walking to the house, but I will take it up with the management.
In the question he asked the day before yesterday, and to which we referred yesterday, the hon. member for Assiniboia mentioned a telegram wherein a charge was made that there have been unnecessary and spiteful layoffs by the Canadian National Railways of non-operating employees. At that time I repeated an answer I had given to a previous question, namely that the management had advised me that work force reductions which had been made were part of the adjustments which must accompany variations in traffic volume.
The management of Canadian Nationa. Railways has now categorically denied the al legations made, and assert that they are without foundation. Furthermore, in anticipation of the legislation now being considered by the house, and of the traffic volume of the railway being restored, the Canadian National has already taken steps toward the reinstatement of employees.



COLUMBIA RIVER-REPRESENTATIONS ON PREJUDICIAL RESULTS OF TREATY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Yesterday the hon. member for Kootenay West asked me this question:
Has the Prime Minister received telegrams and other communications from the city of Revelstoke,

Inquiries of the Ministry chambers of commerce and other organizations in the Kootenays urging deferment of final consideration of any treaty with respect to the development of the Columbia-
And so forth. That question appears on page 340 of Hansard.
I have checked with my office and ascertained that communications of the kind mentioned have been received. With respect to the possible presentation of a brief, it has always been the intention of the federal government and the provincial representatives concerned in these negotiations that public hearings shall be held in accordance with the provisions of the water rights legislation of British Columbia. When these hearings are convened, all interested parties will have a full opportunity of making known their views.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kooienay West):: The
organizations and persons directly concerned with sending the telegrams and other communications are aware of that, but they are very interested in having the opportunity of presenting the brief directly to the Prime Minister, having in mind that they might get a more sympathetic hearing. Would the Prime Minister consider that?


John George Diefenbaker: I appreciate the statement that the Prime Minister is regarded as giving a sympathetic hearing, and I hope that is always the case. Naturally I will give consideration to the request made, after consultation with the appropriate authorities.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon the hon. member for Vancouver South asked a question of my colleague the Minister of National Revenue in his absence in these words:
Wifi the minister inform the house in detail as to the possible effect on the retail prices of United Kingdom and European cars of the proposed modification in the discounts allowed in calculating fair value for duty? Will the minister consider withholding any action on this proposed change until the report of the royal commission investigating the automotive industry is received?
In the continued absence of my colleague, an absence that is due to a family bereavement, may I say that this whole question is under close examination. I wish to make it very clear that the government will not tolerate advantage being taken of the Canadian consumer.



USE OF IMPORTED CAR BY GOVERNOR OF BANK OF CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
["Mr. Speaker, on November 28, as reported at page 247 of Hansard, the hon. member for Lambton West asked me a question regarding Mr. Tadeusz Koyer. When I spoke in response to that question I did so, as I said at the time, on the basis of recollection only. I have now had an opportunity to review the case and should like to make some additional comments.\n\nMr. Koyer is being held in connection with crimes allegedly committed during the war when he served as a member of the noncommunist underground home army. The investigation of his case by the Polish authorities is still continuing and no formal charges have yet been laid. The Polish authorities have allowed a representative of the Canadian embassy in Warsaw to interview Mr. Koyer, and defence lawyers have been retained by Mr. Koyer's family.\nMr. Koyer remains a Polish citizen in the eyes of the Polish authorities, as I stated the other day, and since he returned voluntarily, he has placed himself under the jurisdiction of that country's laws. For that reason there is little that the Canadian government can do to intercede effectively on Mr. Koyer's behalf beyond what has already been done. The government has taken a deep and continuing interest in this matter, and has strongly expressed its concern to the Polish authorities in a proper and appropriate manner."]
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to intrude again but this is rather an important matter. I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance, and I regret giving him only short notice.
In view of the fact that Mr. James Coyne, governor of the Bank of Canada, has been travelling back and forth across Canada urging Canadians to produce more and to buy more goods made in Canada-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: -and in view of the fact that an article in this morning's Globe and Mail entitled "Checker Man" reports that Mr. Coyne a year ago imported a private car produced by-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: -the Checker Motor Corporation of Kalamazoo, Michigan-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: -does the minister consider that this reported contradiction between precept and' practice will undermine Mr. Coyne's influence on the Canadian public?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I question whether the hon. member is raising a matter of urgent public importance when he seeks to inquire about the private affairs of public officials and draw conclusions therefrom.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I submit that it is a matter of urgent public importance. My point was, does the minister consider that this will undermine Mr. Coyne's influence on the Canadian public?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is basing a question on a subject matter which to my mind' is not to be raised on the orders of the day, since it relates to the private affairs of a public official.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, on November 28, as reported at page 247 of Hansard, the hon. member for Lambton West asked me a question regarding Mr. Tadeusz Koyer. When I spoke in response to that question I did so, as I said at the time, on the basis of recollection only. I have now had an opportunity to review the case and should like to make some additional comments.

Mr. Koyer is being held in connection with crimes allegedly committed during the war when he served as a member of the noncommunist underground home army. The investigation of his case by the Polish authorities is still continuing and no formal charges have yet been laid. The Polish authorities have allowed a representative of the Canadian embassy in Warsaw to interview Mr. Koyer, and defence lawyers have been retained by Mr. Koyer's family.
Mr. Koyer remains a Polish citizen in the eyes of the Polish authorities, as I stated the other day, and since he returned voluntarily, he has placed himself under the jurisdiction of that country's laws. For that reason there is little that the Canadian government can do to intercede effectively on Mr. Koyer's behalf beyond what has already been done. The government has taken a deep and continuing interest in this matter, and has strongly expressed its concern to the Polish authorities in a proper and appropriate manner.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Transport. Are Department of Transport officials Mr. G. E. McDowell and Mr. William Irvine, of Vancouver, announcing government policy when they state that the department favours the building of an airport at Creston and that the department would not continue to invest money in the development of the Castlegar and Cranbrook airports?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, press reports from local papers in the Kootenay area relating to the subject matter of the hon. member's question have just reached headquarters, and since these do not appear to conform with our understanding of the position we are seeking further information from the Vancouver region as to these reports. As soon as the position has been clarified I will be glad to communicate with the hon. member and also with the hon. member for Kootenay East, who has also been in touch with my department regarding this matter.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. Kucherepa (High Park):: Will the Prime Minister comment on the editorial in
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act the Montreal Gazette which deals with the attitude of the Soviet union toward the question of financing the operations of the United Nations in the Congo, and indicate the Canadian attitude?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, Canada believes, and that has always been its attitude, that the principle of collective responsibility for the decisions of the United Nations must be maintained, and that once a decision is made in the security council or the general assembly to undertake a course of action, then all members must be prepared to provide a fair share of the cost.
In so far as the Congo operations are concerned, when I spoke at the United Nations in September I stated that Canada would assume its equitable share of the burden, and I think it should be accepted as a principle of the organization that if collective responsibility were not maintained and if members were allowed to pick and choose the items that they wish to pay for, then, in the nature of things, the United Nations would cease to operate effectively.



MAINTENANCE OF RAILWAY OPERATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, November 30, consideration of the motion of Mr. Starr for the second reading of Bill No. C-45, to provide for the continuation of the operation of railways, and the amendment of Mr. Pearson.
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak at any length this afternoon, as I know the house and the country are most anxious that this debate be brought to an early conclusion, to the end that the decision of parliament thereon may be taken in ample time before the hour fixed for the calling of the strike.
Before I deal with one or two matters which I feel I should deal with, I want to refer merely in passing to some words that passed between the hon. member for Laurier and myself yesterday afternoon. I was speaking without notes and without any record before me, and I mentioned the question of subsidies. The hon. member for Laurier is reported at page 359 of Hansard to have said as follows:
On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, neither the member for Laurier nor anyone else on this side of the house has at any time during the course of this debate, either directly or by way of inference in a question, suggested that there should be a subsidy.
368	HOUSE OF
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act To which I am reported to have replied: Mr. Speaker, Hansard will tell the story. My recollection was that the hon. member in question did ask what action was being taken in this regard. If the hon. member says he did not ask a question of that nature I will accept his denial of his having asked such a question.
Well, I have looked up the record since and, merely for the purpose of keeping the record clear, I would point out that on November 25, 1960, at page 195, the following appears. The hon. member for Laurier asked a question of the Minister of Transport, and after some words passing back and forth you, Mr. Speaker, made this statement:


Mr. Speaker:: Policy with respect to payment of subsidies to the railways to avoid a strike, as I understood his question.


Mr. Chevrier:: Mr. Speaker, the first part of the question was whether the minister had received a delegation, and whether in the memorandum there was a clause complaining about the payment of subsidies. I asked the minister what his reaction was to that, because I take it that he did not have some reaction to this, one of the many representations put before him by the association. Surely the question is quite regular.
Then on November 18 there was also a reference by the hon. member, at page 8 of Hansard for that date. He said:
May I ask a supplementary question. Has the government reached a decision on the matter of a subsidy to meet the wage increases?
You said on that occasion, Mr. Speaker:
The hon. member is asking a broad question of policy. If the government should see fit to deal with it in this way it would be in order, but it is a question of policy.
I simply refer to these various instances to indicate that questions had been asked by the hon. member for Laurier; simply for the purpose, I repeat, of completing the record. I can say to the hon. member for Laurier that even Homer nodded on one occasion.
I am going to deal in particular with certain statements made by the Leader of the Opposition who in effect condemns the government for proceeding in a manner which will result in a postponement; in other words, that the issue should not be faced at this time for reasons which the Minister of Labour gave yesterday and to which I intend to make some further reference. The very fact that by this action we asked for a postponement was regarded by the Leader of the Opposition, in the year 1960, as being derogatory to our responsibilities and not in keeping with conciliation procedure.
I feel it is well, therefore, to go back to 1950 to see what happened on that occasion. The Leader of the Opposition was a member of the government of that day. On that occasion Right Hon. Mr. St. Laurent pointed out that a request had been made for a postponement for 30 days. He said, as recorded on page 12 of Hansard for August 29, 1950: 

I was told by the leaders of the negotiating committee for the men that they could not agree to a postponement, but in the reply they implied that they would welcome the immediate assistance of a mediator.
In other words, at that time the government of that day did ask for a postponement of the beginning of the strike, and that request was refused. In the year 1950

and it is well to recall this-the action taken by the government of that day was to wait several days, seven, eight or nine days, while the strike paralysed the country; then, having waited that long, to bring into effect legislation which provided for compulsory arbitration. We have not followed that course.
I intend to refer to the 1950 legislation so the record will be complete. The preamble to the legislation is as follows:
Whereas the operation of railways and subsidiary services serving the country as a whole has been suspended by reason of a failure of the railway companies and the bargaining agents of non-operating and certain other employees of the companies to reach agreement as to certain terms and conditions of employment;
And whereas the vital interests of the people of Canada and the welfare and security of the nation are imperilled by the suspension of operation of the railways, particularly in existing international conditions;
And whereas the railway companies and the bargaining agents of the employees appear to have agreed that existing wage rates should be increased, and the forty hour week introduced but appear to have been unable to agree as to the amount and effective date of the wage increase or the date at which the forty hour week would be effective and the terms and conditions upon which it would be introduced;
And whereas it is essential to protect the interests of the people of Canada and the welfare and security of the nation that operation of the railways be resumed immediately and that for this purpose provision be made for provisional terms and conditions of employment of employees and for the final settlement thereof;
At that time there was one matter upon which both sides were in agreement, that there was a certain level of wages that should be paid. The only question was as to the date of the commencement. There was also agreement as to the 40 hour week. What did the government of that day do? The hon. gentlemen who sit opposite me were in the cabinet of that day; the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Laurier, the hon. member for Essex East, the hon. member for Trinity, and others of equal importance.
Now then, provision was made in that legislation-and I want to point this out because the very thought of what we are doing has shocked the sensibilities of the Leader of the Opposition and those associated with him-for compulsory arbitration. There is no compulsory arbitration in the legislation before you. I point out that in the 1950 act, provision was made as follows:
Within forty eight hours after the commencement of this act every railway company shall resume

Maintenance of Railway Operation Act
operation oi the railway and subsidiary services the operation of which is suspended by reason of the strike now existing and every employee who is now on strike shall return to the duties of his employment with the railway company by which he is employed.
3. The terms of each collective agreement to which this act applies are provisionally amended forthwith by increasing by 4 cents per hour each rate of wages established by or pursuant to the agreement.
This provision was placed therein because both employer and employee agreed that this was the minimum they were prepared to accept. The difference today is that there is no such agreement, or no such tentative agreement, between the employer and the employee. Then, having amended the agreement in accordance with what the parties would have agreed to in any event, the act proceeded as follows:
5. (1) If within thirty days after the commencement of this act, or such longer period as may be fixed by the governor in council at the joint request of a railway company and a union, agreement has not been reached between them either as to the terms of a collective agreement in revision or amendment of a collective agreement to which this act applies or as to an arbitrator to decide such terms, the governor in council shall appoint an arbitrator to decide all matters-
And so on. What the government of the day in 1950 did was to bring in, by way of a section in the act, a provision that the agreed minimum increase that both sides agreed on should start. What the opposition now contends is that what this government should have done was to bring in terms such as this which were not accepted by the employers and were not agreed to by the employers and employees as basic in any way. To ask parliament to say to parties to conciliation negotiations, "We are going to say, whatever the decision you make, that these are the terms" is a course that cannot be followed unless parliament is to be placed in a position above the processes of conciliation.
Compulsory arbitration which I mentioned a moment ago is provided for. The attitude we took at that time was one of opposition to compulsory arbitration. The then leader of the Conservative party, Mr. Drew, moved an amendment which was as follows:
That Bill No. 1 be not now read the second time but that in the opinion of this house consideration should be given to a measure which would provide for the appointment of a national administrator to ensure immediate operation of the railways pending final solution of the dispute by the free process of collective bargaining.
That is what we are saying today. We are not having an administrator appointed. The responsibilities must remain the responsibilities of the railroads to operate, and they are being so directed. The purpose is to assure that, during the interval between now and May 15, either the process of conciliation when
continued will bring about an agreement, or at that time, there will be no reason-for the attitude now taken by the railways-that it is impossible for them to make the payment because of the fact that their freight rates are frozen.
Hon. gentlemen opposite who just shudder with indignation today over the bill before them, which does not provide for compulsory arbitration in any way, who are shocked by the attitude taken by the government in this bill, voted in the year 1950. I am not going to read the entire list but I simply point out this fact when I look across at the hon. gentlemen opposite. I see names in the list such as that of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson), the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier), the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) and others too numerous to mention. Having brought into effect compulsory arbitration, hon. gentlemen opposite ever since the year 1950 have been trying to explain it away. We have not brought in compulsory arbitration. We have maintained the processes of collective bargaining. We intend that those processes shall be limited only as to the right to strike now, not the right to strike.
The Leader of the Opposition referred in most eulogistic terms to the contribution made the prime minister of that day in bringing about conciliation as between the parties. Certainly Mr. St. Laurent tried. He brought the parties together. I think he brought them together before the strike was called. He brought them together thereafter. However, the strike continued regardless of any representations on his behalf or any desire expressed by him.
In order that there will be no doubt whatever as to the record in this connection, an hon. member on this side of the house will at the proper time set out what actually took place. As for myself, all I intend to do is to say this. There was no give or take on either side until November 29. The attitude taken by the railways was simply this: "We cannot pay and we will not accept the majority report". The attitude taken by Mr. Hall, who alone spoke while I was present, was that the only alternative was "Pay or we strike". He was asked whether there would be any acceptance of partial terms, any diminution in his demands and his answer was no, that it was final and absolute.
However, on November 29, when everything that my colleagues or I could do had been done in order to bring the parties together, Mr. Gordon made a suggestion, and I am going to refer to that matter for just a moment. That suggestion was based on
368	HOUSE OF
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act the conciliation board report or, as he called it, the philosophy behind the conciliation board report. At page 5 in the report the question of a standard of measurement arose. Yesterday the hon. member for Port Arthur referred to this question of a standard of measurement. The report states as follows:
Both the railways and the unions placed emphasis on the need for a standard of comparison between the wages of the non-operating railway force of employees and some appropriate outside group. The railways, for example, put it that the wages paid to their employees "should be adequate when tested by a reasonable standard of comparison".
May I say here and now that I believe that to be the basic principle.
The unions insisted that the earnings of durable goods employees are the proper standard and that non-operating railway employees should have exact parity with durable goods earnings.
Then at page 10 in the course of the recommendations the board reported as follows:
It was noted earlier that the significant fact which emerges when the earnings of durable goods employees are compared with those of non-operating railway employees during the past two years is that the two sets of earnings were in the same relative position one to the other at the termination of the previous agreement as they had been at its commencement. There was a gap between the two sets of earnings, but the gap was the same at the end of 1959 as it had been at the end of 1957.
That gap since has widened.
At a time when the financial situations of the railways are not improving and freight rates are frozen, it may be not be wise to seek to close the gap but it is surely fair and reasonable to prevent its becoming greater.


Lionel Chevrier: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I am glad to see that hon. gentlemen opposite agree with that principle, for that principle was agreed to by Mr. Gordon. I have to say that as far as Mr. Crump was concerned, he went no further than to say he was sympathetic, that he would give consideration-and I took it, sympathetic consideration-to this suggestion.
Mr. Gordon said, "There has been a widening in that spread in the year 1960, and I am prepared right here and now to agree that we will pay whatever that widening gap is in wages as soon as that amount is determined in a proper way; and we will make that effective on the first day of January, 1960".
In other words, what Mr. Gordon said was this; "We are not going to allow"-


Lester Bowles Pearson: Have you got that in the bill?


John George Diefenbaker: -"the gap to widen in
1960.	We will pay that difference as soon as it is determined. We will carry that on into
1961,	to the end of the present agreement". This was the first break.


Over the years I have dealt with plaintiffs and defendants as we got together and tried to arrive at settlements. Sometimes it takes a long while to arrive at a break, for each takes his own stand and places his foot on the rock and says, "Here I stand, and I will not depart from my position".
That had been the attitude all the way through until November 29, when Mr. Gordon gave this undertaking. I put this to Mr. Hall when I came in-after it had been reported to me, and there had been no suggestion that what had been stated was not correct-and he said, "It will not be considered". Then I again asked him, as I stated earlier, if this could not be accepted, would he agree to delay a strike until May 15, at which time the full union demands would be in effect, without prejudice, including the right to go back to January 1, 1960. The reply was that he would not.
I am informed that earlier he said to my colleagues, when this was brought to his attention, "This does not appeal to us"; and he said, and I quote, that further discussions were "a waste of time". The Minister of Labour observed that discussions can lead to understanding and a solution of the problem, as to which Mr. Hall refused to give any indication other than that of unwavering adherence to the recommendations of the conciliation board.
On another occasion the Minister of Labour -and I was not present at this time-asked whether the unions might consider a portion of the increase now, with the balance left in abeyance, because he was trying to bring the parties together. Mr. Hall said this would not be fair to the employees. The Postmaster General-and again I have this only from what I have been told by my colleagues- asked if there was any room for a change in Mr. Hall's stand, and the answer was in the negative. Mr. Hall said, "There is no agreement that we will accept, short of total implementation of the Milvain report."


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister a question?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask if these remarks to which the Prime Minister is referring and is placing in Hansard were made at a public meeting, and whether, if the Prime Minister is quoting Mr. Hall, he is quoting him with Mr. Hall's consent?


John George Diefenbaker: I am simply quoting what took place, and I have not consulted either party. These were the discussions that took place, and I am simply pointing out that on the basis of those discussions there was no

Maintenance of Railway Operation Act
give or take on the part of either party, with the exception of that diminished offer on the part of Mr. Gordon.


Lionel Chevrier: Will the Prime Minister say whether these were public or private meetings?


John George Diefenbaker: I did not say they were public or private. I am glad the hon. gentleman has asked that, because I have found since then there have been observations made outside the house. That is the reason I am referring to what took place there, to indicate-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he is citing Mr. Hall with Mr. Hall's knowledge and approval in respect of statements made at a secret meeting?


An hon. Member:: There was no secret meeting.


John George Diefenbaker: The meeting was with Mr. Hall for the purpose of bringing the parties together-


An hon. Member:: A smoke screen.


John George Diefenbaker: -and there has never been any suggestion that the decisions made there or the attitudes expressed shall not be available, particularly when there has been a partial revelation outside of this house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I am just pointing out-


Mr. Benidickson:: Mr. Speaker, for clarification I would-


John George Diefenbaker: I am simply pointing this out, as the Leader of the Opposition said there had been nothing done on our part to bring about an agreement-


Lester Bowles Pearson: When did I say that?


An hon. Member:: Yesterday.


John George Diefenbaker: -and to try everything conceivable to that end. There is no power that can do more than bring the parties together and when brought together, if both of them take the stand in question, then, sir, give this answer to the Leader of the Opposition when he suggested yesterday that in view of the fact that there was no agreement we should be a party to bringing to parliament an order directing the railway companies to pay the recommendation of a conciliation board.
Now, sir, if we arrived at that point, then we would be in a position where the purpose of industrial conciliation would be ended unless both parties would agree to accept
the majority opinion of a board of conciliation. If we had that situation, we would actually be bringing about what is being asked for across the country today by farm organizations, and I would like to hear the hon. member for Assiniboia on that point.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I am waiting to hear, because I am going to refer in a moment-


Hazen Robert Argue: Do you agree with their
requests?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I leave it to the hon. member whose position is the head of a new C.C.F. party. I am waiting to hear how he will bring into alignment the situation that prevails in this regard across this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hazen Robert Argue: It will not be compulsory arbitration.


John George Diefenbaker: If the hon. member needs anything to help him, I suggest that an editorial of December 1 in a magazine that he often quotes, the Western Producer, would be of tremendous interest to him. I did not want to go into that field at all, but I thought it might be of some interest to the hon. member. If he wants a copy of the paper I will be glad to furnish it to him.
Now, sir, returning once more to the subject matter, we asked that there be a postponement until May 15. I am not going to cover the ground again that I covered yesterday, excepting to point out this, that this question of being able to remove that measure of injustice which through the years various provinces and areas have contended has resulted from discriminatory freight rates will, we hope, have been resolved, if not in whole at least in part.
The principal problem facing the railways in their endeavour to earn sufficient revenues to meet their costs of operation is, naturally, that of pricing. Historically the pricing of railway transportation services has been based on a value theory, whereby high value traffic could afford to pay higher freight rates than could lower value traffic. It thus followed that in their efforts to develop traffic the railways carried low value commodities at rates which were little, if any, more than the direct cost of carrying them. This traffic, therefore, contributed little toward the overhead costs of the railways. To meet the overhead costs and provide an element of profit the railways looked to high value traffic which could afford to pay more, and often much more, than the mere cost of moving it.
Today the situation is different. The railways no longer hold a monopolistic position
370	HOUSE OF
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act as they once did. The result is that the railways no longer obtain the surplus from the high value traffic, because much of the high value traffic, in the short haul particularly, is now moved by trucks, and further efforts by the railways to increase these rates diverts more and more of this high value traffic to highway carriers.
This is a most complex matter involving several subjects which are now before the royal commission on transportation. If, perchance, this commission is able to bring in recommendations which will assure that the horizontal increase being made in freight rates will not increase the amount of the discrimination, then indeed we shall arrive at a point when the railway companies will be able to secure that revenue, and the only way they can get it is through the medium of freight rates in an equalized manner applicable to all parts of the country.
I do not in any circumstances wish to see the railway employees placed in a position of having to subsidize the railroads. I wish to see them treated with that degree of fairness which I outlined earlier when I referred to the report at page 5, that degree of fairness which will assure to employees wages which "should be adequate when tested by a reasonable standard of comparison".
By next May 15, without the sacrifice of anything except a postponement, every railway employee will be in a position through his bargaining agent to come to an agreement with the railway company. The railway company will be able to apply to the board of transport commissioners. The freeze will be lifted and the Canadian people, in the normal run of events, will then have to pay extra freight rates in order to meet the increased wage levels, just as they have to pay to meet all other types and varieties of expenditure.
We were most careful to assure a proper interpretation in this regard in the bill itself, and we found that the measure which we placed before the house was one which protects and preserves the economy today. Though it prevents disruption at this time, it does, at the same time, in every way preserve and maintain the rights of labour. We deny that the bringing into effect of this legislation means anything in the nature of compulsory bargaining.
The hon. member for Assiniboia interrupted me a while ago, and I have every feeling for the difficulty of his position because he is in the position of the man on the flying trapeze; he does not know exactly which side to take. He realizes what happened at the coast only two or three weeks ago. In that strike at the coast the unions refused to accept the majority report and


struck, and we had no authority there; we could not act. All we could do was offer our conciliation services, and the Minister of Labour provided a man in that connection to try to bring the parties together.
I did not hear the hon. gentleman rising in his place then and asking "Why do not the unions accept the majority report of the conciliation board out there?" No. He asked questions from time to time and pointed out the seriousness of the situation to western agriculture, and it was serious. But we had no power to act.
I ask the hon. gentleman simply this. Does he believe that majority reports of conciliation boards should be accepted? I point out this, too; that all over western Canada, as a result of that strike at the coast, the western farmer was paralysed. Wheat piled up. Markets were available, but there was no way in which this wheat could be loaded. I did not hear the hon. member say anything then along the lines indicated yesterday by the hon. member for Port Arthur. If I were to quote some of the statements made by farm people across the country, the house would see that they were strong and definite. They suggested a short cut, a final determination through the medium of the setting up of an institution with power to fix and determine finally and absolutely. The Minister of Labour made possible the bringing together of the parties. Without power to act, he achieved a measure of agreement and after 18 days, I think it was, the throttling of the western economy ended in so far as shipments to the coast were concerned.
No, it is not a simple matter. We have endeavoured in this legislation first of all to preserve the basic rights of labour, to maintain those principles which have been accepted through the years as necessary for the preservation of the rights of labour. At the same time, we did everything conceivable to bring the parties together. I have no doubt about the sincerity of both sides. I am not here to say otherwise, and I do not believe otherwise. But there they were; and while they stood firm, unwavering and unchanging, the clock ticked away to the beginning of a strike which would have brought about in this country a paralysis the luxury of which we cannot afford at this time. Next May 15 we shall be in a position to determine whatever is fair and reasonable, upon the basis I have already made clear, without prejudice in any way to the man who works, back-dating everything to January 1, 1960.
I commend this measure to the House of Commons. We have avoided those dangerous pitfalls of 1950. We will have been able to

achieve something in the nature of an assurance that the Canadian people will be preserved from the awful recourse of a strike at this time, and at the same time will have maintained inviolate the rights of conciliation.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have followed carefully the remarks made by the Prime Minister yesterday, his observations over television last night, and the third instalment of his speech in this house this afternoon. I wish to say at the outset that the position stated by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday was clear and precise.
We say this strike should have been prevented. We would have made sure that a strike would have been unnecessary instead of implementing a minority report, as the government is doing. We would have provided a settlement based on the majority report of the conciliation board which was accepted by the railway workers. For these reasons, if we had been in office, there would have been no strike but there would have been a fair settlement.
The Prime Minister this afternoon referred to the legislation of 1950. The right hon. gentleman mentioned that there had been incorporated in that measure the principle of compulsory arbitration. He neglected to say that in the bill introduced not by the Minister of Labour but by the Prime Minister himself, in 1958, provision was likewise made for the principle of compulsory arbitration.


John George Diefenbaker: And supported by the opposition.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What the Prime Minister failed to indicate today was that while there is no compulsory arbitration in this bill there is compulsion without arbitration.
When the Prime Minister spoke of the measure of 1950, he failed to point out the difference between that measure and this one. That measure ordered the railway companies to resume operations and ordered the men to go back to work, but they went back to work with an improvement in pay. Under this measure the men are ordered back to work-


John George Diefenbaker: As agreed to by both parties.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -without anything being done whatsoever. The Prime Minister excuses himself by saying-


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will at the end
of my speech.
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If time is taken off I will be glad to accept a question from the right hon. gentleman.


John George Diefenbaker: Surely.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Prime Minister indicates that he is willing to proceed on that understanding.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it that the house is agreeing to an extension of time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the question I want to ask the hon. gentleman is this. Was not the wage provision in the 1950 legislation the amount that was agreed to by both parties as acceptable?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Prime Minister asks whether or not the 4 cents was not as the result of an agreement. There is some dissent from that position, but my understanding is as the Prime Minister said, that there was an agreement between the companies and the men. The point however is that that agreement was brought about as a result of the intervention of the prime minister of that day. The Prime Minister nods that that is the case. The fact is that the men were not ordered back to work without provision being made for an improvement in their monetary situation.


John George Diefenbaker: As agreed by both parties.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Prime Minister seeks to excuse not doing something positive in this bill to help the men by saying, as he did rhetorically yesterday, "Do we argue, urge, and recommend in this house that parliament shall say to an employer, 'You shall pay so much,'?" and my reply yesterday was "Of course"; and that is precisely what the hon. gentleman and the government did in the Canadian Pacific Steamships case in 1958.
In 1958 there were some 900 employees involved in the dispute with the Canadian Pacific Steamships Company. An agreement had been signed by the company with about 500 of the striking employees, and that agreement provided for an increase of 8 cents. The government of my right hon. friend brought in legislation ordering the men back to work with an increase in pay of 8 cents, so what my hon. friend says we should not recommend-something that he says he could not do now-he himself did in 1958.
The Prime Minister may shake his head, but that does not change the facts. Those are the facts, and the record is there in proof. I invite the hon. gentlemen to examine the words of the Minister of Labour in relation to that dispute-

Maintenance of Railway Operation Act


Mr. Starr:: That was agreed to by the employer and the employees prior to that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -as reported at page 2580 of Hansard for the 1958 session, volume III, where the Minister of Labour is reported as having said:
As I mentioned earlier, there has been an agreement signed between Canadian Pacific Steamships, west coast division, and the stewards union on the basis of an 8 per cent increase. The purpose of the bill is to provide for the resumption of work under the administrator by all employees on the same basis of an 8 per cent increase. All employees going back to work will have an increase of 8 per cent from the time the service is resumed.
The fact is that the government has itself provided a precedent for a settlement in this matter, in a manner that should have been consistent with the majority award of the Milvain conciliation board. This government is instead ordering the men back to work. In so doing it has acknowledged, without saying so, the position taken by the Canadian Pacific Railway, and has not acceded in any way to the demands made by the railway workers and supported by the majority of the conciliation board, under a chairman appointed by the Prime Minister and his colleagues. That is the situation that confronts us.
We acknowledge the seriousness of the situation. No one wants a strike, including the railway workers and the companies. In this house, in considering steps that involve intervention of the traditional rights of a segment of our population, we should not interfere without making sure that we do justice; and in this case we are not doing justice. We have no guarantee that on May 15 the situation will be any different from its present state; indeed, it may be worse.
The background ot this situation must be looked at and the responsibilty for this situation must be pinned. The Minister of Labour said yesterday, as reported at page 345 of Hansard:
There is also the consideration that in view of certain events now in progress and which will not have reached their culmination until sometime in March, the goal of a reasonable and equitable settlement at this time was rendered most difficult of achievement.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, who is responsible for rendering it most difficult? Is it the unions? Is it the companies? The responsibility rests on the shoulders of this government. Then the Minister of Labour went on to say:
It is not too much to expect that negotiations following this action would take place in a more favourable atmosphere than that which prevails at the present time.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, who is responsible for the unfavourable atmosphere which prevails at this time? The Prime Minister talks about

his interest in the welfare of the railway workers and his long association with that group of men. For many years the Prime Minister has talked of the removal of discriminatory freight rates. He talked about the discriminatory freight rates when he was a private member and when he was leader of the opposition. He came into office in June, 1957, after having promised all across this country to do something about discriminatory freight rates. He did nothing in 1957; he did nothing in 1958; he did nothing in 1959 except appoint a royal commission from whom we are not to have a report until some time during the first half of 1961. Who is responsible for this unfavourable atmosphere? The Prime Minister and the government.


Mr. Fullon:: Will my hon. friend permit a question??


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Does not my hon. friend recall a freight rate increase of something over a year ago, at which time a $20 million subsidy was approved by parliament, with my hon. friend consenting, to prevent a further horizontal increase in rates which would aggravate the inequities of the situation? Does my hon. friend regard that important step, in which he concurred, as nothing?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Well, that was a subsidy. What I urge is that having taken extraordinary steps that interfere with acknowledged rights of the railway workers, we should ask for a resumption of operations only by imposing a settlement based on a decision of the conciliation board, which recommended a 14 cent increase in wages.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I was wondering what the hon. member regards as nothing.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This whole bill obviously, as the Prime Minister said, postpones the situation entirely. Nothing whatsoever is resolved by this bill, except to remove the probability of a strike with the economic and other consequences that flow from circumstances as national in importance as these. There is no settlement whatsoever of the problem.
It seems to me that if the Prime Minister wanted to show those qualities of leadership which were implied in some of his remarks, he might well have caused the Minister of Labour to bring forward a measure that would settle something. This government could easily have dealt with the offer made by Mr. Gordon the day before yesterday, which however I think would not have been sufficient. It could have dealt With those two findings of the board that were unanimous; it

could have sent the men back to work with some indication of this government's concern for their welfare, instead of completely ignoring the position which they have put forward now for many months. Therefore this bill does not give effect to the majority award. The men will go back to work without anything. On May 15 they will be exactly where they are now.
What will be the situation on May 15? Will the men be then allowed to strike? The Prime Minister spoke feelingly last night over television about not interfering with this inalienable right of labour. He said, "All we have done now is to suspend this right to strike". What will be the situation on May 15? There is no guarantee whatsoever in this bill or in what the Prime Minister said that the situation on May 15 will be any different from what it is now. The government is giving no consideration to what will face the union in their negotiating position with the railways, having in mind the gap which exists between their level of wages and that of the durable goods industry and the further increases in the latter which will present the negotiating committee with a very difficult situation when next September, 1961, it sits down with the companies to negotiate a new agreement.


Mr. Hees:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


George Harris Hees: Does the hon. member feel that the finding of a conciliation board should be final and binding?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I say this to my hon. friend. I think that is a fair question. When we are dealing with a national organization that spreads from one end of the country to the other, when the implications of that organization's activities have such a deep effect on the welfare of this nation and when, because of that, we suspend that organization from enjoying rights that we give to every other labour group in this country, I say when we do that we should not hesitate to give careful and favourable consideration to the award of a conciliation board which knew of the freight rate freeze, which knew that the royal commission had not yet made its report, which knew that the railways had argued financial incapacity-


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, will the hon. member answer my question? Does he or does he not?


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


George Harris Hees: Will you answer my question?
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act


Paul Joseph James Martin: I say, in the face of that, there is no violation of any principle in a government saying, because of these circumstances-


George Harris Hees: Just say yes or no.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -we are going to send the men back to work and we are going to make as the basis of settlement the award made by the majority of the members of the conciliation board. If a government can do now what this government is doing under this bill, it can do it again; and I would have thought that, having in mind all that is implied in the freedom of association we accorded in the bill of rights to labour and to other organizations, this government would be the last to interrupt a strike without giving labour its proper and just desserts in the situation.
What will be the situation on May 15? What guarantee is there that the men will get anything? The Prime Minister has said nothing today. We do not know what the conclusion of the board of transport commissioners is going to be. The Prime Minister seeks to indicate, without saying so, that we may anticipate from the findings of the royal commission something that may justify the railways in acceding to an increase in pay for the railway workers. Well, if that is the impression the Prime Minister sought to create, it is not justified by the statement made by the chairman of the royal commission, who on September 8, 1959, made it clear that the royal commission was not taking into consideration in its deliberations any demands made by labour for increased wages. The statement of the commissioner in part was:
The commission will not admit evidence which directly relates to matters within the field of labour-management relations and which form part of the collective bargaining process between the railways and the representatives of their labour forces.
So the Prime Minister by saying that we must wait until May, 1961, and the Minister of Labour by joining in that declaration, have no basis for giving to labour or to anyone in this country any reason for believing that the royal commission is going to make recommendations which will provide economic justification for the railways to meet the demands of the workers.
The Prime Minister talks about not invading the rights of labour, not interfering with their right to strike but simply suspending it, without giving any indication of what will happen in 1961. I say to the Prime Minister, and he knows what I mean, that this particular bill in this particular form invites a new type of trade unionism in this country. This measure may well imperil the leadership of the railway workers, a leadership which.

Maintenance of Railway Operation Act in the person of Mr. Frank Hall, has been responsible and honourable leadership, exercised in the face of great difficulties. If there is raiding, if there are wildcat strikes, the government will have to accept some responsibility for this situation.


John George Diefenbaker: What could the hon. member mean by saying that something is going to happen? I agree that Mr. Hall is that type of person, but what is going to happen?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I just indicated in a very effective way what will happen. The Prime Minister knows that this bill of his has put the leadership of the railway workers in a position that invites the type of trade unionism into this country that most people of this country do not want.


Michael Starr: May I ask the hon. member a question? I think, in the interests of all of us who are very much concerned about trade unionism and its leadership in this country, and in view of the fact that we do consider that the leadership of our trade unions has been of the highest calibre, it is only right that the hon. member should clarify what he means.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No one knows better than the hon. gentleman the meaning of what I have said.


George Harris Hees: You are the only one who knows.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Let us deal with this Prime Minister, this great champion of the human rights-


George Harris Hees: Let us have an explanation.


Mr. Macdonnell:: May I ask a question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I see two members seeking the floor, and I did not note that the hon. member who has the floor has yielded.


Paul Joseph James Martin: At page 359 of yesterday's Hansard the Prime Minister is recorded as saying:
We have provided that the processes of conciliation shall continue.
I dispute that statement. By this particular bill the Prime Minister has just done the reverse; he has created a lack of confidence in the conciliation institution itself and in its procedures because of the reluctance of the government to give effect to the majority award. Since 1950 the report of every board of conciliation set up to examine the wage demands by the railway workers has been accepted by the railway workers. They have developed, in conjunction with the companies, a jurisprudence in this matter. They have been led to believe that board decisions will be implemented. The government, by this measure and by refusing to accept the


majority report, gives encouragement to a lack of faith in the institution of conciliation.
There is evidence of this in the press release issued today by Mr. Frank Hall, chairman of the non-operating unions joint negotiating committee, in which Mr. Hall is quoted as saying:
Under the proposed legislation the railways are ensured of their position that reasonable wage increases need not be paid.
There can be no meaningful negotiations with the railways during the life of the railway operation continuation act.
The Prime Minister says that the right to strike is suspended. I ask him, does this mean that in May the men may strike or will be allowed to strike? I am not saying what the situation at that time should be, but a situation will have been created by the postponement policy of this government. However, if the right hon. gentleman expects us to believe his statement that the right to strike has not been in any way violated, he owes it to this house to tell us what the situation, as he sees it, will be in this particular in 1961.
The Prime Minister, in answer to a question yesterday by the hon. member for Laurier, said that after the report of the royal commission has been made application may be made by the railways to the board of transport commissioners for increased rates to cover higher wages. The government has taken a course that obviously indicates its complete disregard for the report of the conciliation board. It subordinates the report of the latter to the board of transport commissioners. That board was set up to deal with freight rates. It was not set up, and is not organized, to deal with an application for an increase in wages. By the reply given yesterday to the hon. member for Laurier, therefore, the Prime Minister clearly indicates that he does not regard the Milvain report as one that deserves the attention which the railway workers, the companies and the people of Canada had every reason to expect might flow from it when that board was appointed.
The Prime Minister makes much of the fact that nothing in this bill is going to affect the rights of labour; that whatever we have done will not in any way prejudice the position of the railway workers he says. The Prime Minister made that statement last night, he made it yesterday afternoon, and he implied it again today. I take issue with the Prime Minister. I say there are a number of situations where, as a result of this measure in this particular form, the rights of the workers are very seriously affected.
First of all, the bill seriously weakens the conciliation process in railway disputes. I indicated that since 1950 every decision of

a conciliation board dealing with wage demands by railway workers has been respected by the railway workers. They had the right to expect that the majority decision of the board would be respected in this instance. Yet the Prime Minister says this measure will not in any way affect the position or the rights of the workers.
The Prime Minister says this bill does not provide for compulsory arbitration. As I said, it is compulsion without arbitration. It is arbitration that fixes wages at the old, frozen level. This means that these wages will be fixed at the old levels not only up to May 15, 1961, but for 16J months. This is a level, and this is a serious point, below outside rates at the moment by an average of 17 cents an hour, and a level, in fact, below the current values that could be given by the standards used both by the companies and by the workers in 1956, 1958 and 1960.
Another way in which the rights of the workers are prejudiced is this. This bill does not protect the workers now employed and who will not be on the railways' payroll next May or June. Many people will retire because of age. These men will not get the benefits of any retroactive payments if, in fact, retroactivity at any time is determined on. Yet the Prime Minister says this bill does not in any way affect the rights of the workers.
The bill prejudices the rights of the men in another particular, in that it supports the railroads in their attempts, beginning in 1956, to break the durable goods standard which was accepted by Mr. Justice Milvain.


John George Diefenbaker: Not at all.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Prime Minister says, "Not at all". Let us look at the facts. In 1956, 1958 and 1960 the railroads sought to replace the durable goods standard with a standard of their own choosing. They have been supported now in that position by this government as a result of the contents of this bill.


John George Diefenbaker: That is not so.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: No denial or shaking of the head by the Prime Minister can alter the terms of the record. Indeed, the Prime Minister acknowledged this himself. He quoted from Mr. Justice Milvain who stated, at page 8 of the majority report:
At a time when the financial situations of the railways are not improving and freight rates are frozen, it may not be wise to seek to close the gap but it is surely fair and reasonable to prevent its becoming greater.
If that does not mean what I said it means, then I should like to know what the language means. Not only does this bill do what I have said it does, but it violates the rights of the workers in another particular. It
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act destroys the accepted concept of a standard. Everyone agrees that there must be a standard in railroad negotiations against which working conditions can be measured. I would ask hon. members to listen to what Mr. Justice Milvain said at page 4 of the report:
Both the railways and the unions placed emphasis on the need for a standard of comparison between the wages of the non-operating railway force of employees and some appropriate outside group. The railways, for example, put it that the wages paid to their employees "should be adequate when tested by a reasonable standard of camparison" The unions insisted that the earnings of durable goods employees are the proper standard and that non-operating railway employees should have exact parity with durable goods earnings.
By this bill the government has nullified the concept of a standard, a destructive act that will harm negotiations for years to come.


John George Diefenbaker: Not at all.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Finally, I say that the bill prejudices the rights of the workers in that it does not even take notice of that part of the conciliation report where there was a unanimous decision. If it was wrong, as the Prime Minister says it was, to impose additional wages, against the consent of the employers, what justification could there be for the government not including in this bill, at any rate, those particular findings that were supported' both by Mr. Justice Milvain and Mr. Vineberg as well as by Mr. Lewis? What justification could there be? We can only conclude that either the government overlooked this matter or it did not want to reveal where its closest concern and judgment in the matter happens to lie. That is the situation.
Those are at least six instances where the rights of labour are vitally affected by this measure. I say this to the Prime Minister. I listened to what he had to say to the people of Canada last night over television. I listened carefully to what he said when he spoke here yesterday, and I listened carefully to what he said today. I noted all that he had to say about the bill passed in 1950. I simply say that is the course that was taken by the government at that time when this country was at war, at a time when the railways occupied in our economy a much stronger position than they now occupy in relation to other forms of transportation. Nevertheless, after that bill had been passed the workers of this country, the people of this country, joined together as indicated by expressions that were made in editorials all over this country and by observations made by Mr. Percy Bengough and by Mr. Pat Conroy that clearly indicated that not only had the national interest been served by the government but that it had been served in a manner that was not inimical to the

Maintenance of Railway Operation Act rights of the great body of unionized workers in this country. That was the reaction to the bill of 1950. However, that will not be the reaction of most people in the course of time to the action taken by this government.
I said at the outset that we recognized that this strike was one that had to be dealt with effectively, that a strike could not be allowed to take place, but that it should have been accompanied by a settlement that provided justice to all parties concerned. The board of conciliation knew of the situation that confronts the government. It was aware of the fact that freight rates were frozen. It was aware of the fact that the royal commission had not made a report. It was aware of the attitude of the companies. In the face of all that knowledge, this board, whose chairman was appointed by the right hon. gentleman, obliged to recognize all the facts in the situation, unhesitatingly recommended an award, which we say should have provided the basis of settlement in this bill.
I say to the government, then, that this bill does not resolve any issue. This bill is characteristic of this government which, when with important issues, promptly shelves them or postpones them. Grievances are laid aside. Once again the government has failed to meet the requirements of responsible national leadership.


Mr. Waller Pilman (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, my formal opening remarks in this house must begin with words of thanks both to the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) for the extremely kind welcome which was accorded to me a few days ago.
(Translation):
Would you kindly extend my thanks to the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Dela-naudiere (Mr. Paul) for having so cordially and wittily greeted me.
(Text):
One of the great contributions of a great prime minister and a Conservative government in the nineteenth century was the creation of a national transcontinental railway system. That prime minister attempted to marshall the private enterprise of this nation in order to create this system. He failed both economically and politically. Then this great prime minister made a courageous decision. He realized that it was a national necessity and that the resources of the nation, both in land and in money, must be given to this enterprise. Thus the principle was established that, in the cause of a national necessity, all Canadians should bear the responsibility and the cost.
The maintenance of a national transcontinental system is Canada's price of union.
[Mr. Martin (Essex East) .1
Other nations have a price to pay. Some must maintain dikes. Others must maintain costly defence on their borders. Others must must maintain canals. Canada must maintain a national transcontinental system based largely on rails of steel.
This principle has been forgotten, namely that the price of union must be paid by all Canadians, not by the few men who happen to be paid by and in the employ of the national railways of this country. That is the group who will be paying this price-I refer to our price of union-at least until May 15. I say this because the wages of these men are being frozen by this legislation on the basis of the minority report, as the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) has suggested.
These men are being underpaid by any standard which you wish to accept, and several have been attempted. These men have been forced to accept a durable goods standard which they themselves do not want. They are now being forced against their will to continue working at a wage which has been set by a minority report when they indeed would be less than willing in some ways to accept even that given by the majority report; and there is no assurance that this situation will change. The government has said that it is not taking sides. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that by freezing wages it is taking sides and that a government, in maintaining the status quo, does not relieve itself of responsibility.
The suggestion has been made that the royal commission report will have a great effect on these negotiations next May, that there will be a more favourable atmosphere. Let us assume for a moment that in spite of all the railways have said to the contrary, that after adjusting freight rates fairly, after raising freight rates in certain parts of Canada, that report does allow the railways to raise the wages of these men. May I suggest that now we have a new standard, not a durable goods standard, not a Wood-Gordon standard, or any of the other standards; we now have a standard based on a royal commission decision with regard to freight rates, and we now have a decision that the ability of the railways to pay is going to be the basis of what the railway workers will be paid.
Certainly in the area of private enterprise this has great relevance, but we are not dealing with anything that can be called private enterprise; we are dealing virtually with a public utility; we are dealing with national necessity. Indeed, this makes the entire issue at variance with what we have been speaking about today. What if next year the railway income goes down? Where does that leave the unions? It is now completely undecided whether the railways can pay, and

certainly nothing has been set until May 15. If the railways are unable to pay, then railway workers will henceforth pay Canada's price of union.
Let us assume that the royal commission decided that, as the railways suggest, no increases or adjustments are possible. Where do we go from there? As the hon. member for Port Arthur suggested, we have no standard. I fail to see why next May 15 there will be any more favourable atmosphere. But what has happened in the meantime? Canadian labour has been deprived of a basic right, the right to strike when it feels it must. The right timing to decide is just as important as the right to strike, and the railway unions have been deprived of that right.
The Prime Minister has suggested that if a subsidy were given it would in a sense be putting a gun to the head of the government, and would force all Canadians to pay in order to prevent a national emergency and national economic chaos. But who else ever pays for a national emergency? We now have a precedent that the government will postpone action on the basis of the status quo whenever there is a national emergency or a similar situation under such circumstances.
The Minister of Labour has suggested that this is in the public interest. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, it is. No one wishes to see a railway strike. But justice, as well as economic necessity, is in the public interest. This government has been greatly concerned with civil liberties, and rightly so. I suggest that the whole process of negotiation has been damaged. This action has brought into suspicion the whole process by which labour and management resolve their differences. Also, I think, as the hon. member for Essex East has already indicated, it is a reflection upon the efficiency and the proud record of those intelligent and responsible men who lead the unions of this nation.
It has been suggested that it is ridiculous to strike for an increase of $3.80 a week, or $61 until next May. This is always the argument on the part of management whenever a strike is suggested. Men do not strike for immediate gain; they fully realize the loss it will mean both to themselves and their families. Men strike for the benefit of the whole movement, for the benefit of the whole craft, and essentially for those who are to follow. An argument on this basis would prevent any forward movement of the entire labour organization. The aim should be to prevent a strike as soon as possible, but at least the government should have guaranteed out of public revenue the right of these workers to what was set out in the majority
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act report. Then a decision could have been made which would not have prejudiced either side, either management or labour.
A subsidy is not popular; it is not the easy way out. Indeed, it is politically the inexpedient way out. Sir John A. Macdonald found many times when he was making a decision that it would hurt him politically, but he took the way of courage. What is needed now is a complete look at our transportation industry. I hope, along with many other hon. members, that this royal commission report will be the first step. Certainly we must also find out what is the place of the private trucking industry in this area.
I can only say in conclusion that there is something worse than subsidy. Indeed, there is something worse than a strike. Canada presents herself to the world as a model of democracy, and her labour legislation is a part of the image which she has presented. I think, and I hope, that I speak for all Canadians, not only labour leaders and union members but also for farmers, business and professional people who will take a second, sober look at this legislation and realize that Canadian democracy has suffered a serious loss.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, this is undoubtedly the gravest matter that has come before us in the seven years I have had the privilege of being a member of this house, and I am going to make every endeavour to treat this subject in a manner which is consonant with its gravity.
I do not intend to follow my hon. friend for Essex East in replying to the Prime Minister because that would be redundant and repetitious. I intend to support the amendment moved by my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition-


An hon. Member:: I wonder why.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -and to make certain arguments, that the Leader of the Opposition only indicated, in somewhat greater detail and to underline the arguments which he gave so ably yesterday. I do this because it does seem to me, if I may say so without disrespect, that in certain quarters the position of the Liberal party is not yet fully understood; and I blame no one for this. It is not fully understood because it is not capable of being expressed in a single catch phrase. However, I think if I were seeking one single word with which to describe it, the word I would use would be "justice".
I want to point out first of all that we do not differ with the government in its view that a strike should not take place. The Leader of the Opposition made that perfectly clear at the outset yesterday, and my hon. friend

Maintenance of Railway Operation Act from Essex East repeated it today. We do not think a railway strike is necessary; we do not think a strike should take place. We have also indicated quite clearly in my hon. friend's amendment that we, like the government, would use compulsion-the compulsion of legislation-if absolutely necessary in order to prevent that strike.
Therefore on those two points, that there should not be a strike and that there should be legislation, if necessary at this time, to prevent a strike-to prevent it, not to stop it after it has taken place-we and the government are in complete agreement. Where we differ is as to who should pay the price.


Mr. McGrath:: Who paid the price in Newfoundland?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I can well understand why a backbencher on the government side should seek to raise a diversion at this point, but-


An hon. Member:: Quite a diversion.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -I will deal with the matter that is before the house. I will continue to deal with it as far as I can in the objective way in which I have sought to begin, and to deal exclusively with this matter, because it seems to me that this question is of such gravity that it should not be encumbered by anything else and that we should all seek to understand the points upon which we agree and the points upon which we differ. Incidentally, I had hoped it would be possible to differ on these points without the imputation of unworthy motives on either side.
I think there is a difference, and a fundamental difference. I would even go so far as to say that for me this represents the fundamental difference between the fundamental philosophies of the two main political parties in this house. However, I am not going to put forward any philosophical argument.
I	am simply going to make a practical argument with relation to the measure which is now before us. What the government has said is that the workers must go back to work, that after this bill has passed through parliament and received the royal assent it will be a crime for the workers not to go back to work until May 15. In other words, this is a measure of forced labour. Moreover, the men must go back to work at a wage which Mr. Justice Milvain said was substandard.
That is the position taken by the government. In other words, the workers must pay for this postponement, pay in delay, if nothing else, by having to wait for five and a half months, I think it is, in addition to the
II	months they have already waited for something which Mr. Justice Milvain said would fill the gap; the new gap, not the old gap that existed in 1957, but the additional

gap which has been created since the end of 1959. The government is saying that neither the taxpayers nor the companies should bear the cost of this postponement, but that the cost should be borne by the workers.
Now we on this side say that the temporary cost until May-and I emphasize the word "temporary", as the government properly did, for its part-we say that if there is to be a delay in the final determination of all these matters the sum of approximately $5 million which the Canadian Pacific Railway would have to pay between now and next June is not an undue burden for them to bear in these five and a half months, having regard to the fact that at that time a general review of railway finances will take place, and, if an injustice has been done to the C.P.R. this government, with the consent of this parliament, can remedy that injustice.
We agree that there must be a delay in the final determination of some of these matters, because the government must have the royal commission's report before it can determine some of them-not the wage question, but some of the others. But we do not think the workers should lose in the meantime, nor do we think that a charge should now be made on the treasury. I want to make very clear, as did my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) yesterday, that we do not think the position of the C.P.R. should be prejudged. We simply say that, instead of denying to every railway worker $61 which he needs, some of which he should have received months ago, the C.P.R. is better able to do without $5 million for a few months, some of which it will not have to pay until the last month. In other words, as Mr. Mackenzie King said, we put the human values before the material values. That is the simple difference between us.
If the amendment put forward by my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition were adopted by this house then it is true, as was stated on the radio, that it would kill this bill. But directly the present measure was defeated the government could introduce another bill to do the simple justice which Mr. Justice Milvain recommended, and I venture to say it would pass through this house in all its stages in 10 minutes.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) who, through the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr), is asking this house to compel the workers to go back to work without any additional pay, expresses horror at the idea that we should compel the C.P.R. to pay out a possible $5 million between now and next May. He says the situation was different in 1950 because the railways had agreed to the four-cent

increase. I am relying largely on my recollection, as was the Prime Minister, but I have refreshed my memory on this point and I do not think I am wrong. The offer made by the railways was a negotiating offer, and it was withdrawn when the negotiations broke down, so the railways had not agreed to it. What is more, the railways had not agreed to pay anything to their hotel workers.
Notwithstanding all this, the legislation introduced by Mr. St. Laurent made no discrimination as between one class of workers and another, and enforced this increase on the railway companies right across the board. I have looked up his words recently and 1 paraphrase them without fear of doing an injustice to them. He said he did not want as the leader of the government to be responsible for turning the hand of a member of one union against a member of another associated union. I think all of us would profit from reading fully and carefully that speech of Mr. St. Laurent, because the tone and temper of that whole utterance was that if we are to compel people to work, which is surely about the most repugnant thing there is, except compelling people to go to die, about which the gravest differences which have ever occurred in this country have taken place-


Mr. Graffley:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the hon. member would put his question at the end of my remarks. I was saying that when we compel people by law to go to work and make it a crime for them not to go to work, it is surely incumbent upon us to compel them to go to work under conditions which do not give them a just sense of grievance, as this bill does. That is the difference between us and the government.
The Prime Minister said on the radio last night, and he said it, if I remember rightly, in the house last night, that the government was seeking to preserve neutrality between the two parties. The only neutrality I can compare it with in my mind is the neutrality of Franklin Roosevelt between 1939 and 1941. This is neutrality on the side of the railways, not neutrality on the side of the workers.


John George Diefenbaker: Nothing of the kind.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As my hon. friend from Essex East (Mr. Martin) has pointed out, not even what the railways were willing to concede has been put into the bill. The companies are left with everything they wanted, and the workers are getting nothing. I am not going to dwell on the question of whether this is compulsory arbitration or compulsion without arbitration, because my hon. friend
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act from Essex East has already dealt with that, but there is obviously no arbitration here at all. It is just straight compulsion.
The government has decided what will be done, and is imposing that decision. That is all there is to it, and, of course, unless the government can be persuaded to change its mind that is what will happen, because there is no disposition on this side to do more than record clearly the difference between us, and to do our utmost by argument and persuasion to get the government to take the other course. We do not intend to engage in any kind of filibuster.
I think a neutral position would have been possible. My friend the hon. member for Essex East indicated the kind of neutral position that might have been adopted by the government in this matter. The government has not seen fit to take a neutral position. Instead it has taken the position of the railways 100 per cent. We feel, in this matter, when we are going to compel men to go to work, when we have a standard laid down by a highly respected judge of a superior court after considering the arguments of both sides, a standard not as to what is adequate-he says himself it is not adequate but it would at least help to close the gap-that standard should be followed. If we are going to compel men to work we should see that they are given elementary justice. That is our position.
Justice demands that if men are forced to work they should be justly paid. If they want to agree to work for some other figure that is their own business. That is why, it seems to me, the whole question that was raised again today by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees) about the majority reports of conciliation boards is totally irrelevant.
Of course, we do not think that the majority reports of conciliation boards should be compulsory upon the parties. That is not the law and it should not be the law. We do say, however, that when you compel men by law to go to work you create an entirely different situation. Then, as the Prime Minister recognized when the hon. member for Essex East was speaking, there must be some kind of standard. We think that the standard laid down by Mr. Justice Milvain and concurred in by one of the other parties in the report of this conciliation board is the minimum standard that the free members of a free parliament should put into this legislation, when they are going to force a small group of their fellow citizens to give up their right to strike and go back to work.
It seems to me that is the whole point, the essence of the difference between us.
380	HOUSE OF
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act


Mr. Nugeni:: That is the part of the difference the hon. member would like to look at.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think it is the whole difference. As my hon. friend, the Leader of the Opposition, says in his amendment which I think I should recall to hon. members:
This house declines to proceed with the second reading ot a bill the provisions of which establish a compulsory and discriminatory wage freeze for railway employees-
A compulsory and discriminatory wage freeze: it is that and only that which makes this bill quite unacceptable.
Perhaps I may be permitted to recapitulate our position very briefly as the Leader of the Opposition presented it to the house yesterday. We believe that our position is just to the public interest in that it would keep the railways going. We believe it is just to the workers because it would give them wages that are fair and reasonable. We believe it is just to the railways because we recognize that the situation of the Canadian Pacific Railway-and for that matter of the Canadian National Railways although its situation in fiscal terms is quite different -should be taken into account in the general review next year.
We are opposed-and here we differ from the hon. gentleman in the corner-to prejudging this situation by any recourse to a subsidy in the present circumstances. We feel that this question of subsidy is totally premature, that the whole question of railway finances cannot be resolved until the report of the royal commission is received and the government has had a chance to consider it, but that the C.P.R. and C.N.R. in the meantime can perfectly well pay these additional wages. Neither of them is going to go into receivership in the next five months because of the small sums herein concerned. We think it should be clearly understood, however, that their financial situation will be taken into account when the time of review comes next summer.
I come now to my final point. I know that there are many in this country who are gravely concerned about a tendency toward rising wages, rising prices and the cycle that comes therefrom. That is an argument widely used to justify the kind of action the government is taking at the present time. I want to indicate why that argument is not sound.
I must say that I share that general concern as does, I am sure, every responsible hon. member of the house. It is a concern felt not only by hon. members of this house.
I have in front of me a speech made last September by Mr. William Mahoney, national director of the united steelworkers of America in Canada. I want to read into the


record an extremely significant sentence contained in that speech. Mr. Mahoney said:
As far as the labour movement is concerned, a cut in the cost of living is just as good as a pay-boost, as a means of satisfactorily sharing the national income.
I know there are many of us who feel that for other people outside the labour movement a cut in the cost of living would be a much better way to distribute the national income fairly than by wage and price increases, but if that sort of thing is going to be done it has to be done across the board as a general policy. It would be and is totally wrong to discriminate against one small group of people because one believes that that kind of general policy would be desirable.
It is for those reasons that I am only too happy to support and vote for the amendment of my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition and it is for those reasons that I appeal to the government to accept the policy underlying that amendment.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member kindly said that I might ask him a question when he concluded his remarks. I simply ask the hon. gentleman this question. Would he indicate to the house if he feels in his general approach to the problems of labour this afternoon he is in general agreement with the premier of Newfoundland, Mr. Smallwood?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I doubt
whether that is the kind of question it would be proper to answer, but my answer is "I do".


Mr. McCleave:: Would the hon. member permit another question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's time expires whqn he takes his seat. It was only because he had promised to answer a question that I permitted one to be asked. If the hon. member will accept another and the house has no objection, I will permit it.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I think the hon. gentleman said he would accept general questions at the conclusion of his remarks and that is why I did not interrupt him at the time.


Mr. Hellyer:: That is only the hon. gentleman's interpretation of what was said. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) made no such statement.


Robert Jardine McCleave: The hon. gentleman said that the provisions of this bill would make it a crime for the employees not to go back to work. I wonder if the hon. member could point in the bill to a provision involving the creation of a crime?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am not a
lawyer and perhaps the hon. gentleman could

address his legal questions to the right address, but Mr. St. Laurent said it was in the case of the 1950 bill, that the Minister of Labour has frequently referred to as a precedent.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, we in this group feel that action that might have been taken by the government could have avoided parliament being presented with a bill that we feel is repugnant and not in keeping with the best traditions of democracy in our country.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) said, and others agreed with him when he said it, that the railway workers and the unions involved are among the most responsible of Canadians and Canadian labour organizations. I believe their whole history and attitude underlines and supports that position. Since 1950, in every year in which a contract was to be signed, the railway workers have accepted conciliation boards' reports, and have been prepared to sign a contract, thus relieving our nation from the possibility of a railway strike. Their record has been good; their record is good. They have taken a very moderate and conciliatory position. The railway workers feel that they are justified in believing that they should not be the poor relations of the labour movement in this country; that based on industry with comparable skills, they should have equality of treatment. That principle has been recognized in the majority report of the conciliation board.
While the report did not recommend full parity of wages, it did recommend that the gap between the average $1.77 per hour and the rate in durable goods should be reduced. The conciliation board report rejected other alternate standards that were presented to the board by the railway companies for comparison. The board accepted the durable goods standard as the best possible standard for comparison. But when it presents this bill to the house the government makes it impossible for the railway workers to obtain the recommendations of the board and for the time being at least in fact throws this standard out the window.
A standard is important; a standard is important in this industry because this industry and its operation are so vital to the Canadian nation. The whole process of conciliation and good faith between the workers and the railway companies and the officers of the conciliation board from time to time is exceedingly important. And yet, in the face of a conciliation board report, this government has ignored it; this government has brought in a bill that denies to the workers any possibility of getting the benefits contained
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act in the report and its recommendations at this time and, in my opinion, by this action is undermining the very important process of conciliation in our country.
I think the government has mishandled this affair from beginning to end. I think the government prejudged the situation. I think it decided many months ago what its policy would in fact be.


John George Diefenbaker: That is completely false.


Hazen Robert Argue: I think this policy is completely evident, and it has already been spelled out very adequately and clearly by both the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) and the Prime Minister. The first principle, if you like, is that there would not be a strike; a strike would not be allowed at this time. This is what the railway workers knew and this is what the management knew. This was the attitude of the government, that there cannot be a strike at this time. In his statement the Minister of Labour said, as reported at page 345 of Hansard:
In 1950 the emergency was allowed to happen. In 1960, it will not be allowed to happen.
The government has already decided as another principle, that there should be a freeze of freight rates at least until the royal commission had made its report. The government had further decided as another principle, that there would be no subsidy and therefore the participants in the negotiations knew that the operation of the railways would be continued. They knew that the government would not provide a subsidy; they knew that the government would not allow an increase in freight rates to take place. Therefore, the government created the impasse itself by telling the railways in effect, you have nothing to lose-


Michael Starr: The hon. member is talking nonsense; he is like a babbling brook; he does not know the first thing about it.


Hazen Robert Argue: -by refusing to negotiate. The railway companies could say, as they will have said-I was not in on the conference.


Lionel Chevrier: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the hon. member not to interrupt the speaker who has the floor.


Hazen Robert Argue: I can understand the Minister of Labour being very sensitive. After all, this legislation is evidence of government failure; it is evidence of failure-


Michael Starr: The hon. member doesn't know what he is talking about; he is like a babbling brook.


Hazen Robert Argue: I suggest that when the railway companies were well aware that there would
382	HOUSE OF
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act be no increase in freight rates, and they were well aware that the government would not provide them with a subsidy, and when they were well aware that there would be no loss in their revenues because the government would insist on their operations being maintained, they were in a perfect position to say, no, no, no, we are not interested in negotiations, because we have nothing to lose. This was the agreement; this was the arrangement that was cooked up between the government and the railways.


John George Diefenbaker: I cannot allow that to pass or the hon. gentleman to indulge in this type of remark. This suggestion on his part is an unmitigated untruth.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Hazen Robert Argue: If the government had wanted to do something-


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Hazen Robert Argue: -in this situation to bring about an agreeable settlement, I think it should have been done. The Prime Minister tells me it was not cooked up. I accept his word.


Some hon. Members:: Well.


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is more than my hon. friends on the other side often do. That is very often what they fail to do.
I suggest that in the handling of all of this dispute the government has damaged normal relations with the trade unions in this country, and that is the important thing that is flowing from this whole episode.
This afternoon the Prime Minister reiterated the principles that he put forward yesterday. He said, as reported at page 358 of Hansard:
We have taken the stand that we shall not subsidize in this connection because to do so would simply mean that any time there is a dispute across this country with a national company involved-
Then, there would be a request for a subsidy. Mr. Speaker, I think that statement is inaccurate. I do not feel that other industries are in the same position; other industries are not in a position where their revenues are frozen. Other workers are not in a position where they have been refused the recourse to withdrawing their labour.
The Prime Minister said that there should be no increase in freight rates until the report of the royal commission on transportation has been considered.


An hon. Member:: What is wrong with that?


Hazen Robert Argue: The government has put forward these proposals and these propositions which have made negotiations under these circumstances completely impossible.


The government has said today by bringing forth this legislation that they are not going to allow a strike at this time. I want to ask the Prime Minister this question: Has the government made any decision as to whether the prevention of the right to strike at this time will be a consistent government policy in relation to the railways or is this removal of the right to strike at this time the removal of the right to strike at this time only?
The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate (Mr. Pickersgill) said he was in favour of compulsion. He said he was in favour of this bill which-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. gentleman has no right to deform what I said. We are absolutely opposed to this bill. What I said was that if this strike could not be settled in any other way we would be agreeable to using compulsion to settle it, but on the basis of the conciliation board report.


Hazen Robert Argue: All right; that is fair enough. That is exactly what the hon. member said, and if I misconstrued what he said, then I apologize to him. The attitude of the Liberal party is that compulsion should be used to prevent the strike, if that is necessary. The attitude of the Prime Minister is that the strike should be prevented-


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is your position, as stated on Monday.


Hazen Robert Argue: I will come to the C.C.F. position.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, your position.


Hazen Robert Argue: I will come to my position in a minute.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: What is your position?


Hazen Robert Argue: Oh, I know the Prime Minister has two positions; one position before an election and another position after an election. The Prime Minister, as I took down his words, said that the normal processes will be limited only by the right to strike now, not by the right to strike. I ask him if that means that next spring the railway workers are in a position that they can say to the company in these negotiations, we are in a position to withdraw our services? Has the Prime Minister come to the position that a railway strike at any time cannot be allowed? If he takes the position that a railway strike at any time cannot be allowed, then he has taken away from the railway unions their bargaining position. He has taken away from them the one weapon they have with which to negotiate with management. He has made, by his attitude and by the provisions of this

Maintenance of Railway Operation Act
bill, an impossible situation in my judgment for adequate conciliation and bargaining in the years ahead.
What the Prime Minister told us was that the whole position is just being postponed. On May 15, after the royal commission report has been made, the railways will be in a different position; they will be in a better position. They can go to the board of transport commissioners and ask for an increase in freight rates based on any increase in wages which may have been given.


John George Diefenbaker: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? Does he agree with the Canadian Federation of Agriculture that there should be some form of compulsory arbitration of disputes of this magnitude and seriousness to the nation in the movement of grain and other agricultural products? Does he agree with that stand of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture?


Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to know if the Prime Minister agrees with that stand. This is what I should like to know.


An hon. Member:: Answer the question.


Hazen Robert Argue: My hon. friend is the Prime Minister. He has said that he is against compulsory arbitration, and like the Prime Minister I am against compulsory arbitration. Of course, the purpose of the Prime Minister's question is very obvious. He wants to create a division between farmer and labour; he wants to drive a wedge between the position of agriculture and labour. So far as I am concerned, there does not have to be this division that the Prime Minister is trying to make. So far as I am concerned, the basic interests of the people who work on farms and the basic interests of the people who work in industry are the same.


An hon. Member:: Tell the farmers.


Hazen Robert Argue: I do tell the farmers, and I shall continue to do so. I think I shall have much greater success than the efforts of my hon. friend who seeks to stir up class trouble by trying to make it appear that the farmers and the workers are at each others' throats. I think much more can be achieved by cooperation, by understanding and by good will than by these efforts of the Prime Minister to create a division, to try to slough off on labour the responsibility for the failure of this government in this and other instances.
Now, Mr. Speaker, when I was interrupted I had been saying that the attitude of the government is to wait until next spring and then the railways will be in a position to go to the board of transport commissioners to apply for an increase in freight rates to 90205-6-25
take care of any increase in wages that may have been given or that they may be about to give. The government, in this attitude, is saying to the freight users of this country, you are going to have to pay the wage bill and you are going to have to pay all the wage bill through freight rate increases.
The Prime Minister says that before this is done the report of the royal commission will be in his hands and he will bring before parliament its recommendations to equalize freight rates across this country. After these freight rates have been equalized, then this process of asking for increases in freight rates can take place. I have great faith in Mr. M. A. MacPherson, the chairman of the royal commission. I think he is a man of great experience in this field, and that his report will be an eminently useful one. However, I know enough about freight rates to be convinced that even with the report, and even making the wildest assumption that this government will fully act upon it, there will not be complete equalization of freight rates in that for every commodity the rate per mile will be equal to that for other comparable commodities. I do not believe it for one minute. I believe that the best that can happen is to bring about a greater measure of equalization than exists today.
If that is the case, then when the railway companies go before the board of transport commissioners for their increases in freight rates it means further discrimination in freight rates in this country; it means that the burden of increased wages and increased rail costs, in the main, will be put in an unfair manner on the freight users on the prairies and in the maritime provinces. It is for this reason, Mr. Speaker, we in this group suggested that the best possible means of dealing with this situation from the standpoint of labour, from the standpoint of the freight users of this country, from the standpoint of the Canadian public, in the event the railway companies were unwilling to make a payment at this time to the workers for increased wages, was that the national treasury should give a subsidy, at least until May 15 to take care of the cost involved in implementing the majority report.
I suggest that a subsidy, as in a small measure in the past, in the future will have to be a much larger part of our tranportation policy. I suggest that instead of saving the country money, instead of saving the taxpayers money, instead of helping the farmers on the prairies or the workers in eastern Canada, the government will incease that burden by their action and will increase it far beyond the cost of a subsidy today. The government's action will bring about a far greater unfairness than exists at this moment
384	HOUSE OF
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act and will bring about a much heavier burden than would have been the case if the government had provided a subsidy to cover these costs.
I thought this afternoon the Prime Minister was in error in referring to the negotiations and quoting hearsay statements from his colleagues. Of course, the statements must have been given to him by somebody else, but he was quoting in parliament the exact questions and replies that were made during these negotiations. I had understood that the press was barred. I had understood that they were confidential negotiations. I would be of the opinion that the only possible way of bringing about a settlement through negotiation would be to have these discussions apart from the public, without the press and without the Prime Minister at some later date giving his version of the questions and answers that took place. I do not know what the reaction of anyone will be to the Prime Minister's statement. I have talked to no one. However, I suggest that by his statement this afternoon, disclosing in this indirect and back door method something that went on at a confidential meeting, the Prime Minister has done much to undermine the possibility of agreement in future negotiations and the possibility of preventing difficult situations in the future.
I think the Prime Minister was in error in what he did. He may have felt that he was making a great debating point but I think he contributed nothing to good labour-management government relations in this country. The trade union movement, as I see it, is in general a responsible movement. When Frank Hall on television, after negotiations had completely broken down and the government said it would be introducing this legislation, was asked whether he himself was in favour of doing so and whether the members of his union and those associated with him would obey the law, as a good Canadian he said, "Of course the law will be obeyed". Then he said "Even if the law is an ass". I suggest that the law as presented to parliament here should not have been necessary.


Mr. Brunsden:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is this a debate on a bill or is it an attack on the Prime Minister?


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I was in the house when we had closure. I was in the house when we had extremely violent debates. However, I have never heard anyone suggest-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member has any particular point of order to raise, I will consider it.


Edwin William Brunsden: My point of order, Mr. Speaker, is simply this. We are discussing a bill. The hon. member has launched into an attack on the Prime Minister and a defence of certain other people.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is correct when he says we are discussing a bill. But debate has ranged over the whole area of labour and railway relations. It has not been confined to the bill. The question of subsidies is nowhere to be found in the bill and, strictly speaking, the hon. member is not speaking to the bill. But this is a matter of great importance and free and wide discussion has taken place. Unless hon. members want me to restrict the debate, I do not propose to restrict it in that respect. I take it that the particular reference to the Prime Minister had relevance to the statements made earlier by the Prime Minister. I do not feel that they should have been stopped either.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Hazen Robert Argue: When I sit down I shall be glad to hear from my hon. friend any questions he chooses to put.


Mr. Speaker:: I expect that the hon. member who has the floor will not deal with the point of order inasmuch as it has been resolved.


Hazen Robert Argue: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I would never have referred to the statement by Mr. Hall on television if I had thought that, by my reference to it, I would be out of order. What I cannot understand is the sensitivity of some hon. members in asserting that this statement was an attack on the Prime Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is definitely out of order in referring to the hon. member's sensitivity. He has a right to raise a point of order, as has any other hon. member, whenever he thinks it is proper to do so without adverse comment on his having done it.


Hazen Robert Argue: I was saying that the action of the government has done much to undermine the confidence of trade union organizations in the ordinary process of conciliation. I had gone on to say that the members of the trade union movement, through the chairman in charge of negotiations, had shown themselves to be good, responsible Canadians. They were prepared, as I knew they would be, to obey the law even though they felt the law was in error and was a mistake.
In the road ahead it will be for Canadians to decide whether or not the course which the government has taken was the best one. I think future events will show that the

course taken by the government today will undermine negotiations in the future and will bring about a heavier burden on the freight users of this country that was otherwise necessary and that the course taken today, namely that of compulsion, was not necessary.
The Prime Minister interrupted me on earlier occasions to ask about a statement by Mr. Hannam, a telegram that the Prime Minister had received or an editorial in the Western Producer, in order to try to stir up trouble between the trade union movement and the elected farm organizations. The Prime Minister used to have in his statements a word that he used time and time again when he was on the opposite side of the house. He said that he was in favour of parity, including parity prices for the farmers and parity for the workers. In a couple of election campaigns he went out and said this, "Elect me and you will get parity, not charity".
The farm organizations and the people who work on the farm ask for parity for themselves. The trade union workers involved in this dispute ask for parity wages in relation to the durable goods industry. I think it is possible to have a united Canada and that it is possible to have friendly relations between farmers and workers by providing each with a just share, by providing each with parity, and not by trying to divide, stir up trouble and cause disunity as the Prime Minister appears to have been trying to do.


John George Diefenbaker: I rise on a question of privilege. A suggestion was made by the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat that the meetings were confidential. That suggestion is not based on fact. That statement is entirely incorrect.


Donald MacInnis: I wonder whether the hon. member who has just taken his seat will now permit a question?


Hazen Robert Argue: Yes.


Donald MacInnis: I have reference to his remarks about the Prime Minister's statement and the answers of Mr. Hall. Does he not agree that the Prime Minister has only indicated to the workers that Mr. Hall at all times stood fast on a mandate that he had received from his workers?


Hazen Robert Argue: I could not hear the hon. member's question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald MacInnis: I will put it again. The question was this. I refer to the remarks of the Prime Minister and the answers given by Mr. Hall to which the hon. member made reference. Do these not in his opinion underline the fact that the Prime Minister was 90205-6-25J
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act only bringing to the attention of the railway workers that Mr. Hall at all times during the negotiations had stood fast on the mandate given to him by his workers? What is the harm in the Prime Minister's pointing out this fact to Mr. Hall's supporters?


Hazen Robert Argue: I do not think it had anything to do with that question whatsoever.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of delaying this debate, nor of taking up an undue part of the time of this house. However, before I enter upon the remarks which I intend to make I should like to bring to the attention of the house, as well as to the attention of the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) -who has just resumed his seat-that sometimes it happens that not only he but those who sit with him are uncertain of the position which they take.
At page 243 of Hansard of November 28, dealing with the matter of compulsory arbitration, this is what the hon. member is reported as saying:
I think compulsory arbitration is undemocratic, is not in keeping with our concept of freedom in this country, and should be resorted to only in case of the severest national emergency.
This would indicate that he is in favour of compulsory arbitration upon that condition.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, or a question of privilege. I have felt that at no time is it necessary to get into an impasse that would require compulsory arbitration or forced labour in connection with this dispute. If it had been handled differently, this situation in parliament would not have arisen.


Lionel Chevrier: That is not a point of order, sir. The remarks made by my hon. friend are there for anyone to see.
Like those from this side of the house who have preceded me in this debate, I too listened to the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) yesterday afternoon, last evening on television and again during the course of his remarks today.


John George Diefenbaker: I must have had a good audience last night with all three of you listening.


Lionel Chevrier: I did not want to miss the Prime Minister because I knew he would be saying some interesting things.
I want to refer to two or three of the things he said on that occasion. I believe during the course of his remarks he said, "definitely and positively we are not taking sides". I say to him now that without doubt, by virtue of the terms of this legislation you,
386	HOUSE OF
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act sir, and those associated with you are taking sides in this dispute, because you are implementing the minority report.
Then, again, you stated that you tried to bring about a settlement. I have no doubt that you did, and that those ministers who were associated with you did also. But the unfortunate part is that you did not try soon enough. You knew that this matter-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Will the hon. member please address the Chair.


Lionel Chevrier: I beg your pardon, sir.


Lester Bowles Pearson: He is a new member.


Lionel Chevrier: The Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, knew at least a year ago that this position was likely to develop, and if the minister of transport told him what I presume the president of the Canadian National Railways indicated to that minister in his weekly report to him, then he must have known the position in which the Canadian National Railways was at that time. He must have known the position in which the Canadian National Railways was when we had the hearings of the committee on railways and shipping in the House of Commons, and he must have known what the position was after that. Therefore, if there was inability to pay, surely some earlier attempt at meeting the position should have been made by those who sit on the other side of the house.
Then the Prime Minister said, "we shall not allow these rights to be lost in any way" -meaning the rights of the railway employees. But they are lost, since they are postponed from now until May 15. They are lost pending that date. And who knows if they will not be lost after that time if, as the Prime Minister indicated yesterday, following the application to the board of transport commissioners for an increase in freight rates we find ourselves with voluminous evidence in opposition to the application which is made. Delays, as I have said, might last as long as one year.
The hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) dealt very effectively with the question of prejudice, the prejudice to which the Prime Minister referred yesterday, and again last evening, when he stated that the workers would not suffer in any way and would not be prejudiced in the slightest degree.
I shall not take up the time of the house in dealing with that matter, since my hon. friend, the hon. member for Essex East dealt with it so effectively. But I do want to refer to one aspect of this bill which is contained in clauses 3 and 8. In those two clauses are to be found the essence and the principle of the bill. That principle is to maintain the status quo; it is to maintain the existing


agreements until May 15, 1961. We believe that principle is bad; we believe that principle is inequitable. We say that principle is inequitable because the terms of the bill are such that no consideration whatsoever is being given to the recommendations of the conciliation board.
There are some, both in this house and outside, who are saying, that since the beginning of this session we have not been saying very much on this side of the house, particularly having to do with the emergency legislation which was brought forward by the government in the last few days. They are saying that we are marking time and we are not pulling our full weight in not taking part in the debates as much as we have in the past.
On the other hand, there are those who are saying that we are trying to obstruct this legislation because we are taking part in this debate. We are taking part in this debate because we want to exercise our rights in so doing. Certainly I want to exercise my rights in criticizing what I consider to be not only the weakness but the futility of many of the clauses contained in this legislation.
I believe that this legislation is compulsion of the worst character. I believe that it is compulsion without the benefit of arbitration. I believe that it is compulsory implementation of the minority report, as I have indicated earlier. Furthermore, when the matter comes before the board of transport commissioners

as eventually it must-and they examine the evidence of the conciliation proceedings, this will then be, in effect, compulsory arbitration by the board of transport commissioners.
I say that the government legislation which is now under consideration is based on the assumption that a solution to this problem will have to be found by May 15, 1961, because clause 8 states that the bill will expire on that day. If, as the government contends, a strike is undesirable now, it will be equally as undesirable on May 15, the date of the expiry of this bill.
I want now to say that the government's position is more unrealistic because of this; that a satisfactory solution to this problem will not be found before May 15, and even for several months thereafter.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?


Lionel Chevrier: No. If you want to ask questions after I have completed my remarks, then I will consent; but not until then.
Until yesterday we did not know why the Prime Minister was always suggesting a direct relationship between the settlement of the dispute on the one hand and the report of the

royal commission on the other. We knew, of course, that the royal commission-as I indicated earlier-on two occasions made a ruling to the effect that it would not hear evidence on labour matters and that it would not hear evidence having to do with labour costs. That is why until yesterday we could not see the relationship between these two matters, namely the settlement of the dispute on the one hand and the report of the royal commission on the other.


John George Diefenbaker: I explained it earlier.


Lionel Chevrier: Yesterday, however, the
Prime Minister made a statement in this house, prior to the question which I asked him and afterwards, which let the cat out of the bag, and now we know what he expects from the royal commission on transportation, assuming that it will present its report at the end of March as he has indicated. Let me put on record what the Prime Minister said on that occasion, and I quote from page 359 of Hansard:
The reason we say we are waiting for the report of the royal commission is this. It will make its report as to the means whereby these discriminatory rates may be avoided. Legislation will then be introduced in order to equalize opportunity across Canada. The freeze will then be taken off and the railway companies may then make an application to the board of transport commissioners to raise the freight rates and to take into consideration the agreements now in existence between the employers and the unions back to January 1, 1960.
This is indeed a revealing statement, because until it was made we had no idea what formula was in the mind of the Prime Minister or of the government. This statement made by the Prime Minister contains four things. First, the report of the royal commission is expected to recommend a method of freight rate increases which will prevent discriminatory rates.


John George Diefenbaker: That is what it was asked to do.


Lionel Chevrier: Second, assuming the report proposes such a method, the government will introduce legislation to implement the recommendations. Third, the government will remove the freeze from freight rates so that the railways may then be in a position to make an application to the board of transport commissioners. Lastly, the board of transport commissioners, in considering such an application, will take into consideration, not the demands presented by the unions but the agreements now in existence.
It is clear, therefore, that the government does not expect from the report of the royal commission a solution of the present dispute but only a new method of determining freight rates. Furthermore, it seems equally clear now that the legislation which
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act will be introduced by the government following the report of the commission will be based on the recommendations of that commission and that it will not provide a solution for the present dispute which is mentioned in the bill before the house but will provide instead a method for determining freight rates. Therefore, assuming that no delay occurs in the presentation of the report of the royal commission and in the introduction of legislation by the government, the best that we can expect in this house and in the country by May 15 will be that the freeze will have been removed from freight rates.
Then, according to the procedure which is well known to all of us who have had anything to do with freight rates, and which was outlined by the Prime Minister yesterday, the next step would be for the railway association of Canada to make an application for an increase in freight rates to the board of transport commissioners. What the Prime Minister expects from the board is that it should take into consideration at that time the existing agreements and the evidence given before the conciliation board, which, by the way, consisted of some 25 volumes and more than 200 exhibits.
In this connection I should like to make the following comments. First, what the Prime Minister said yesterday prior to the question which I asked and the answer to my question is in direct contradiction-I repeat, it is in direct contradiction-with what the government said earlier through the mouth of the acting prime minister, the present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green), when he was stating government policy on November 26, 1958. I should like to put on record in Hansard the statement given out for release at that time by the acting prime minister, and I would ask the house to pay particular attention to this. The hon. gentleman, speaking for the government said:
We consider that in future the railways and their employees must come to a definite agreement before a wage increase should be accepted by the board of transport commissioners as a basis for an increase in freight rates. Otherwise, the board, as it foresaw itself, is apt to be forced into making judgments about wage settlements, which are not its proper responsibility.
There we find two contradictory statements; the statement of government policy by the Acting Prime Minister in 1958 when a strike in similar circumstances was about to take place and when the government following an appeal from the decision of the board of transport commissioners under one of the sections of the Railway Act disallowed the appeal, and what the Prime Minister said yesterday. These statements are in complete contradiction one with the other.

Maintenance of Railway Operation Act


John George Diefenbaker: Not at all.


Lionel Chevrier: How can the Prime Minister ask the board of transport commissioners to appraise the level of wage rates on the basis of the evidence presented before a board of conciliation? I ask how that can be done when, as my hon. friend the hon. member for Essex East has said, it is not within the competence of the board to deal with this question. The board of transport commissioners is set up under the Railway Act. Under that act its duties and responsibilities are clearly set out. They are so lengthy that I cannot go into them at this time, but its job is to deal with those responsibilities and not to undertake the responsibility mentioned by the Prime Minister last night. What the Prime Minister has said and what I have quoted is in direct contradiction to the words spoken by his colleague in the house. The board of transport commissioners is being asked, as I said earlier, to act as an arbitrator, and it will be expected ultimately to determine the level of wages by its recommendation on freight rates.
It will take months, and perhaps even more than a year, for the board to arrive at a decision. We know how these things proceed. An application is made. Evidence is heard. The provinces object. Other parties intervene, and it may be many, many months before a decision is eventually handed down. First of all, this will be the first time in the history of the board that it will be dealing with this new method which, as the Prime Minister mentioned earlier, will come out of the report of the royal commission, and this being the case the board of transport commissioners will be far more prudent in dealing with this method than it has been in the past in dealing with the ordinary freight rate cases which come before it. In the second place, we all know that hearings before the board are long and detailed, because all those directly or indirectly involved, beginning with the provinces, want to appear. This will be the case to an even greater extent on this occasion because of the new method which has been mentioned by the Prime Minister in determining the level of freight rates. So it follows from what has been said earlier, and it is quite clear now, that the present bill which we are studying is completely inadequate to deal with the situation. It represents for the government the first round of postponement and delays in settling the present dispute. That dispute will not be settled on May 15 under the provisions of this bill.
The Prime Minister believes that a railway strike at the present time would lead to economic chaos. Presumably a strike after May 15 would have the same result if it

occurred at that time. Therefore the government at that time will have to come back to parliament to prevent such a strike from taking place, and to deprive the workers of their fundamental and legal rights.
I have the right to ask this question. For how long will they be deprived of those rights? I contend that it will be for many months if not for more than a year because of the length of the delays necessary in these applications. Surely this dispute under the new procedure outlined by the Prime Minister will not be settled by November 1, 1961, or even before January 1, 1962 at the time when negotiations would normally commence for a new agreement during the period January 1, 1962 to December 31, 1963.
Even if the board of transport commissioners agrees to give increases in freight rates will this decision mean more revenue to the railways and greater ability to pay than they now have? That is a question no one on the other side of the house has dealt with and it is surely a question that should have commanded the attention of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Balcer) because if there is anyone in this house who should be taking part in this debate it is he, and that hon. gentleman has not said a word so far.
How will the position adopted by the Prime Minister of the inability of the railways to pay be maintained after May 15, particularly in the light of what the representative of the Canadian National Railways had to say before the conciliation board as reported at page 1581 of the proceedings dated May 26, 1960, and I quote:
What are the reasons for the worsening of the freight traffic position of the railway industry? There are a number of reasons which could be cited but most of them add up to increased costs with resulting increased freight rates. The railways have made substantial increases in their freight rates since the second world war following applications for approval to the board of transport commissioners as required by the Railway Act. The result has been to cause customers and potential customers of the railways to look to other modes of transportation.
Some railway cost officers believe that the railways have exhausted the possibility of increasing total revenues in substantial amount by across-the-board freight rate increases. They claim that within many classes of freight the loss in revenue, due to a loss in traffic, would more than offset the gain in revenue due to higher rates. Undoubtedly, any attempt to raise freight rates generally would simply work towards a further restriction of the railways' share of the market.
Therein lies the crux of the whole matter. Therein lies the reply to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr! and those associated with them. Therein, I say, is the weakness not only of their position but of the bill now before the house. It is not the royal commission that is going to provide the magic formula; it is not the royal commission

that will settle the dispute. Here, as stated by an officer of the C.N.R., is the weakness in the whole matter and the government has made no provision either before this legislation or in this bill to meet that position. This means, then, the complete collapse of direct negotiation and conciliation procedure in the railway dispute.
I could go a step further in dealing with this matter by quoting another portion of the Prime Minister's remarks yesterday which may be found at page 359 of Hansard. Referring to the measure now before us the Prime Minister said:
There is a postponement because of the action of the government to preserve the equality of all parts of Canada until equalization has been provided for as a result of the recommendations of the royal commission.
Does the government really believe that the royal commission is going to suggest a formula which will provide for the equalization of freight rates across Canada?
What about the Turgeon commission of 1950 which the Prime Minister praised at that time? It made a series of recommendations with reference to the equalization of freight rates. They are contained in a separate chapter and each and every one of those recommendations was implemented by the former government. I have here the three reports made by the board of transport commissioners equalizing freight rates. One of these reports shows that one group of rates, namely class rates, have been equalized from one part of Canada to the other. Another report states that in so far as rates in the east are concerned they have been increased by 10 per cent and those in the west have been decreased by 5 per cent in order to bring about equalization in another class of freight rates. The third report which I have in my possession indicates that the board has gone as far as it can go with reference to the equalization of freight rates.
Mr. Justice Turgeon, than whom there was no more competent royal commissioner, stated clearly in his report on several occasions that the equalization of freight rates was not a matter to be brought about by the board of transport commissioners. The best way to bring about equalization of freight rates is for the railways to do it themselves. It is true, the report says, that amendments may be brought about to the Railway Act and certain sections of the act having to do with a national freight rate policy can be implemented such as was done by this parliament following the recommendations of the Turgeon report. But, said the royal commissioner, that is not enough. Freight rates should be equalized by the railways themselves.
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act
That, coupled with the statement made by an officer of the C.N.R. to the effect that they have obtained about as much as can be obtained from increases in freight rates, constitute a complete answer to the contention of the government and the implication contained in this bill that when the royal commission brings down its report we will have the formula to settle this dispute. The two things I mentioned put together form a complete answer to that contention. The view of the government with respect to the bringing down of this report leading to a formula to dispose of this dispute is a fallacy.
That is why I said at the outset of my remarks and that is why we on this side of the house say this is not the way to dispose of this dispute. The method that has been proposed is one which is not only unequitable and unfair but totally inadequate. The proof of that lies in the two statements I have put on the record, the statement of the Prime Minister to the railway employees and on this bill-"Wait until May 15 and then we will have the solution which will come from the report of the royal commission"-and of the acting prime minister in 1958 when a strike was about to take place when he stated the direct opposite, "Oh, no, that is not the way to deal with it," and went on to indicate quite clearly what the position was at that time. Without repeating it I should like to say that the view of the government then was that a definite agreement must be reached between the employees on the one hand and the railways on the other before the board of transport commissioners could take that into account.
I think the Prime Minister really let the cat out of the bag yesterday when he put on the record those four points which I have tried to analyse. I desire to sum up by saying that we shall oppose this bill because of the reasons given by the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Essex East and the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill). We oppose this bill, too, because it is against common sense. We oppose it also because it is not in the general interests of the railway workers of Canada. If regard had been taken for the position in which both parties found themselves, not a year ago but only six months ago, a solution to this difficulty I am sure could have been found. Under the circumstances a solution has not been found, and the responsibility for that lies nowhere else than at the feet of the government of this country.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I suppose we are all in a sort of reluctant mood with respect to engaging in a debate of this nature at this time. I think all of us
390	HOUSE OF
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act would have rather seen the whole free forces of play between union and management take place and an agreement signed, but such is not the case, and the government has decided that it is better to remove certain of the rights and freedoms that individuals have in this nation and replace them with some governmental edict, namely the bill before us. People a few years from now will remember the government not so much for its intelligent decisions but for the infamy of the legislation before us, just as we remember now the days of 1950, when another government in office took a similar course. It is true there are some differences in the legislation and some differences between the circumstances then and now. The thing that we remember about the 1950 imposition of the Liberal government on the railways of Canada was that it was more shortsighted than sensible. I think posterity will look at what we are doing here now in the same light.
I know my hon. friend from Essex East and others will indicate that Percy Bengough and Pat Conroy danced with glee and joy at the particular legislation the Liberals introduced but, of course, 1 do not know of any more rigid Liberals than those two individuals were.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Pat Conroy? Pat Conroy was a stronger socialist than any member in this house.


Frank Howard: That is all my hon. friend knows about Pat Conroy and his political affiliations.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I know him better than you do.


Frank Howard: As an individual, but that is just how much the hon. member knows about his political thoughts.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You are a very young man.


Frank Howard: I am rather proud of it.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, apart from the comments from the other side about an individual whom we both know-


Paul Joseph James Martin: And whom we both like.


Frank Howard: You will find, Mr. Speaker, that I do not agree with that statement.
We must assess from both the long range point of view and the short range point of view what effect this particular decision of the government, which it is asking parliament to endorse, will have upon labour-management relations in the future; not only labour-management relations in so far as the non-operating railway unions are concerned at the moment but also the effect


it will have upon the operating unions and their relationship with the railways in Canada. We have also to assess what effect it will have upon every other union and every other management body in Canada that come within the purview of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. What is going to be their lot with a government that thinks the way this government does? What is going to be the effect of this type of legislation as a precedent- it has been used three times now-upon the negotiation processes that my hon. friend the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) has been so concerned about or, at least, was concerned about before the last election and before 1957, but apparently has forgotten since.
In assessing what this effect will be we must also realize that the great responsibility for the condition that exists today rests to a great extent on the shoulders of the Prime Minister and his colleagues. Because it rests on their shoulders they should have an open enough mind to listen to some of the suggestions that have been made and will be made.
We all know there was a great election promise in 1957 and 1958. When this party was in opposition and trying to get the reins of power in its hands it said it would reduce delays in conciliation; it would bring about labour-management peace; it would change the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act to ensure that the best possible benefits would accrue from that legislation to workers and management alike. It was going to do all these things when it came into office. There is no doubt that it is in the process of bringing about labour-management harmony of a sort. There is no doubt that it is participating in the prevention of strikes of a sort; but the method of doing it is the thing that is repugnant.
It is just another indication that even though countless thousands of the people of this country placed their faith in this government in 1957 and 1958, they now find that that faith has been broken, destroyed and the promises forgotten, specifically the promise that was made to the electorate about changing the conciliation process to bring success and equity to the workers. Because this government has broken faith with the people, perhaps they will wonder whether in the future the government can be trusted in other matters. Certainly, the action that is before us now is one that will do a great deal to shake whatever faith and trust a number of people in this nation had in the government in the past.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. Speaker:: Order; on looking at the transcription of the part of the debate this afternoon where the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) was interrupting the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) there appears a statement which perhaps was not audible to all hon. members in the house and upon which I think the minister might like to comment.


Michael Starr: Oh, yes, Mr. Speaker; I wish to take the time of the house at this moment to say that in the heat of the discussion I made some disparaging remarks about the hon. member for Assiniboia and I wish, with the permission of the house, to have these taken off the record, if that is agreeable to the hon. member.


Hazen Robert Argue: I have been called many things, on other occasions and I am not thin skinned about that. I did not hear some of the remarks of my genial friend but I know, in the heat of debate, hon. members often say things which afterwards they would like to withdraw. I am very happy to agree to what the minister has suggested.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the minister suggest that the offensive words be deleted?


Michael Starr: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house agreeable?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, the occurrence of the past few minutes will bear us in good stead in this house during this and other sessions. We all need to be brought down to earth occasionally and the Minister of Labour has set an excellent example for the rest of us.
Looking at the effect of this sort of governmental action upon conciliation and negotiation systems I think we can say that, in so far as railway unions are concerned, it destroys them completely and makes a mockery of the law in so far as conciliation is concerned. We have, in this instance, a number of unions which spent a period of at least a year operating within the confines of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, following which there were direct negotiations and negotiations with the aid of a conciliation officer. Many months were spent prior to this in the compilation of statistics and an economic analysis of what would happen. Then there was the report and recommendations of the board and this government then saw fit to wipe out that report.
The trend toward government interference in the freedom of the relationship between employees and employers started in 1950.
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act Regardless of the circumstances that existed in 1950, the Liberal government stuck its sticky political fingers into other people's business. In 1958 the Conservative government did exactly the same thing in connection with the British Columbia coastal steamship strike, and again in the year 1960 we have an example of governmental interference. This is the third incident in 10 years in which politicians have interfered in other people's business. The trend is growing, as I have pointed out.


Mr. McGee:: What about the public interest?


Frank Howard: I shall get to the public interest in a moment, my friend. If you would like to ask questions, I would appreciate it if you would do so in the normal fashion.
In so far as the trend toward interference by government is concerned in the freedom of unions to bargain collectively, that trend has been firmly established. The Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) can talk all he likes to the effect that they still have the right to strike. He knows this is not so. For a period of at least some 20 years we have had a system of bargaining collectively between unions and management in this country. I am speaking of the national picture now.
The collective bargaining system means that certain steps will be followed. The unions place reliance upon this system, as does management, and* have used it to the fullest possible extent, knowing that when it was completed some other things would happen and they would have the freedom to do these things. We have seen this government change the rules in the middle of the game just as the government did in 1950. They have said, you are no longer going to operate under this system of collective bargaining, parliament is going to impose a new system upon you which, in effect, will destroy the conciliation board system without in any way attempting to replace it with anything else.
The unions in the future, especially the railway unions because this has happened to them on two occasions in the last 10 years, can look toward the conciliation board step, if we are going to maintain it in our law, as being only a sort of preliminary step to parliamentary interference. Such intervention, basically, is definitely repugnant to our complete freedom to bargain under the free play of forces in a free economy. I expect that what might be in the back of the minds of some of the members of the government is the fact that by taking a step such as this the railway unions will perhaps operate somewhat in the same way as the firefighters union does, that is to move toward a system of voluntary arbitration for the
392	HOUSE OF
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act settlement of their collective bargaining disputes. If the unions and management in the railway industry particularly are going to be forced by governmental decision to do certain things, then perhaps this may be the salvation for the unions and this is the first attempt to move into that field of voluntary arbitration of collective bargaining disputes.
I am not advocating it but I am saying that I am sure that this is in the back of the minds of the government. Certainly it is in the forefront of the minds of people in the agricultural field who without too much thought, I suggest, send wires to the Prime Minister suggesting compulsory arbitration because their particular interest may be affected at this particular time. This action is understandable. There have been other instances in which a particular group of people have felt the pinch because of the activity of some other section of society and their immediate reaction is that the only way in which to deal with the matter is by force and compulsion. Perhaps this feeling is understandable.
When parliament, for the third time within 10 years is being asked to compel people in a free society to do something which the law says they should not be obliged to do in any event and when three times the rules have been changed in the middle of the game by parliament-and each government which engages in this sort of thing would be subjected to this criticism-"one is given cause to wonder whether we can in fact trust government completely with regard to what it says when we compare what it says to what it does. Are we to base our whole system upon double meanings, double talk and double policies? Are we to say one thing and do something else? This sort of thing leads to distrust just as it leads to destruction of the conciliation processes.
The Prime Minister said this action does not remove the right to strike. In essence that is the gist of his words. He said it postpones the strike until next May some time, that there is a moratorium in effect. But in effect the Prime Minister, the Minister of Labour, the government and this parliament, if it enacts this legislation, will have effectively removed the right to strike. It will not exist any longer in so far as the railway unions are concerned.
Why has this course been adopted? The Prime Minister says that if there is a strike in the railways at this time a national emergency will be created. If there is a strike in the railways next May will it not create a national emergency? Will it be something different then? Suppose there is a strike in the railways next fall. Will that not create
[Mr. Howard.)

a national emergency? What about the situation if there is a strike in the railways a year from now or two or three years from now? Will the government then-whether it is this one or some other government, and I hope it is another one-not say the same thing, namely that a strike in the railways creates a national emergency and that they cannot allow it? Parliament again will be asked to interfere or to step in and to issue some other type of rules.
The Prime Minister by this action has removed the right to strike by railway unions against the railway industry just in the same way as it was effectively removed in 1950 when the Liberal government, after a strike of eight or nine days, introduced certain legislation which was passed by parliament. We now have existing a situation which is somewhat similar except that in this instance parliament is asked to do something before the strike takes place. But the start was made in 1950 and this is the second stage of it in so far as the railways are concerned. At any time in the future when there is a possibility of a shut-down in the railway industry the government and parliament are going to come along and say, "We did it in 1950, we did it in 1960, it is still a national emergency and so we will do it now".
In effect, therefore, that weapon is gone. The Prime Minister knows it is gone. Mr. Crump and Mr. Gordon know that it is gone. They knew it was gone before the negotiations started, hence their adamant attitude. They knew they would be bailed out, that they would be saved by a government such as this one.


John George Diefenbaker: That statement is false.


Frank Howard: I gather that my hon. friend said that the statement I made was false. Let me read what the Prime Minister said. I am quoting his words from page 358 of Hansard of November 30 as follows:
We have taken the stand that we shall not subsidize in this connection because to do so would simply mean that any time there is a dispute across this country with a national company involved which affected the public interest so greatly that a stoppage would paralyse Canada it would be known in advance that we would give a subsidy in order to prevent the Canadian economy being paralysed. We do not intend to follow that course.
This statement relates to a subsidy. If you merely replace the word "subsidy" by the word "dispute", we have the same sort of picture. The Prime Minister might just as well have said that any time there is a dispute across this country, with a national company involved, such as the Canadian Pacific Railway or Canadian National Railways and which affected the public interest

so greatly-as the railways do-that a stoppage would paralyse Canada, it would be known in advance that the government and parliament would step in and force them back to work by legislation. It is precisely the same set of circumstances entirely. The Prime Minister admits or says on the one hand that the subsidy would merely entice a need by national companies of this sort- and he can only be referring to the C.P.R. and the C.N.R.-that a subsidy at that stage would entice some sort of need or desire in the future. When he says that he surely must agree that parliamentary action at this time will entice the same sort of desire for parliamentary action in the future and to that extent I say that effectively this freedom to negotiate has been destroyed.
For the second time in 10 years it has been ratified, I should say. It was destroyed in 1950 and this action is a reaffirmation or ratification of the previous action. Future governments and future parliaments will be inclined to take the same action because surely it will not be any less of a national emergency in May of next year than it is now. In this regard perhaps the Minister of Labour would be well advised to take his own advice, namely "Do it now, do not wait for spring", which is the slogan of his department instead of reversing it and saying, "Don't do it now; wait until spring before you do it".
The Prime Minister made another interesting comment to which I should like to refer and as to which I think we need some explanation. Perhaps this should be reflected in the legislation but that is not the situation. The reference is to be found at page 359 of Hansard. The Prime Minister has perhaps already negotiated a collective agreement; I do not know what the situation is. However, near the bottom of page 359 he is reported as having said this:
If there is an agreement to raise wages it shall go back to January 1, 1960.
The Prime Minister knows that statement just is not factual, that if a collective agreement is signed then the terms of the agreement will be what is mutually decided upon between the unions and management. If the Prime Minister is saying that the intent of this legislation is to say that if the collective agreement contains a provision to raise wages it shall be effective as of January 1, 1960, then the legislation should say so. I think perhaps the legislation is deficient in this regard. However, that flat, definite statement is made. The Prime Minister does not qualify it as he usually does by other things; he merely says:
If there is an agreement to raise wages it shall go back to January 1, 1960.
90205-6-26i
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act
I think that provision should perhaps be contained in the legislation if that is the desire of the Prime Minister and his government. In recent years we have seen a terrific hate labour campaign and in the past three, four or five years it has been intensified. Many people have engaged in it; newspapers with particular axes to grind, organizations with, again, particular axes to grind have engaged in this sort of detestation of labour and have made accusations that it causes all sorts of things.
That hate labour campaign, so-called, has infected a number of people of this country who otherwise should know better but who in many cases do not take it upon themselves to study the question carefully and who are influenced by the inundation of propaganda that has come at them day after day after day for the past four or five years.
To an extent this legislation reflects that sort of inculcation of ideas. It is introduced in that atmosphere that has been developed and which has affected all of us. It has affected and influenced even those people in the trade union movement, those responsible people about whom the Prime Minister spoke. It has affected them to the extent that they say, "I wonder just what, if anything, is wrong within my organization", and they begin to search to find out whether there are not some failings in their particular organizations. In those instances it has a beneficial influence. But it has influenced us all; it has infected us all with this idea. Because it has done this, this legislation partially reflects that attitude.
This is also a question of fundamental rights and human freedoms. Last session- this year, in fact-we had a great debate and discussion in this house. A special committee was established which was a culmination of the Prime Minister's goal, as he said, of many years of endeavour to introduce into Canadian law a bill of rights. We established a bill of rights and it is on the statute books. What does it say? I say that this particular legislation before us is contrary to the bill of rights; it violates it in this instance.
Let me read it to you. This is from the Statutes of Canada 1960, chapter 44, part 1. I will read section 1:
It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely,-
Then there follows subsection (a), and then:
(b) the right of the individual to equality before the law and the protection of the law;

Maintenance of Railway Operation Act
Do you know, Mr. Speaker, what this piece of legislation that is now before us does? It recognizes the right of the individual to equality before the law, but says that some are less equal than others. There are 110,000 employees in the railway industry in Canada who by virtue of this bill are not going to be equal before the law compared with a number of other workers in this country. They are going to be different. They are going to be denied the right to participate fully under the provisions of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, which is a federal statute. They are going to be denied the right of equality before the law compared with other workers who have that right. That is a violation of the bill of rights and it is completely contrary to the principle of equality before the law. Where is the equality? There is an equality which these 110,000 employees have. Certainly they are equally discriminated against. That is the provision.
This is the result of double meaning in policy statements, thinking in double terms, thinking in terms of political advantage, thinking in terms of what type of legislation may garner a few pieces of support over here but will not help anybody over there. It is the type of legislation that splits and divides, that takes account of splitting and dividing. Perhaps we should have an Orwellian department of double talk or double speak in this government to put this sort of thing into effect.
I am not going to get into the argument of the conciliation board report or the statistical analysis behind it and a comparison of figures. That has been done many tunes.
This is primarily a question of rights. I think parliament should carefully consider what we are being asked to do here, because we are being asked to interfere with the rights of two types of organizations within this nation. We are being asked to interfere with the rights established by law, the right of freedom of association, of freedom to bargain collectively, of freedom to use the full extent of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, of freedom to withdraw from work if workmen so desire-if they see the necessity for it-of freedom to sign collective agreements containing the terms and the provisions that the two parties desire.
What we find has been guaranteed by one law for 20 years is now being repealed; it is being repealed by another law. I for one do not intend to vote for it. I would say also that even though the newspapers have said today, reporting about hon. members in this house-that they would consciously not deliberately debate this bill past the deadline,


so far as I am concerned, if it requires debating and we go past that deadline, I am quite prepared to debate it. I am prepared to debate it whether or not we pass the deadline, if debate is required.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take just a few minutes time in order to make some comment on this most serious matter which is before the house at this time. Without doubt it is a most serious problem and a most serious situation which must have the attention of all hon. members at this time.
I think it goes without fear of contradiction that there is no one in this house who wants to see a tie-up in transportation. It also goes without fear of contradiction that the workers on the railroad who are directly and indirectly affected, and the people of Canada, do not want to see a transportation tie-up, because of course it would be of a very serious nature and everyone admits that it would have a serious impact on the Canadian economy.
It is because of that seriousness that we have to consider the situation as it is at the present time. Mr. Speaker, the first thing that comes to my mind in considering the problems that are facing the unions, the transportation industry and this house is that it gives ample and clear evidence as to what has been stated time after time in the past. It is evidence of the absolute necessity and of the fact that the time has long passed when Canada should have a national transportation policy; that is, an over-all national transportation policy that takes into account the vital importance of transportation, that takes into account all segments of transportation; that is, the railroads in passenger and freight, the airways in passenger and freight, and road transport in buses and in freight.
There is without doubt-and the fact that it was necessary for us to have this debate this afternoon and this evening is clear evidence of this-a vital necessity for working out a transportation policy that recognizes the need of the economy as far as transportation is concerned. There is a vital necessity for a policy that works out plans and directives that will ensure equitable treatment, efficiency as related between the railroad, the airways, the truckers, and guarantees in that policy efficiency of transportation operations, continuity of transportation operation and a guarantee of a proper, decent and reasonable standard of living for all employees in the transportation industry in accordance with their skills and in accordance with the public service that is rendered to the Canadian economy and the Canadian people.

To me that is the most important lesson that we can learn from the situation in which we find ourselves at this time. However, there are one or two items on which I did desire to speak, and I can assure you that I am not going to be repetitive; I am not going to repeat the many arguments, suggestions and analyses that have been put forward by previous speakers.
However, there were several matters upon which I felt impelled to comment at this time. I wish to refer to a statement which the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaber) has often repeated. As I listened to the right hon. gentleman yesterday and today I could not help but note his reference on more than one occasion to the establishment of a standard as regards the remuneration and working conditions of the employees. Having listened to the Prime Minister-and I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that if I was not in my seat I was behind the curtain-I am very sorry to come to the conclusion that ;he question of standards as outlined by him is just as empty in language as, I gather, were the proposals of the railway companies themselves.
I believe, if my memory is correct, that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) speaking of this matter outlined his view of a standard as parity with good employers in outside industry. I think that is a good standard and one which undoubtedly will be acceptable to railroad workers. It has been established for some time that the standard should have reference to the remuneration of employees in the durable goods industry. From my reading of the statements of Mr. Hall and of the union I am led to believe that they would be agreeable to that standard. What they are asking for is that the gap between what they are receiving and the standard in the durable goods industry should be closed. That is the basis of their proposals; that it should not only be closed in the year 1960 but that having been closed it should not be allowed to develop in the future. I believe from what I have read that this would be acceptable to the unions involved and that this is the basis upon which they are asking for justice and equity at the present time.
Having said that, I must turn to what the Prime Minister had to say this afternoon. It certainly was my impression that he was, though perhaps not deliberately, creating the impression that the railway companies had been susceptible to his appeal and the appeal of his colleagues inasmuch as they at least had come forward with some compromise proposal. That compromise proposal as outlined by the Prime Minister was, of course, that suggested by Mr. Gordon of the C.N.R.
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act The right hon. gentleman seemed to give the impression that here the railway companies were trying to come forward with something which would meet the situation, while the union committee was adamant. I do not think that is at all fair. What is the compromise which was suggested by Mr. Gordon? It is definitely my understanding that his suggestion meant that the railways were prepared to come up from a position of zero to approximately two cents an hour in 1960. I do not think we should forget that the compromise which the unions have proposed all along has been one of coming down from their demand for 25 cents an hour to an aceptance of 14 cents an hour as recommended by the Milvain report, and they agreed to this because of their recognition of the importance of the transport industry and the importance of a continuation of service in the public interest. I think we have to consider this and give credit for it to the unions themselves.
I think I should also comment on what might be termed, for want of another phrase, the Gordon offer. As I read the reports and listened to speakers on the government side there would appear to be an indication that the Gordon offer was in the spirit of the Mil-vain proposals. This is not correct at all, because the Milvain award was based on the status quo of government control and regulation as it is exercised at the pesent time and as it will be exercised, now, for a further period of six months. The Milvain proposal is based on the recognition of a standard tied to that of the durable goods industry and trying to close the gap between the two, or at least making a start. That is very clear from the award and from the hearings which were held by the board under Mr. Justice Milvain. On that basis, the basis of starting to close the gap in the 1960 period, the award of the Milvain board for 1960 was seven cents. Therefore the proposal put forward by Mr. Gordon is in no way in the spirit of the Milvain proposal, and there certainly can be no comparison between his compromise offer of two cents and the seven cents laid down in the Milvain award.
I think we have to take note of these things, analyse them in their correct sphere and give credit where credit is due. In this most difficult and serious situation I believe all credit is due to the trade unions, bearing in mind all the time they have spent in negotiation, the voluminous documents and briefs which have been submitted, the answers they have given to all the questions put to them and their willingness to agree to a reduction of their demands from 25 cents to 14 cents in the public interest, as employees in a public service, in order to

Division
accept the award. They have continued to negotiate, but they now find themselves in a position where under the law they must lose that to which they are entitled.
I know that the government and everybody in this house is in a difficult position. Nobody wants a strike. We all want to see justice done, and no matter what we do we are going to be damned-damned if we do, and damned if we don't. It is one of the things in public life which we have to face. I wanted to say these things, and to bring to the attention of the house the need for a national transportation policy based on equity and consultation. I wished also to show in my analysis where I thought the Prime Minister was not being perhaps quite as fair in his statements as he might have been and to endeavour in my own way to present the true picture as I see it.
As I say, we are damned if we do and damned if we don't, but in the light of all the circumstances, considering what has been said and giving due weight to all the principles involved, we have to put it in perspective and I say, on balance, I do not feel I can support this bill in its present form although I know the intention is to avert a strike. I feel this could have been handled in a different way and not left until now, just a few horns before the deadline. Surely reasonable people could have been able to arrive at a reasonable answer so that parliament would not have to face this tough problem.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I feel that if you have made a mistake there is little good niggling away from it. In my remarks of yesterday, according to Hansard, I apparently said, referring to the

people who want a strike, that the only ones I had heard advocate a strike seemed to be the Toronto Globe and Mail, the Canadian trucking association and Mr. Crump. I think I can explain, and I think it is in order that I should. I assumed the Canadian trucking association were prepared for a strike and approved this one coming on because I heard their secretary, Mr. Magee, give a radio talk on CFRA. The whole theme of his radio talk was that if there was a strike the Canadian trucking association was ready to step in and there would not be nearly the dislocation people thought there might be. He used 1950 as a precedent. From that general theme I assumed the Canadian trucking association felt the strike should go on. Apparently 1 was wrong. If I have caused any embarrassment to the Canadian trucking association, I am sorry.
There are, however, other points upon which I should like to touch that have been raised in this debate, particularly by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker). In his remarks regarding the negotiations that took place, as I took down his words, he said that the offer of Mr. Gordon had been put to Mr. Hall and Mr. Hall had said it would not be considered. I feel that the Prime Minister should elaborate on that before we continue the debate. He should place on the record what the Canadian National offer was and what was involved. As I understood it, and perhaps he could clear this up, the rejection was not as bald or outright. It was a rejection that was made in the light of the fact the union was very much aware of the details of the Canadian National offer.
As I understood the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch), who referred to this, Mr. Gordon related his offer to the durable goods standard referred to in the Mil-vain report, and related it to the average annual increase that has taken place since the first of this year. The point that was obvious to the unions was that if you took the first nine or ten months of either 1958 or 1959 and took the index of durable goods the increase averaged out at about six tenths cents a month. In 1958 and 1959, and in previous years, there was always a spurt of from four to five cents in the last few months in the year. In 1958 and in 1959 the average for each year was seven cents, and for the two-year period it was 14 cents. I imagine that the reason for this concave curve rise is that in the durable goods industry most of their wage contracts are negotiated rather late in the year. I have looked at the dominion bureau of statistics figures myself and there is this striking concave curve which gives you the
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act peak increase late in the year. In the early months there is very little increase.
As a consequence, the Gordon offer based on 10 months would have meant, as I understand it, if you use as comparative examples; 1958 and 1959, for 1958 about 1.7 cents and for 1959 something like 2.5 cents. This is very small and very much below the recommendation of the conciliation board. I think the Prime Minister should fill us in on the details, as he understood them or as his negotiators understood them in connection with this Canadian National offer because I think he has definitely left the impression that the unions, as the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) said, were completely adamant and that they would not even consider the offer. I do not know whether they were prepared to consider it seriously, but they certainly knew what was involved and knew it meant nothing for them that came close to what the majority report of the conciliation board offered.
One other point that the Prime Minister brought up yesterday that intrigued me very much was his suggestion that the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines is going to go into certain issues that have bothered railroaders for some time. He mentioned two things, pensions and turnaround benefits. These two issues have no common link with each other. If such a procedure were adopted, it would certainly take this particular committee into a field in which it has not been operating for a long time. I think it is proper to say here that if we are going to do this, some consideration should be given to what is involved. If turnaround benefits are involved, it means we are going to deal with something which Mr. Gordon and Mr. Crump have said is none of the business of politicians, that is we are going to go into the actual collective agreements that exist between management and labour.
In so far as pensions are concerned, they are considerably different. I think since the Prime Minister raised the issue we should perhaps have further elaboration of it in this very debate. Certainly I would take the Prime Minister's remarks as being, I will not say a sponge tossed out to the railway workers because that is unfair, but certainly a favourable consideration from the government point of view that has been put into this whole discussion.
The last point I wanted to touch upon, Mr. Speaker, relates to a point I brought up and which perhaps needs some elaboration, that is this whole question of some kind of guerrilla warfare that is possible in the next six months on both sides. I received a letter
398	HOUSE OF
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act today from a relative of mine who is prominent in union affairs, and the whole theme of that letter was that the railway labour movement is getting rather tired of statesmen as leaders. They are looking for militancy. This bill puts the union leadership in a very difficult position. I should like to emphasize that the whole position of the leaders has been put in jeopardy as a result of this freeze.
Now the obvious retort to this argument is that this must mean the union members are irresponsible. I do not believe it means that at all. It means they are dissatisfied with much more than this particular issue, that they are in a state of insecurity and they are looking for strong leadership. When their leadership is pinched back for a period of six months they can only assume that their leaders have not done a job for them. This gives encouragement to the kind of jurisdictional raids we are quite likely to have. I thought that point might be emphasized, Mr. Speaker.
I can conclude by reiterating that after the kind of debate and discussion we have had this does not look like any better bill than before we had the arguments of the government.


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


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, in rising at this time to close the debate on second reading I do so with the deep personal conviction that this measure with which parliament is dealing at this moment is the best possible way to deal with the present situation. I say in all earnestness that this bill is not a measure which, in any way, is designed to undermine the collective bargaining procedure in this country; that, Mr. Speaker, is not the purpose of this bill.
I want to reiterate what I said at the opening of this debate. The purpose of this bill is to extend the present agreements to May 15 and to give the opportunity for collective bargaining any time between now and May 15 in order to arrive at a solution by both parties.
It has been said that on two previous occasions, namely in 1950 and 1958, there were provisions whereby the men were ordered to go back with an increase in pay. I want to point out that we are aware of those cases, of course. In both of those cases, in 1950 and 1958, there was agreement between the parties in the dispute to those arrangements.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Michael Starr: The increase in 1958 was as a result of an agreement that had been signed and agreed to by a majority of the employees. On that basis the men were returned to work in 1958.
But implementation of the majority report of the conciliation board at this time, as has been suggested-and I submit this conclusion to the intelligence of the reasonable members of this house-could only be done by compulsory arbitration, and I submit that this procedure would not be acceptable to the labour organizations of this country. I again point out that between 1955 and 1960 out of 79 conciliation boards that were set up, 43 of them brought in reports, 23 of which were rejected by unions and 20 by management. Surely in those 23, if the same procedure had been followed-I realize, as I am sure do all hon. members of this house-that labour would not have acceded to compulsory arbitration or to having the majority reports of the conciliation board imposed upon them by compulsion.
I think it is time, Mr. Speaker, that we got back to what we are actually dealing with. We are dealing with a bill which will do two things. First of all, it will prevent a nation-wide railroad strike with all the effects attendant upon such a calamity. In the second place, it does so without resorting to compulsory arbitration.
This afternoon the hon. member for Assini-boia (Mr. Argue) said the government made up its mind that this national emergency could not take place. He was quite right. Apparently he has not been able to make up his own mind. The same confusion prevails in the ranks of the official opposition. This afternoon they went to great lengths to tell us what they would have done. We know what they did in 1950. They allowed the strike to go on for nine days. Then they brought in compulsory arbitration. This afternoon the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) was quite proud of the fact that they gave an increase of four cents an hour at that time.


William Moore Benidickson: And the 40-hour week.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Arbitration gave them more than that.


Michael Starr: That four cents an hour increase was the price labour paid for the introduction of compulsory arbitration. That was what they did in 1950.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The labour leaders thanked the government for doing it.


Michael Starr: 
John Whitney Pickersgill: So would anybody.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Who would not prefer it?


Michael Starr: What we are doing is this. We are simply holding the matter in abeyance until May 15, at which time there will be arbitration without compulsion. The hon. member for Essex East suggested that we brought in compulsory arbitration in 1958. That was the bill to which I had reference a few moments ago. He knows that such was not the case.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I know that it was the case.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is part of the law of the country.


Michael Starr: Discretion was vested in the government.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right; but it was done.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Arbitration by order in council.


Michael Starr: Discretion was vested in the government to use it or not use it. I want to say now that we did not use it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Compulsory by order in
council.


Michael Starr: I might mention the fact that those particular members who are interjecting now voted in favour of that piece of legislation. But in 1950 compulsory arbitration was written right into the act. There was no discretion. They all know this fact as well as anyone knows it.


William Moore Benidickson: Thirty days discretion.


Michael Starr: Let me go back to 1950 because I think it is extremely interesting to go over the events of that period of time when that bill was introduced. The then Liberal member for Spadina, who is now in the other place, did not vote for that bill in 1950.


William Moore Benidickson: Yes, he did.


Michael Starr: He did not vote for it.


William Moore Benidickson: He did vote for it on second reading.


Michael Starr: He did not vote for it because of the element of compulsory arbitration that
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act was in the bill. This is what he said, and I quote his words as reported at page 41 of Hansard-
I believe that compulsory arbitration means the death of collective bargaining. It is all very well to say that we shall apply this principle only in this case, but we have done damage to a fundamental principle of freedom.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Wait until you hear what he says about this bill.


Michael Starr: The damage that was done in 1950 will not be repeated here tonight.


William Moore Benidickson: I am sure the Minister of Labour would not want to mislead the house. I should like to give him a reference. I am sure he has it on his desk. I refer him to page 67 of Hansard of August 30, 1950. If he will refer to that page he will find how the then hon. member for Spadina voted on that occasion.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And he was not for the bill.


Mr. Hodgson:: He walked out of the house.


William Moore Benidickson: He did not walk out of the house. I ask the minister to be fair, and look at page 67 and give the house the correct facts.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Withdraw. All the minister's other facts are just about as accurate.


Michael Starr: We will look for this reference. It is in the record here. At that time the then hon. member for Spadina, whose record in labour matters I think is comparable to that of those who sit in the opposition at the present time-


Lester Bowles Pearson: He is still in parliament.


Michael Starr: The hon. member for Spadina took the stand that he was in favour of the kind of action which is being brought forward in this bill tonight.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Wait until you hear what he has to say.


Michael Starr: As reported at page 40 of Hansard of August 30, 1950, he said this:
I find it difficult to accept the section referred to by some members in this house as "compulsion" and by others as "determination". I have always thought that there was another way out. We all agree that the railways ought to commence operating immediately. We all agree that the parties ought to go back and negotiate, but while they are negotiating the railroads must continue to run. It seems to me that if they are unable to reach an agreement we shall be back here in January, and we can then deal with the problem as it appears before us. By that time the parties to the dispute will have cooled off; we shall have cooled off; and the Canadian people will have cooled off. At that time we can take the appropriate action. I feel certain that by that time no action will be necessary, because an agreement

Maintenance of Railway Operation Act will have been reached, an agreement which will give the men retroactive pay for the time they were negotiating.
There is nothing here, Mr. Speaker, in any way contradictory of the action which is now being taken-keep the railways running; provide for further negotiations-


Lester Bowles Pearson: Give the men nothing.


Michael Starr: -with some chance of success, and leaving the door open to retroactivity in consideration of the time lost. That is what is being done now.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Implementing the minority report.


Michael Starr: This is not a return to compulsory arbitration which, as the then hon. member for Spadina pointed out, means the end of the collective bargaining process as we know it.
The stand which he took then is the stand which labour has taken through the years, and that is the stand that labour takes today.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On this bill.


Michael Starr: This afternoon the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) talked about imposed settlement. That is another phrase for compulsory arbitration.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I did not talk this afternoon.


Michael Starr: In answer to the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson), if he will look at page 77 of Hansard for August 30, 1950, he will see that the then hon. member for Spadina voted with the yeas on an amendment introduced by Mr. Drew, on which the house divided, which was negatived on the division which is there set out.


Lester Bowles Pearson: What about second reading?


William Moore Benidickson: I asked you to refer to the principle of the bill, which was second reading. It is reported at page 67 of Hansard.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Give us the facts. You are a little confused.


Lionel Chevrier: Like the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Michael Starr: He voted with the opposition that day on third reading.


Lester Bowles Pearson: What about second reading? That is what we are talking about now.


Michael Starr: To come down to hard facts-


John Whitney Pickersgill: That would be a change.


Michael Starr: -I pointed out that the hon. member had voted on third reading against the government of that day, and he was a member of the government.


George Harris Hees: That is why he never made the cabinet; he went against the government.


Michael Starr: If the government had imposed a settlement of any kind at this time it would have been compulsory arbitration, whether it was the majority report of the conciliation board or any other settlement.
Some hon. members this afternoon have said that this bill takes away the right to strike.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It certainly does.


Michael Starr: All this bill does is suspend the right to strike for the time being.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You have the right, but you cannot exercise it.


Michael Starr: They can take action which is provided under the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the minister a question: What will they be allowed to do on May 15?


Michael Starr: It is open to them-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may ask the minister this question: What will be the situation on May 15? The government has said that all it is doing is postponing the situation. What will happen on May 15 if the men decide to strike?


William Moore Benidickson: The minister has already said he will give them the opportunity to strike on May 15.


Michael Starr: The complete processes as set out under the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act will be available to both sides.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Can they strike?


Michael Starr: Under the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act their right to strike-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will the government prevent them from carrying out that action?


Michael Starr: We do not believe that compulsion is the solution of the problem. We believe that collective bargaining and an agreement arrived at by both parties is the best method for settling disputes of this nature.


Mr. Denis:: Answer yes or no.


George Harris Hees: You mean, like the hon. member for Essex East did this afternoon to me?


Michael Starr: This is the dilemma in which the opposition has found itself in this debate. I say this, that either they must be prepared to accept the consequences of a national strike, or they must take the responsibility

of imposing compulsory arbitration. And this was the position as it was understood by the hon. member for Spadina in 1950.


Lester Bowles Pearson: You should have read the amendment.


Michael Starr: We have chosen the better way in protecting the rights of both management and labour until such time as negotiations can resume with some possibility of success.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Labour a question: If on May 15 or thereafter the collective bargaining process about which he spoke breaks down and the men strike, will the government prevent the strike from reaching its normal-


George Harris Hees: Hypothetical.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I propose to ask the question notwithstanding the interruption of two ministers.


George Harris Hees: Like you answered my question this afternoon?


Mr. Speaker:: Is the minister prepared to accept the question?


George Harris Hees: No, it is hypothetical.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I can only say that the bill itself will answer the hon. member's question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If the process of collective bargaining-


Mr. Speaker:: I take it from the minister's reply that he is not prepared to accept the question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I do not understand. Hon. gentlemen-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: If my understanding of what the minister said is incorrect, he will so inform me, but I understood his answer to mean that he was not prepared to accept the question. Am I correct in understanding that the minister is not prepared to accept the question?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to answer the question. The hon. member asked me the same question earlier, and my reply to him is that if he did not understand what I said, I will repeat it.


George Harris Hees: It takes a while.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not think I did ask this question, because the Minister of Trade and Commerce was interrupting unduly.


George Harris Hees: I would like you to answer my question of this afternoon, which you avoided.
Division


William Moore Benidickson: Do you want to get this bill through committee?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Labour this question: If the collective bargaining process about which he spoke breaks down and the men strike, will the government take steps to stop that strike?


George Harris Hees: 


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat the suggestion of the hon. member for Spadina in 1950 who said in effect, "let us give a cooling-off period and we will all get cooled off; both sides will get cooled off; the Canadian public will get cooled off. Reason will prevail and a settlement in the right form will be arrived at."


George Harris Hees: And even the hon. member for Essex East may get cooled off.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we are quite willing to sit until the committee stage of the bill is completed this evening.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, this group is willing to do exactly the same.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it then before we go into committee stage the house is prepared to give its unanimous order authorizing the committee to sit until it has completed consideration of the bill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Flynn in the chair.
On clause 1-Short title.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, I made no remarks at the second reading stage of this legislation but I should like to take advantage of the extension of the hours to make a few remarks that I think are appropriate to the preamble of the bill that is now before the committee.


The Chairman:: Order. Our procedure provides for the consideration of the preamble only after all the clauses have been considered. We are on clause 1.


William Moore Benidickson: I think my remarks are in accordance with the customs of the committee on the calling of clause 1. When this bill as a whole is examined in detail it exposes more startlingly even than some of the general remarks made this afternoon the poor comparison between this bill and the bill of 1950, which has been referred to, in so far as advantages to one side of the negotiations are concerned. I refer, of course, to labour.
When one examines in some detail this bill and some of the terms that were set out as fundamentals and basic commencements for labour in the bill of 1950, one finds such striking things as these that are absent in this bill:
Provision will be made for provisional terms and conditions of employment of employees and for the final settlement thereof.
There is nothing here in connection-


John George Diefenbaker: What section is that?

Maintenance of Railway Operation Act


William Moore Benidickson: I am referring to the preamble of the bill of 1950, where it is said in the fourth paragraph that provision will be made for provisional terms. Here there are no provisional terms whatsoever.
In his summing up on second reading the Minister of Labour seemed to want the house to forget some of the important achievements that were provisional settlements included in the bill of 1950. He referred with some contempt to a guarantee of at least four cents an hour. The reminder apparently was to allow us to forget that one very important milestone incorporated in that bill in 1950 was the establishment of the 40-hour week.
The Minister of Labour indicated also that there was nothing in that bill that had not had the full agreement of both parties to the industrial dispute. That again, I deny and remind the Minister of Labour that that bill brought forward the institution of the 40-hour week earlier than had been agreed upon by the two parties.
I point out that that bill established as a fundamental right of one side of the bargaining unit in addition that their colleagues in the hotel industry who had stood by them in the negotiations would not be ignored and that, despite a lack of agreement, the hotel employees as well as the others would be guaranteed the four cents an hour. In this bill we find none of those fundamentals whatever.
We find no form of achievement in negotiation that had developed, either by unanimous agreement on the part of the conciliation board, or by offers such as the offer that has been referred to in the debate made by the president of the Canadian National Railways, or the proposal that the Prime Minister referred to that was advanced for the purpose of bringing people together by the Minister of Labour, which apparently was an attempt to suggest that half of the 14 cents might be provided if the parties would agree. We find none of those things as a starting point in connection with the consideration of this bill. This is in striking difference to what developed in 1950.
Reference has been made-and I am not going to repeat it-to some of the comments that were made after the government's intention of 1950 was announced. Statements were made by Mr. Bengough, who was the head of the trades and labour congress, and Mr. Conroy, were dismissed with some contempt by a former friend of those gentlemen, the hon. member for Skeena. The hon. member for Essex East is perfectly correct when he says that those gentlemen were certainly not known as well known Liberals. Perhaps hon. members have forgotten that one gentleman in that group who has not
been quoted here today made some comments that were not along the lines of criticism of the minister of labour with respect to what was in the bill of 1950. I refer to the late Mr. Mosher. It is well known that he was no Liberal supporter. When the intentions of the government of that day were made known and the contents of the bill were disclosed to the public, Mr. Mosher was asked a question, and I believe he was alongside of Mr. Hall in the negotiations at that time. He was asked for his comments and he said this, as quoted in the press on August 30, 1950:
I think we might say that the Prime Minister's explanation and his proposed amendment does indicate that it is the desire of the government to see that we do get a fair deal.
Then, he was asked:
Do you think your men are getting a fair deal?
And Mr. Hall this time replied:
Well, I think things will work out all right.
I suggest to the government that they will get no comments from the representatives of organized labour comparable to those that were quoted after the proposals of the government of 1950 were made known. This time, in fact, they will get nothing but bitterness.
The Minister of Labour made some reference to what he thought would be the advantage that would flow from the freeze between now and May 15. He referred to the fact that he expected this would result in a cooling off period. I suggest we will find when we come to tackle this problem again -as we may have to in May-that rather than a cooling off we will have had a continuous boil, boil, boil, and the boil is evident in the comments of organized labour since the intention to provide nothing in the way of advances for labour at this time was announced by the government here. This, of course, is despite the fact that the Prime Minister, in announcing his election campaign after he assumed leadership of his party, and his proposals for labour, said, as quoted in the Toronto Globe and Mail in a speech at Campbellton, New Brunswick, on May 4, 1957:
I have said the C.N.R. must be the model employer for the reason that the state cannot ask private enterprise that which it is not prepared to grant to its employees in crown companies.
Yet, we find that the gap between the wages paid to the employees of the crown railway company and those doing comparable work in comparable industries elsewhere has been steadily widening. The gap is frozen without any consideration or improvement for another six months. I think this indicates, Mr. Chairman, that there is going to be a

Maintenance of Railway Operation Act very bitter reaction to the terms of this bill and particularly to the failure to put in the bill a number of guaranteed clauses for improvements such as were provided when similar legislation for the railways was necessarily put before parliament in 1950.
The Globe and Mail is no friend of the Liberal opposition.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No friend of the government, either.


William Moore Benidickson: On this issue it is not very friendly to the government. In this instance, I think they made a fairly sound prophecy in 1956 when they made this comment as contained in an editorial published on January 20, 1956:
Each time, for political reasons, the unions were given an edge.
This is their view of Liberal legislation.
At some future time, also for political reasons, the railways might be given an edge.
I suggest, Mr. Chairman, it is obvious that that time has come.


Lester Bowles Pearson: There was one recommendation of the conciliation board which I believe was agreed to unanimously and that was the recommendation for holidays with pay for employees with 25 years of service or more. I wonder if the minister could indicate to the committee whether any consideration was given to putting that unanimous recommendation in the bill and, if so, why it was decided not to do so?


Michael Starr: It was decided that all the matters under dispute should be proceeded with in any negotiations that might be undertaken in order to arrive at agreement and rather than take one section of these matters under dispute it was decided to leave the whole thing as it was.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the minister if there was any dispute over this particular matter?


Michael Starr: If both parties had accepted any part of that agreement, most certainly the government would have implemented it. Here we had a situation where the employers did not accept any of these recommendations.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I want to get that clear. Is the minister saying that the railway companies did not even accept the recommendation of the man whom they appointed to this conciliation board?


Michael Starr: They gave no indication that they had accepted.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Did the minister ask them if they were willing to accept it?


Michael Starr: The minister did not go into that detail. The main problem under discussion in the dispute was wages.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And the minister did not take the trouble to find out from the railway companies whether they would support their own representative on the conciliation board? That is what he is saying.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is what you are saying.


Michael Starr: There was no indication on the part of the railways that they accepted any part of the report.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Does the minister consider that holidays with pay is just a detail?


Michael Starr: Pardon?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister has said this is a detail. Does he consider this matter a detail?


Michael Starr: No, it is one of the matters in dispute.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is the minister telling us that neither he nor any of his officials ascertained whether the railway companies were prepared to accept this particular unanimous recommendation of the board?


Michael Starr: The labour department deals only with the majority report, and when we ask both parties whether they agree to the majority report that is as far as we go.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, are we being informed now that the department dealt only with the majority report and did not deal with any unanimous recommendations of the board?


Michael Starr: The labour department deals only with the majority report of the board.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is the minister telling us that in all those hours he spent at the Queen Elizabeth hotel with his colleagues, and in all the additional hours he and his colleagues spent with the Prime Minister in Ottawa, they never took the trouble to find out whether these recommendations that all three members of the board agreed to were acceptable to both parties, so that at least this little crumb or what the minister calls a detail, but what I think the men would regard as of some importance-


An hon. Member:: Who calls it a crumb?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister did, he called it a detail.


Jacques Flynn: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It would appear to me that this matter was important enough that

the government might have taken the trouble to find out whether it was acceptable to both parties.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, the majority report of any conciliation board is the report that is acceptable under the act.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Is the minister telling us the majority report does not include any of the unanimous recommendations of the board?


Michael Starr: The majority report includes only those items to which the majority of the members of that board have agreed.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Does it not include those recommendations to which all three members of the board have agreed?


Michael Starr: I am happy to keep answering the same question over again, but I want to say to bon. members opposite that the railways did not accept the majority report and that is the report-


John Whitney Pickersgill: You never even asked them.


Michael Starr: -of the conciliation board.


Paul Joseph James Martin: During the course of this debate it has been suggested by several hon. members that the policy of the government, as revealed in this bill, indicated over-concern on the part of the government for the welfare of the companies and less consideration for the men. I am not making that statement at the moment. I am saying that has been suggested in the debate.


An hon. Member:: Are you taking responsibility for it?


Paul Joseph James Martin: If the hon. member would take part in this debate, as a representative of an industrial constituency representing the labouring people in his constituency, he would be making a more useful contribution than sitting in his seat making these nonsensical observations.
Mr. Pallet!: I wonder if the hon. member would indicate whether he takes responsibility for the statement he made, rather than refer to someone else?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will not take responsibility for the hon. member, in any event. In view of that charge, we are told by the Minister of Labour that the board was unanimous in recommending that there be provision for holidays with pay.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The Minister of Labour did not tell the hon. member that, that was an assertion made by the hon. member. Surely my hon. friend can at least be accurate.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We are accurate.
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am glad to see that the Minister of Justice has finally come into this debate and is showing some interest in this problem. Hon. members, of course, are facilitating the passage of this bill. Of course, that is always the habit of the Minister of Justice; he always helps his colleagues by the way he helps to smooth the passage of a bill. If the minister will just contain himself I am sure he will find the whole process interesting and perhaps enlightening.
Since there was a unanimous recommendation for holidays with pay for those railway workers who had 25 years of service does the minister not think that the companies ought to have been asked about it, so that at least that one positive benefit might accrue to the workers, particularly in the light of the extraordinary measures that are involved in this particular bill. If the minister repeats that the railways were never asked, then undoubtedly he opens himself to the charge that the government's main concern was the position taken by the companies and not the position taken by the men.
This was not the only unanimous recommendation. There was another recommendation that was unanimous, but that one was adverse to the interests of the men. There were other points involved. Is the minister saying that the only discussion that he had with the companies concerned the matter of wages? If that is the case, undoubtedly this government has been remiss in not taking into account in its deliberations, not only the welfare of the companies but the welfare of the men as well. This is a disclosure tonight which if it had been made earlier in this debate would have caused much greater discussion than is now being provided. We are not going to let this matter pass at this stage if the minister tells us again that at no time did he ask the companies whether they would be prepared to accept the majority award.
I go further. It was not necessary to ask the companies to agree to this unanimous award to have it included. It ought to have been included by the nature of the unanimity itself. The government did not hesitate to impose terms against the Canadian Pacific Steamships Company in 1958 in respect of those workers not covered by agreements between the company and the stewards. I refer to the additional eight cents. If that could have been done then, why could not this unanimous award at least have been included so that, instead of the government now facing the charge that they passed this bill without doing anything whatsoever for labour, they might at any rate have been able to incorporate in the bill a provision that would have provided labour with the
406	HOUSE OF
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act benefits of a unanimous award with regard to holidays with pay. I do not think I overstate the case. I think the minister owes the house a full explanation as to why this was not done in this particular case.


Michael Starr: At this time of the evening I hate to spoil the speech which the hon. member made a few moments ago. I want to advise him and hon. members of this fact that during our discussions we explored every area in which agreement could be arrived at. I posed the question to both parties as to whether there was any area in which agreement could be arrived at and I was told there was not.


William Moore Benidickson: There is disappointment that matters such as those which were recommended unanimously not only by representatives of the company but by the representatives of the men and endorsed by the chairman of the conciliation board have not been included as a start in this bill. But in addition, it has been disclosed very late in the game that Mr. Gordon of the C.N.R. said, with respect to the gap that was developing in 1960, that he thought it was only fair that labour should have it indicated to them that, as the larger employer among the railway companies, he felt that he was prepared to suggest that the C.N.R. could do something for 1960 and guarantee that the gap created in 1960 would be made up. Did the Minister of Labour consider putting that provision in this bill as a fundamental or a start or as a guarantee to labour?
In addition to that, I think the committee should hear first hand from the Minister of Labour about the proposal that the Prime Minister-who indicated that he was not present at the time-says that the Minister of Labour made. The Prime Minister indicated to us that the Minister of Labour suggested that perhaps half the amount of dispute, namely 14 cents, might be taken by the men. Did the minister make that proposal to the men after consultation with the companies or without consultation with the companies? What did the companies say with respect to this feeling out or did the minister feel out only one side with respect to the matter?


Michael Starr: I made a suggestion to both parties who were present at the time, as to whether there was a possibility of the two cents per hour retroactive from January 1 to September 1 and the five cents from September 1 to May 1 being agreed upon to be implemented at this time and to carry on without a strike and then the other adjustment be arrived at later on. This suggestion was refused by both parties.


William Moore Benidickson: Did the minister say by both parties? The Prime Minister informed the house only that labour had done so.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member is quite in error. Both parties refused to accept it.


Mr. Cresiohl:: I should like to ask the minister this question. The minister has read the majority report and the minority report. In reading the two reports side by side did he find any common area where there was agreement?


Michael Starr: In all these agreements there is a common area if there is a willingness on the part of both parties to find that common area. Most certainly it is not the role of government to direct people in their negotiations but rather, when the time arrives when there is a steadfast position, the government tries to bring them back across the table of each other in order to carry on collective bargaining for the purpose of arriving at a fair agreement.


John Whitney Pickersgill: During the debate on
second reading the Prime Minister asserted, as did the minister in closing the debate, that the conditions that were imposed upon the railways-I use the word "imposed" because the minister talks about compulsory arbitration when what he really means is not arbitration but imposition-certain terms were imposed upon the railways in the act of 1950. Both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour informed the house that all those terms that were imposed upon the railways had been previously agreed to by the railways. In order that the facts may be before the committee I would draw hon. members' attention to the statement made by the railways to the Canadian Press which appears on page 22 of Hansard of August 29, 1950 and sets out fully what the railways had agreed to.
They had agreed to four cents for the railway employees. They had agreed to two cents an hour for the hotel employees, and they had agreed to the 40-hour week only in the year beginning on September 1, 1951. The terms that were in Mr. St. Laurent's bill were not the same as these. They were considerably more generous. The four cents was applied to all classes of employees engaged in the dispute for the reason that I gave this afternoon, namely that Mr. St. Laurent did not wish, by the action of parliament, to create division between one group of employees and another. This term was imposed on both companies by this parliament and it was not agreed to by the railways. The 40-hour week, as my friend the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River has pointed out, was made

effective immediately and not in September 1951, as the railways had indicated they would be willing to have it done.
I think the committee ought to know that my friend the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River had no small part in persuading the government of that day to take that generous action with respect to the 40-hour week because it was as a result of representations which he himself made to the government that certain changes were made in the legislation here in this House of Commons which had that effect. The statements, in other words, that were made by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour-and I am sure they were made inadvertently-are not correct.


John George Diefenbaker: They had been corroborated by the hon. member for Essex East.


John Whitney Pickersgill: They were not corroborated by the hon. member for Essex East. When the Prime Minister raised the question about that matter the hon. member for Essex East said that that seemed to be his recollection. If the Prime Minister wants to quibble in that sort of way and expect every hon. member to have an infallible memory, he may do so. But these events happened ten years ago. The hon. member for Essex East had probably not re-read these statements that Mr. Gregg put on Hansard.
Before the Prime Minister gave these categorical assurances, he should surely have satisfied himself that what he was giving to the house as facts were facts. They were not facts. His whole argument that it would be unprecedented for parliament to impose anything on the companies was based on a misstatement of facts. The true facts are that this parliament 10 years ago imposed on the companies things that they did not agree to. That was done by a Liberal government, while the Tory government is so sensitive about the companies that it would impose absolutely nothing on them, even something that there is evei-y reason to believe that they would agree to if they had been asked to do so.
That is the difference. That, it seems to me, is a pretty good test of the difference in attitude between the two sides. What this government is doing-and let us make no mistake about it-is ordering these men to go back to work and making it a crime for them not to go back to work. The government is giving them absolutely nothing; it is denying them what Mr. Justice Milvain said was only partial justice. That is what they are doing. They say it is okay to put pressure on the men; it is okay to compel men to work; but you must not compel the company even to give men holidays with pay after 25 years.
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate and other members of the Liberal opposition seem to forget one very important point. That is that when the government told the railway companies in 1950 to pay the railway employees so many cents an hour they knew at that time that the railway companies could immediately go to the board of transport commissioners and there was no restraint on them whatsoever in receiving recompense in exactly the amount that they paid out to the railway employees.
That case is completely different to the one we have today, because the hon. member seems to have forgotten there was a freeze on freight rates-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Who put the freeze on them?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, who put the freeze on freight rates?


George Harris Hees: -and whatever would be imposed on the railways, it would be impossible for them now, until after May 15 approximately, to make application to the board of transport commissioners to get back the money that they paid out. That is the complete difference between what is happening today and what happened in 1950. But the opposition seems to delight in forgetting that.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I am somewhat astounded at the former minister of transport getting into this discussion. I would like to ask him and his successor in office a question or two. I would like to know from either one of them when they found out for the first time of the railway's inability to pay, because the Prime Minister indicated on two occasions yesterday, in the House of Commons and on television last night, that if the parties could not get together, one, it was because the unions would not accept the amount and, two, it was because of the inability of the railways to pay. When did the present Minister of Transport find out-


William Heward Grafftey: Who said that?


Lionel Chevrier: The Prime Minister said it. If the hon. member had been listening he would know something about it. But he never listens; he interrupts everybody.


William Heward Grafftey: I will ask the hon. member's permission next time.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I asked the Minister of Transport when he found out for the first time of the railway's inability to pay.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, this matter has been before the house many times. We all
408	HOUSE OF
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act know that railway rates are frozen at the present time. This argument was brought forward by the railways before the conciliation board; it was repeated in the newspapers; it was stated by the president of the Canadian National Railways many times; it was mentioned during this debate many times, and it has just been repeated in a very, very able fashion by my predecessor.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, that was not the question I put to the minister.


George Harris Hees: I will answer the question.


Lionel Chevrier: You sit down.
Some hon. Members Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: That is an order.


George Harris Hees: What kind of meat have you been feeding on?


Jacques Flynn: Would hon. members please address the Chair.


Lionel Chevrier: Thank you, Mr. Chairman; I will do my best to do that. I was asking the Minister of Transport a question, and I will deal with the hon. member afterwards.


George Harris Hees: I am just terrified.


Lionel Chevrier: I did not ask a question about the freeze, but I asked when the hon. member found out for the first time of the railway's inability to pay. Will he answer the question?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring to the attention of the hon. member for Laurier the majority report, the Milvain report, where at page 8 Mr. Justice Milvain says:
It is clear from the evidence that in a large part the embarrassment suffered by the railways in their inability to reap greater returns from their operations, is due to public policy in the shape of statutory rates and government regulations. This board must, of course, assume that the impact of public policy is for the public good. However, it is equally clear that the railway employees should not bear alone a subsidization of public policy through limited earnings. The burden must surely be borne by members of the public at large.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. Members:: You sit down.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, the minister has not dealt with my question at all, because long-


George Harris Hees: He has dealt with it completely.


Lionel Chevrier: -before Mr. Justice Milvain handed down his report, either he or his predecessor knew of the position of the Canadian National Railways as announced in the house by the Prime Minister.
I am asking the minister or his predecessor when he found out, either through the presi-


dent of the Canadian National Railways or in some other form, of the railway's inability to pay.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, is it not obvious, even to the hon. member for Laurier, that if a railway such as the Canadian National Railways, which is going to have a deficit of something like $75 million this year, even at the present rates of pay, pays out another five, six, seven or eight-or whatever it is -million dollars to the railway workers, that is going to increase the deficit by that amount? Does it seem to the hon. member for Laurier that the railway can pay that when it already has a deficit of about $75 million this year?


Lionel Chevrier: That being the case, why then did not the government do something about it, because it must have known long before the conciliation board report of the position of the railway in so far as this matter was concerned?
The Minister of Transport should have known about it.


George Harris Hees: Should have known about what?


Léon Balcer: What do you think we appointed the MacPherson commission for?


Lionel Chevrier: If I heard the Prime Minister aright, you appointed the MacPherson commission to deal with many things but not the problem that is now being discussed under this bill.


George Harris Hees: I will answer that question.


Lionel Chevrier: The problem now is one of railway rates and railway wages, and the royal commission on transportation has no jurisdiction whatsoever to deal with that. I put on the record this afternoon a complete contradiction of the words of the Prime Minister as enunciated last night during the course of the discussion by his associate the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who made a statement last year.


Léon Balcer: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Léon Balcer: How have the railways been able to pay their expenses in the past? What did they have to do to get the money to pay these increases?


Lionel Chevrier: The answer is quite easy; they came to parliament or they went to the board of transport commissioners.


Léon Balcer: That is so.


Lionel Chevrier: The answer is quite easy. But the point I am making now is this. A year ago you on that side of the house knew this condition was coming about, and you
DECEMBER 1, 19B0	409
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act
sat and did absolutely nothing about it until the report of the conciliation board came -down.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, what the hon. member for Laurier is obviously saying is this; he is objecting to the fact that the railways cannot pay this increase in wages. To do that there would have to be no freeze on freight rates. That freeze was put on for a very good reason a year ago by the Prime Minister. It was because of the unfairness that had been perpetrated during 22 years of Liberal rule on the western and maritime parts of this country, unfair freight rates which were made more and more unfair every time a horizontal increase was put into effect under the Liberal government. They did not bother about it at all; they thought it was a very good thing; they did not care whether the western and maritime parts of Canada had a good deal; they thought it was grand, as long as their people in the central part of Canada were doing all right. They did not think it was important to have a fair deal for everybody in all ten parts of this country. So they objected to this freight rate freeze that we put on. Therefore this royal commission was appointed to find a way of fairly distributing increases in freight rates across all parts of this country.
That is something this government is doing, and it is something that your government refused to do for 22 years, because you did not care to have a fair deal for people in all parts of the country and you did not do anything about it.


Lionel Chevrier: It is quite clear, Mr. Chairman, that the former minister of transport has been asleep for a long time.


George Harris Hees: The former minister of transport has been here more than you have today.


Lionel Chevrier: I have no hesitation in
repeating that you must have been asleep for a long time, because I say to him and to those associated with him, without any hesitation or without any fear of contradiction, that they have done absolutely nothing in the three years that they have been in office, or more, to do away with the horizontal increase in freight rates in any way whatsoever.
On the contrary, and the hon. gentleman, as the former minister of transport should know full well, the Turgeon royal commission on transportation made several recommendations having to do with equalization and the detrimental effects of horizontal freight rates in this country. Every one of those recommendations-and if the minister does not know this, he should-was put into effect by the former administration, and I ask the former minister of transport if he has read
the proceedings of the conciliation board, though I am sure he has not, because he is so busy with his trade commissioners that he has no time to read anything. If he had read those proceedings and listened to the discussion this afternoon he would know that the C.N.R. expert in giving evidence before the conciliation board made it clear that at this time the railways have obtained about all they can get at this stage from increases in freight rates. So I say: How is it going to be possible to meet the position which the Prime Minister has indicated this afternoon and which is contained in this bill?
The present Minister of Transport replies by reading parts of the Milvain report. What I should like to know is what this government has been doing for a whole year when they saw that this position was coming about. They did absolutely nothing until the report of this conciliation board came down.


John George Diefenbaker: The hour is late, and naturally I do not want to say anything which will arouse the opposition. It is not usual for me to adopt this attitude, but I must say that the discussion which is going on is not very beneficial. There is a great deal of heat being generated by hon. gentlemen opposite, but not very much light is being shed on the problem before us.
We are not here to discuss the shortcomings of the past. However, when the hon. gentleman asks what the government did during the last year I simply point out that this government acted before a strike in 1960 and that the hon. gentleman and those associated with him who were in power in 1950 waited and fooled around for nine days until the strike had begun.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is true, as the Prime Minister said, that his government has acted. His government has acted through a bill which includes nothing from the majority report of a conciliation board and which includes nothing even which was recommended unanimously by that board, as we have now discovered.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think it should pass unnoticed that the present Minister of Trade and Commerce, the former minister of transport, has told this committee that because the government, without any judicial determination of any kind, without any evidence produced from the balance sheet of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and only because we all know that the C.N.R. is having a deficit for reasons other than the wage level, mainly because of the economic conditions of the country at the present time; the former minister of transport has told us that because-


George Harris Hees: Make up your mind.

Maintenance of Railway Operation Act


John Whitney Pickersgill: I want to weigh my words carefully, unlike the hon. gentleman. The minister is saying, and the government is saying that because they do not think the railways can afford to pay, and because they have imposed a freeze, the workers are to be compelled to go back to work at substandard wages. That is what the minister said. That is exactly what the champion of the little people said.


George Harris Hees: I simply pointed out to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate that there was a vast difference between the situation which existed in 1950 and the situation which exists now. The hon. member did not know about it, and I thought I should bring him up to date with regard to the facts.


William Moore Benidickson: I am glad that during the discussion of a labour bill there have been interventions by both the former minister of transport and the present Minister of Transport. It is part of the functions of ministers of transport to concern themselves with the predicament of the railway companies. When it was decided to investigate the railway problem generally the Minister of Transport apparently did his duty, because when he saw the freeze coming along he made sure that the government found money to provide to the railway companies during the freeze. Unfortunately, however, the Minister of Labour, nothwithstanding the majority report in favour of the men, apparently did not go to the cabinet and get any money put in this bill which would protect the men in a manner similar to that in which the railway companies had been protected.


Léon Balcer: Is the hon. member in favour of a subsidy?


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Justice Milvain
thought so.


Frank Howard: I saw the Minister of Justice rise, and I thought he was about to anticipate me-


Edmund Davie Fulton: I was astonished by the inaccuracy of the statement which had just been made, but I am not going to bother to deal with it.


Frank Howard: I can appreciate the hon. gentleman's action in dealing with members of the Liberal party, but I notice he never takes that attitude when dealing with members of the C.C.F.
I should like to ask the Minister of Justice whether he has given this bill any perusal to determine whether there is any inconsistency between it and the so-called bill of rights which was passed during the last session.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The answer is, no.


Frank Howard: Then I want to raise another matter in connection with my understanding of the bill of rights and in particular the provisions of section 3. Perhaps the regulations have not been prescribed by the governor in council yet, but without reflecting on His Excellency and the need to get these things done within a reasonable time, the section does say:
The Minister of Justice shall, in accordance with such regulations as may be prescribed by the governor in council, examine every proposed regulation submitted in draft form to the clerk of the privy council pursuant to the Regulations Act and every bill introduced in or presented to the House of Commons-


Edmund Davie Fulton: My answer "no" was to the question whether there was any inconsistency between this bill and the bill of rights.


Lionel Chevrier: It was not.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have examined this bill and there is no inconsistency.


Frank Howard: I asked the minister, not whether he had found any inconsistency but whether he had perused this bill with that object in mind.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Then 1 must have misunderstood the question. I have perused this bill and found no inconsistency.


Frank Howard: If I were an official of one of the unions involved in this particular dispute and covered by this particular piece of legislation which we are considering at the moment, I would challenge the legality of the present bill before us, because in my opinion it infringes on the rights of individuals as set out in the bill of rights, regardless of the statement by the Minister of Justice that he has perused it and reached a different conclusion. I say that here is a case to be challenged in the courts to determine whether we are now being asked to enact legislation which abrogates the right of the individual to equality before the law, because we are here setting up different types of equality-some people are less equal than others.
The rights and equality of some people before the law is, to use the expression of the Prime Minister, suspended under this legislation until the middle of May, until which date they will be less equal before the law than a number of other people in Canada who are not covered by this act. I expect that this would be an excellent case to take to the courts for determination to see if the government knew what it was doing when it enacted the bill of rights.


An hon. Member:: What is that supposed to prove?


Azellus Denis: Mr. Chairman, we have not heard from the Postmaster General in this discussion. If I am well informed, he was a member of the government who attended the meetings. I should like to know if he differs from the reports given by the various ministers who also attended the meetings. I think the hon. gentleman is entitled to and should say a few words about the meeting and to indicate at least what degree of support he gives the measure now before us. Perhaps the hon. member could tell if at the end of next May, between the two periods, there is going to be a general election and if it is the intention of the government to put the responsibility for settling this matter on the shoulders of the new government that will replace the one we have now?


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Transport asked me a question which I was not able to answer when the hon. member for Skeena rose. The minister asked me if I were in favour of a subsidy. The position of this party was clearly stated. I wish to point out that my leader suggested that a subsidy at this time is not necessary because after the general assessment and adjustment is made following the report of the royal commission that will come down in March or April the position of the C.P.R. could be looked at retroactively and taken into consideration.
Again we see the unfairness of this. The companies were not put in that position. They got cash but the government is asking the individual men to take the government's word on trust and faith and accept something retroactively if a favourable report comes down in March or April.


George Harris Hees: What cash?


William Moore Benidickson: Subsidy.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, I think the statement just made by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River clearly indicates the lack of logic in the thinking of hon. members of the official opposition. Following the hon. member for Laurier the other day the Leader of the Opposition said that the Liberal party wanted the implementation of the majority report. One of the most important decisions of the majority report is precisely that a subsidy should be paid.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is not true.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister has not read the report. That is an amazing statement.
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, the Leader of the Opposition says that is not true. I refer the hon. gentleman to page 6 of the report.


Some hon. Members:: Read it.


Léon Balcer: It says that the burden must surely be borne by members of the public at large. If hon. members opposite do not call that a subsidy, what is it?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Transport has already condemned himself out of his own mouth. Now I will return to the Minister of Labour in connection with vacations with pay. When I mentioned a little while ago that vacations with pay had been unanimously recommended by the board the minister said1 that was not taken into consideration for inclusion in the bill because it was not in the majority report and the government dealt only with the majority report, not with unanimous recommendations. The Minister of Labour must surely know that this particular recommendation for vacations with pay is in the majority report of the board which I have in my hand. It also happens to be a unanimous report so that excuse falls to the ground.


Michael Starr: Section 32, subsection 7 of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act states that the majority report of its members shall be the report of the conciliation board. That report was rejected and found not acceptable by the railways.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is the minister seriously telling us that the only thing that he and his colleagues discussed with both parties on that Saturday at the Queen Elizabeth hotel and the only thing they discussed in the Prime Minister's office on the following Saturday was the majority report and that they did not canvass any and every possibility of settlement?


George Harris Hees: Of course we did. We said so.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If so, why did this not come up?


Michael Starr: Was the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate in the chamber a moment ago when I replied to the hon. member for Essex East? Even if he were, the hon. gentleman may not have heard me say that we explored every avenue and area in which some agreement could be arrived at. We asked both parties whether there was any area in which at least some segment of agreement could be arrived at and we were told no.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is the minister now telling us that Mr. Vineberg who was spokesman for the companies on the commission took the position that the companies would not agree to giving holidays with pay

Maintenance of Railway Operation Act for four weeks to those with 25 years service and over? Is it not a fact that Mr. Vineberg said the companies would agree and that the government decided that if it included that particular measure it would be embarrassed because of the other considerations? Is that not the real situation which the minister has failed to disclose to this committee up until this very moment?


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, that is utter nonsense on the part of the hon. member, and I am not surprised.


George Harris Hees: Twenty five years of utter nonsense.


Léon Balcer: It is beginning to show.


Azellus Denis: You are still young; your day will come.


Michael Starr: Mr. Vineberg was the representative of the railways on the conciliation board. I have just said that the majority report of the conciliation board is the report of that conciliation board-


Lester Bowles Pearson: This is in it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My question was this. Will the minister now deny that Mr. Vineberg said the companies would not object to agreeing to the provision provided for by all the members of the board that there should be holidays with pay for the period covering those with 25 years and over of service? That is the question.


Lester Bowles Pearson: They just did not bother about it.


Michael Starr: Mr. Vineberg in his report-


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is in the majority report.


Michael Starr: We are talking about the majority report. That is what the hon. member for Essex East is asking, whether Mr. Vineberg-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, we are not talking about the majority report at all. I am simply asking this question. Did Mr. Vineberg not tell the minister or some member of the government that the companies would not object to that particular provision?


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I would not know Mr. Vineberg if he walked into this chamber now. I have never met him.


Lester Bowles Pearson: What has the minister been doing the last six months?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The discussions at the Queen Elizabeth hotel must have been very interesting.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I have a question to put to the Minister of Transport if

I could have his attention. I should like to ask the minister if he has ascertained from the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, which is the only private operator on whom we would be imposing anything-because I do not think even the Prime Minister in his tenderness for the railway companies would feel that parliament could not impose something on the Canadian National Railways which is owned by the people of Canada if it wanted to do so-if the state of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company's revenues is such that they would have a deficit between now and June if they paid this relatively small amount that would be required to be paid between now and June, about $5 million, as the Prime Minister told us?


Léon Balcer: What we did, Mr. Chairman, was to try to get the two sides to agree. We explored every avenue of agreement. All along the representatives of the unions insisted that the majority report would be the extreme minimum that they would accept. As far as the railways are concerned and the C.P.R. in particular, Mr. Crump speaking on behalf of the C.P.R. said he could not agree with that. That was the position of the C.P.R. as presented to us.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That was not my question.


Léon Balcer: As far as the ability of the C.P.R. to pay is concerned, it is a private company and I could not interfere with that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps, then, I could ask the Minister of Labour one question. Does the Minister of Labour consider it is better to deny the $61 to each of the men concerned in this matter-I take the minister's own figure-rather than to ask the C.P.R. to pay $5 million between now and June which sum they may very well recoup if they can show there is any injustice? That is the minister's position. That is the position of the government.


Michael Starr: Is the hon. member asking me or telling me?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am asking does the government prefer to ask the men to forgo the $61 each to which they are entitled rather than ask the C.P.R. to pay about $5 million between now and June?


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I think every hon. member of this committee knows my position and attitude toward labour as it was in the past, as it is now and as it will always be.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Now that he has finished his declamation, perhaps the minister would condescend to answer my question.


Michael Starr: Ask a question instead of making statements.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did not make a statement; I asked a question. Does the minister prefer to ask the men to do without the $61, which he said in his opening speech they were entitled to, rather than ask the C.P.R. to pay $5 million between now and June because that is what this bill is doing?


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I understand the role that the opposition is playing in this,-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Answer the question.


Michael Starr: -and their attempts to try to make some impression before the parties in this dispute. I realize that no one in a dispute takes sides to that extent. The government has not. I hope that the men can through an agreement get all they can, and I hope that the railways are in a position to pay what they agree to pay. That is the way in which any collective agreement is arrived at over the bargaining table and that is the way we want to see this thing settled; that is the way we want to see all labour disputes settled in this country, through free collective bargaining.


Frank Howard: We just heard an emotional declaration from someone who is anxious to show that he is talking about something that he really does not believe in.


William Heward Grafftey: Order; withdraw.


Frank Howard: We seem to have an exceptionally large number of cheerleaders around this evening. The minister talks about negotiations and that they are the basis of arriving at collective agreements. That is quite true. It is the way they should be arrived at in a free economy. There should be the free play of forces between one side and the other and in that way you arrive at something mutually satisfactory and include it in a collective agreement and then each side is bound by the terms of the agreement. This legislation to an extent is preventing that sort of thing from taking place.
The minister talks of those negotiations as being part of bargaining table progress. Can he tell me of any provision in the bill which would permit that between now and next
May?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Perhaps the hon. member's attention should be directed to clause 3 and also clause 8 of the bill. I am sorry he has not read it.


Jacques Flynn: Shall clause 1 carry?


Frank Howard: Hold on, Mr. Chairman. I see there is reference to a new collective agreement. I did not know that the Minister of Justice had supplanted the Minister of Labour. I posed my question to the Minister of Labour. Will the Minister of Labour indicate to me
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act any provisions in the bill that provide for collective bargaining? I submit there is none. Clause 3 has to do with extension of collective agreements and as far as clause 8 is concerned, if a new agreement occurs before May 15 then this act shall expire. These are the provisions. What about the steps and the processes of negotiation? The minister knows as well as I do-he has said himself a number of times in this house; the Prime Minister said it also

that the provisions of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act have been exhausted. The other day the minister said that under this act there was nothing further that the government could do; it had no more authority.


Michael Starr: It is quite evident that the hon. member does not know much about collective agreements and how they are arrived at between parties because even though the procedure set out in the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act has been exhausted there is still, always is and always will be room for both parties to come to an agreement over the bargaining table.


Paul Joseph James Martin: They can do that if there were no Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act; that has nothing to do with it.


Frank Howard: I appreciate that. The minister need not have gone into those details earlier, which were quite incorrect, of course.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Read clause 3.


Frank Howard: I have read it a number of times. I know full well, and I am sure the hon. member does, that I cannot read it out now because we are not on clause 3. When we get to it I will attempt to read it out loud for the benefit of those on the other side who have not read it. There is no provision in this bill at all for collective bargaining processes to take place between now and May.
What did the Minister of Labour do in 1958? This is what I am getting at. This is when the strike took place on the British Columbia coast steamships. This same Minister of Labour who does not like interfering in other people's business, who likes the free play of collective bargaining forces and so on, introduced a bill in this house, which became law. It is now not in existence, but section 6 of that legislation said:
The company and each union shall forthwith enter into negotiations with a view to the settlement of any matters-bargain in good faith and make every effort to conclude a collective agreement.
They can bargain in good faith and make every effort to conclude a collective agreement. That is what I am getting at. There is no provision in this bill to ensure that that sort
414	HOUSE OF
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act of process takes place, none whatsoever. What is going to occur? The minister knows this as well as I do. He knows that this is a postponement of the present situation until May 15. This is going to end up on May 15 in just the same way as it is now. That is precisely what I am getting at, because the minister, coerced into it probably by other members of the cabinet, has failed to take into account the basic part of negotiations.
It is true that in collective bargaining two parties can sit down and sign a contract at any time provided they are in negotiation and provided they do not already have a collective agreement. They can sit down and sign a collective agreement today, tomorrow, next week or next January, if there is not one in existence by then, but the bill does not allow for it. In fact the minister himself has just now said something quite contrary to what he said a while ago. One of his earlier remarks indicated that there was no provision for collective bargaining, no hope for collective bargaining, until the royal commission had reported. His words are clear. They are to be found in Hansard of November 30, at page 346. Let me read what he said:
What is, in fact, contemplated in this legislation is the maintenance of the status quo until such time as negotiations can be resumed with a more favourable chance of success as a result of unfreezing the freight rate structure.
Yesterday the minister said that no negotiations will take place until the unfreezing of the freight rate structure occurs. We were told a while ago that this is not going to occur until the royal commission reports. Here is the minister again obviously talking out of both sides of his mouth, saying in one instance that they cannot negotiate until the royal commission reports and freight rates are unfrozen, and then this evening he comes out with this emotional plea that he believes in collective bargaining.
You know as well as I do, Mr. Chairman, that in introducing this legislation the minister has come out flat-footed on behalf of the C.P.R. and other railway companies, regardless of what he says. He knows full well that this legislation is being endorsed without one red cent of compensation to the employees. It is taking away one of their fundamental rights because we know full well that no railway company in the world is going to sit down and negotiate before May 15 or before the royal commission makes its report. They would be absolute suckers to do so, because they would have everything to lose. They have gained everything they could by the action of this government in introducing this legislation, and they will sit back on their haunches and not hold up one finger to sign a collective agreement and the minister knows


it as well as I do. Yet the minister has the effrontery to stand up here and say that he believes in collective bargaining and in the free play of forces. He has not got the foggiest idea what it is all about, or the foggiest concern about it.


Jacques Flynn: Shall clause 1 carry?


Frank Howard: I wish to record my vote against clause 1, Mr. Chairman.
Clause 1 agreed to: Yeas, 78; nays, 28.
On clause 2-Definitions.


Mr. Peiers:: Before clause 2 carries I should like to make a few remarks. I have not had anything to say on this bill, not because I am not interested but because, in the main, the matter does not directly affect my riding. Others have been concerned from other points of view. You will note that in paragraph (b) of clause 2 mention is made of schedule A which is a list of the railway companies involved, one of which is the Ontario Northland railway. This railway does run through my riding. The things that have been said during the negotiations between the unions and the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific, while they are not necessarily the things to which we subscribe, namely that the railways are not making sufficient money to pay these wages to the men, are not a factor with respect to the Ontario Northland railway.
The Ontario Northland railway was set up by the Ontario people, not in the same manner as the federally owned railway but more as a development road to open up northern Ontario. At that time it was considered that this railway would be operating for the benefit of the people in northern Ontario and would be a partial repayment from southern Ontario for the advantages derived from the natural resources and the developments taking place in northern Ontario. This railway, over the years, has operated to some extent as a developmental railway but also has operated as a very successful financial enterprise. While it is true the railway has a liability in the form of a loan for $30 million from the Ontario government, last year they showed a balance of $26 million in their financial statement.
I believe, Mr. Chairman, it would be very difficult to use the arguments in connection with the Ontario Northland railway that have been used in connection with the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific railways. I suggest that if some leeway had been left in this section it would enable those companies that do not claim poverty to the same extent as the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific to carry on negotiations and

Maintenance of Railway Operation Act
possibly conclude an agreement within the next few months, as the hon. member for Skeena pointed out.
I suggest that some consideration should be given to the employees of this particular company. It would seem to me that in passing this legislation we have taken from these employees the right to continue negotiations with this company. The Ontario Northland railway is probably not in a position to take advantage of the right to make application for increased freight rates to the same extent as the other railways because it is truly a provincially nationalized railway and is operated by the provincial government as a developmental railway.
The Ontario Northland railway is probably the most modern railway in Canada at the present time. It is highly dieselized, utilizes the most modern radio equipment and has eliminated dispatchers, station agents, some maintenance of way crews and so on, thus reducing its overhead. It is now in a position where it has a lower wage bill, so it is now probably making a profit. I think now is the time when it should be allowed to continue its negotiations for the reasons I have outlined. The minister should give some consideration to allowing the bargaining procedure to be continued with this particular company so that the employees can take advantage of the situation in which they now find themselves rather than waiting until conditions in the railway industry generally have levelled off.
There is one other point I should like to mention and that is that the Ontario Northland railway employees do not enjoy the same rights that many other employees enjoy. For example, these employees are not entitled to the benefits of unemployment insurance because, in some remote manner, they are considered to be civil servants of the province of Ontario. In many cases their situation is different from that of other railway employees. I wonder if the minister would consider making a modification to this clause, and particularly to schedule A, so that the employees of the Ontario Northland railway and this company would be able to continue their negotiations on a provincial basis.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, clause 3 gives the opportunity to the Ontario Northland railway and its employees, if they so wish, to arrive at a collective agreement. They would then come out from under this bill.


William Arnold Peters: Before this clause carries, may I ask if the minister has made this suggestion to these employees? I notice there are others with which I am not immediately concerned, such as the Algoma Central, for instance.
Have these companies and their employees been informed that they are not bound by this bill to the same extent as the employees of the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific?


Michael Starr: I think they are well aware of this fact. But I think the hon. member would find that the men involved would rather bargain as one unit on behalf of all the employees with all the railways.


Jacques Flynn: Shall clause 2 carry?


Frank Howard: No, Mr. Chairman. I would ask for a recorded vote.
Clause agreed to: yeas, 80; nays, 27.
On clause 3-Collective agreements extended.


Frank Howard: This is the clause which my hon. friend asked me to read aloud but perhaps I should not take up the time of the committee at this stage by doing so. It is the one which the minister said made provision for new collective agreements to take place or for amended or revised agreements to take place between the parties. It is true that there is in it a reference to a new collective agreement or an amended collective agreement.
In connection with clause 3 I think we should consider this matter, as has been done on previous occasions. If we are going to abrogate the right of people in this country for, to put it graciously, a period of some months, as the Prime Minister said, surely we should think in terms of what some of the provisions in that collective agreement should be. That procedure was adopted on past occasions. It was something that was done in 1950. There was a great deal of dispute about that matter a while ago, as to just how this result came about and whether or not there was actual agreement at that time. It was done in 1958 with the 8 per cent wage rate increase, I believe. From memory I think it was 8 per cent. I refer to the provision for an increase in the wages of the employees by virtue of the statute itself. I think this is the clause under which we should discuss that same sort of thing.
In the so-called Milvain report or the report of the conciliation board there are two or three provisions dealing with wages or various wage rate increases at various times throughout the year and there is one dealing with the question of vacations with pay. I think perhaps we should separate our consideration of the two matters and deal in terms of vacations with pay as a separate item from that of the wage rate increase. The Milvain report or the conciliation board report, in so far as the matter of vacations with pay is concerned, near the bottom of the report, recommended
416	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act that vacations with pay provisions be altered to provide for four weeks or 20 working days after 25 years of service. That is compared with what I think is now 35 years of service before one can reach that position where he has these vacations with pay.
It would be our thought that there should be attached to clause 3 a subparagraph or subsection which in effect would say that the recommendations of the conciliation board dealing with vacations with pay of four weeks or 20 working days after 25 years' service should be contained as a statutory provision. In fact, I have an amendment drafted to this effect, Mr. Chairman, but perhaps I will refrain from putting it forward in a formal way at the moment and go on to the question of the wage rate structure as recommended by the conciliation board.
From my personal point of view-and I am sure from that of many of the workmen themselves-I might say that in the long run the vacation with pay provision is far more important than is the wage increase.
I say this because vacations with pay are considered to be a sort of non-monetary item in the sense they are not a matter of direct wages and they are usually the most difficult things to negotiate for and in the negotiations they are the easiest things to hold on to in a collective agreement whereas wages are the easiest thing to bargain for and the easiest thing to give away. For these reasons-and I have others-I think that to make provision for extended vacations with pay recognizing long term service of employees is the only decent thing to do. I think perhaps these are extremely important provisions.
As to the recommendation in so far as a new two-year contract is concerned, may I say this. Incidentally, if it were in effect, one year of it would already have almost elapsed because it would have been entered into from January 1, 1960 and it would expire at the end of this year. In any event, the recommendation of the conciliation board is that there be two cents per hour increase in wages effective on the first day of January,
1960 and that there be an additional five cents an hour effective the first day of September, 1960 making at that time a seven-cent an hour increase compared with the present collective agreement and that there also be an additional increase of 4 per cent of wages which existed immediately prior to the first day of January, 1960 and to be effective on the first day of May, 1961.
In so far as the 4 per cent is concerned, it is computed on wages at the end of December of this year and shall become effective or is to become effective, according to

the recommendation, 15 days prior to the actual intended expiry date of this particular piece of legislation before us. In the desire not to trample upon the report of the royal commission which is expected about that same time and allowing the negotiations to be conducted from that time forward, based upon what might be in the royal commission's report, it certainly appears that the government wants to carry through its initial objective in this regard. In order to allow for this result to take place, perhaps we should allow the 4 per cent recommendation not to be contained within the statutory provision.
These employees have been negotiating for almost a year. The conciliation board recommended these amounts of money. It did not at that time, I am sure, expect that the Prime Minister and the government would interfere in matters and protract the period of negotiations into some time next spring.
In any event, I think the least we can do -the very least we can do-in consideration of what we are taking away in terms of rights and freedoms of the individual workman in this industry is to provide by statute -as has been the practice on the past two occasions that this has occurred-that they have four weeks' vacation with pay after 25 years of service, as recommended. Also, we should provide that they be paid two cents per hour effective January 1 this year, and an additional five cents per hour effective September 1 this year, as was recommended by the conciliation board.
I think this would be in keeping with whatever sense of appreciation we have left of the value that these people have in our economy, and would partially atone for that which we are taking away from them and denying them by virtue of this statute.
Therefore, I think we should add an additional clause to the bill, I would accordingly move, Mr. Chairman, that clause 3 be changed to subsection (1) and the following added as subsection (2), which would read:
The terms of each existing collective agreement are provisionally amended forthwith on the commencement of this act by increasing by two cents per hour each rate of wages established by or pursuant to the collective agreement effective from the first day of January, 1960, and by further increasing by an additional five cents per hour each rate of wages established by or pursuant to the collective agreement effective from the first day of September, 1960.
I must apologize, Mr. Chairman, to you and hon. members of the house for only having had the opportunity of making available two copies, one of which I have given to you, Mr. Chairman, and the other which

I have here if anyone would like to have it. I am sorry I have not additional copies available.
The essence of the amendment is that a new subsection would go into the bill. I cannot now read the amendment in detail because I have not got it with me. But the gist of it is that a new subsection would be added to clause 3 which would provide that the terms of the collective agreement would be provisionally amended to allow for a two cents per hour wage increase effective January 1, 1960, as recommended by the conciliation board, and there would be an additional five cents per hour increase effective September 1, 1960, as was also recommended by the conciliation board. I think, Mr. Chairman, that this is a separate item and should be considered as a separate item. It is the least we can do for the 110,000 employees whose rights have been abrogated at least for a period.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I have just read the proposed amendment to clause 3. It is in almost complete detail what was proposed by us in the meetings we had with the unions and the railway, in that we put forward for consideration a two cents per hour increase from January 1 to September 1, and an increase of five cents per hour from September 1, to see whether the parties would agree on that and then to go on further and negotiate on the recommendation of the conciliation board majority report. This was refused by both parties. Under the circumstances, Mr. Chairman, I have no alternative but to vote against this amendment.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I merely want to say that it is clear from the stand we have taken on this side of the house on second reading that we support an amendment of this kind. It does not go as far as we advocated on second reading, but it is a step in the right direction.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It should be pointed out, Mr. Chairman, that what is being asked for here by both opposition parties is that parliament should legislate an agreement that both parties to the dispute have said is unsatisfactory to them.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Justice is perfectly right in saying that we in this party are of the opinion that the government should put into this legislation something that will give some positive benefit to the railway workers. That is what we are asking. The Minister of Justice is absolutely right; that is the
90205-6-27J
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act position we are taking, and now the difference between those sitting on the treasury benches and ourselves has been clearly stated.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Labour has carefully placed before the committee the fact that the members of the government suggested the acceptance of this two cents per hour increase beginning on January 1, and five cents per hour increase beginning on September 1, and both sides refused.
I listened to the remarks a little while ago of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate. He wrapped round himself the garb of being the friend of labour and he endeavoured to lead the house to believe that we on this side were showing favour to the Canadian Pacific Railway. He used that demagogic expression that I was tender to the C.P.R. I seem to recall his attitude when certain legislation was passed not so very long ago in one of the provinces of Canada within the jurisdiction of that province which abrogated the rights of labour to a degree never before done in any province.


George Harris Hees: A Liberal premier.


John George Diefenbaker: I remember his attitude at that time, when he gave 100 per cent approval to the action taken by the legislature of the province of Newfoundland. He was not very much concerned about the rights of labour then.


An hon. Member:: You should have corrected it.


John George Diefenbaker: That legislation was within the jurisdiction of the province and there was no action that we could take constitutionally to deny the application of that legislation. Now the hon. member uses that expression that I know on reflection he would feel goes beyond anything that he might say under ordinary circumstances. It is not a question of friendship; it is not a question of tenderness; it is a question that we on this side of the house do not believe in compulsory arbitration.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This is not compulsory arbitration.


John George Diefenbaker: The official opposition is lining up exactly as it did in 1950 in forcing-


Peter Francis Martin: Nonsense.


John George Diefenbaker: -through parliament
compulsory arbitration.


Mr. Martin (Essex Easl):: This is not compulsory arbitration, and you know it.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not want-
4X8	HOUSE OF
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act


Paul Joseph James Martin: I say this is not compulsory arbitration, and no one knows it better than the Prime Minister.


John George Diefenbaker: I am not going to get annoyed tonight-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: You do at times.


John George Diefenbaker: -because I would be forced to say words of adulation or fulsome praise of the hon. member for Essex East.
I do not want to take the chance, because I was reading the Globe and Mail the other night-


Peter Francis Martin: Do not be afraid to deal with it.


John George Diefenbaker: -and I noticed that when fulsome praise is directed at the hon. member for Essex East he writhes with embarrassment.
This was in a write-up a couple of weeks ago, and I do not want to make-


Peter Francis Martin: I do not care what you say about that, but this is not compulsory arbitration.


Mr, Pearson:: Do not manipulate the facts.


George Harris Hees: You are in favour of compulsory arbitration; you said so this evening.


John George Diefenbaker: Therefore I am not going to praise the hon. member for Essex East for the fine things he has done throughout the years on behalf of labour and otherwise -as he tells it.
I rose to say, before I was interrupted in what, for the hon. gentleman, was a rather unseemly manner, that what is being asked under the specious guise of doing something on behalf of these employees of the railways is to bring directly into parliament the contractual relations between labour and management; to impose through parliament terms under a collective agreement, or, in other words, to bring about compulsory arbitration by act of parliament.


Peter Francis Martin: That is precisely what you did in 1958. Why this mirage?


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentleman has not read the legislation of 1958. Provision was made for a continuation of the conciliation procedure. An administrator was appointed. Then there was a provision-and all members in this house voted for it-that in the event there was no agreement arrived at the arbitrator should fix the terms and those terms should be final and applicable. I say that this specious manner of approach-and I am not speaking of the insincerity of the hon. gentleman in any way, I am just speaking of the manner of approach-simply


amounts to a method of bringing about compulsory arbitration, the very thing labour across Canada does not want and against which in 1950 this party, when in opposition, took the strongest objection when it was forced on parliament by the present official opposition. We take the same stand this time in reference to this matter. If parliament at this moment should write into this bill compulsory terms, that would be the end of conciliation procedure in this country.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did not interrupt the Prime Minister but I wish now to speak on a question of privilege. Because he was apparently irritated by something I had said the Prime Minister allowed himself to be totally irrelevant and to make certain observations about me which had nothing to do with the legislation before us. In the first place he said I have put about myself a cloak as a friend of labour. I have never done that in my life. I consider I am a representative of all my constituents and that I have an equal duty to all the citizens of Canada no matter what their calling may be.
In the case to which the right hon. gentleman referred, in the case where it was a matter of upholding law and order in this country, I have no apology to make, and in this case where I am standing for justice for a group of people unjustly treated I also have no apology to make.


Jacques Flynn: Shall I put the amendment?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No.


Jacques Flynn: I am not closing the debate. The amendment has got to be put by the Chair.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Then why did the Prime Minister speak?


Jacques Flynn: Others beside the Prime Minister spoke before I had a chance to put the amendment and I was waiting to see if any point would be raised concerning it. I do not think any complaint like that would be justified.


Frank Howard: I listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks of the Minister of Justice, of the Minister of Labour and of the Prime Minister of the Canadian Pacific Railway in this particular instance-the Prime Minister of Canada-and really the arguments advanced were nothing more than words.
The Minister of Labour and the Minister of Justice apparently hide behind some agreement or disagreement which existed when they were in company with the negotiating teams of each side. They said that the two parties at that time had rejected the suggestions which, I take it, the Minister of

Labour said he recommended to them, and because they disagreed at that time the hon. gentlemen intends to disagree now. On the other hand, he forces these employees to forget any thought of collective bargaining and give up their rights and freedoms whether they like it or not. Apparently it does not matter to the Minister of Labour what the employees think. He is only concerned with what the C.P.R. thinks and what Mr. Crump thinks who would like nothing better than to see a strike in the railway industry in order to have a test of strength.


An hon. Member:: And so would you.


Frank Howard: Oh, no. Don't kid yourself there. Don't speak falsehoods in parliament. The Minister of Labour is apparently concerned about not wanting to give even one red penny to the workers-


Some hon. Members:: Red.


Frank Howard: You know, Mr. Chairman, I have said it once before and perhaps I will say it again. All this chortling on the other side reminds me of a herd of braying asses. I have been sitting now with some 200 of you for the past few years.
The minister is concerned about not giving one red penny to them but he is concerned about taking from them their rights and freedoms. As far as bringing wage rates into the House of Commons is concerned, the Prime Minister is the one who brought them in in the first place because he is the one who, through the Minister of Labour, brought this bill before us, this bill which says: your rights and freedoms in connection with your collective bargaining process no longer exist, we are altering the terms of your collective agreement and saying that the agreement is going to expire at a time when we decide.
I contend that the Prime Minister is compelling the unions and management to have a collective agreement that expires at a certain date. This is forcing people to accept a provision in the collective agreement, namely an expiry date. The legislation of 1958 contained a provision of that nature compelling certain people to do certain things. This compels certain people to do certain things, forces them to do them, forces wage adjustments upon them.
The fact of the matter is that this government brought it in. I do not like any more than the Prime Minister says he does not like the question of thinking in terms of compulsory arbitration compelling people to do things. The only reason I introduced this amendment at this time is that the government asked for it. The government introduced the bill in the first place compelling people to change a condition in a collective agreement which they may not want changed.
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act The government did not ask the workmen if they wanted to agree to this but it was forced upon them. I have no sympathy for this kind of double talk. The amendment was introduced to show that the least parliament can do if it has any conscience at all is to say that people are entitled to some small consideration.
This was recommended by the conciliation board. The fact that both parties rejected it is only an indication that the Minister of Labour is a poor mediator. He could not get them to agree four or five days ago and he has no right to ask us to agree to this now.
Hon. members opposite used words such as "speciousness" in an attempt by inference to cast reflections upon attitudes and approaches. We know that most hon. members opposite are adept at this and have had years of training but when they use these tactics to gloss over their own shortcomings and salve their own consciences it is a sad day for parliament.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. member a question about his amendment. As I heard it read I certainly believe that it deserves support. I want to ask the hon. gentleman if he has given consideration to all aspects of it. For instance, what about the additional 4 per cent of those wages prevailing on December 1, 1959? The hon. member and those who sit in this party have the same objective but in order to be sure that we understand how we arrive at the same decision I want to ask if the hon. member has given consideration to that.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The blind leading the blind.


Frank Howard: My hon. friend with his coloured glasses would not be able to lead anyone.


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: The hon. member is looking through red glasses.


Frank Howard: Here again we have an interjection by my hon. friend who claimed last session that he was not a communist.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You are the one who
claims to be one.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, on a question of personal privilege I ask the hon. member to withdraw that allegation.


An hon. Member:: Why? It is the truth.


Jacques Flynn: Order. The hon. member for Skeena has raised a question of privilege.
I will hear the hon. member for Acadia.


Mr. Drysdale:: It is a recognized party in Canada.

Maintenance of Railway Operation Act


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, I may or may not have understood the hon. member correctly but I thought he claimed to be a communist. Whether or not I misinterpreted his remarks I do not know but that is how I interpreted them.


George Harris Hees: The hon. member has his answer.


John Whitney Pickersgill: This is the party of the bill of rights.


Jacques Flynn: The way I understand the incident the hon. member for Acadia did not say the hon. member was a communist but that the hon. member claims to be one.


Lionel Chevrier: That is not what he said earlier.


Jacques Flynn: Unless my memory has lapsed I heard the hon. member for Acadia say that the hon. member for Skeena claims to be a communist so the hon. member for Acadia imputed a declaration to the hon. member for Skeena and the hon. member for Skeena denied it. Of course, the hon. member for Acadia must accept the explanation of the hon. member for Skeena.


Frank Howard: I may have to accept it but let me say this. The hon. member knew full well when he made the statement it was not correct because he and I got into a similar hassle last session when the hon. member was not in his chair but was sitting across the aisle from here. I declared then that it was not true. I used unparliamentary language and recognizing that immediately, I withdrew it. My hon. friend now proceeds on this false basis. I will not go further. If he does not want to withdraw that remark, that is his problem, not mine. If he is not gentleman enough to apologize and withdraw it I am not concerned about it.
Returning to the question raised by the hon. member for Essex East as to why the 4 per cent recommendation of the Milvain report is not included, there are a number of reasons for this. As I understand it, if we moved an amendment containing reference to the two cents, the five cents and the 4 per cent we know full well the government would defeat it on the basis of all indications and that would prevent us from moving any part of it as a further amendment. In other words, we could not move backwards so we are doing it piece by piece. That is why it is not lumped together. That is also the reason why we left out a reference to vacations with pay. If it were included it would prevent our moving an amendment to that effect at a subsequent time.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is evident that my hon. friend wants three votes when one would do, is that not it?


Frank Howard: That comment reveals that the Minister of Justice has a closed mind on this matter. He will vote against every amendment without considering the arguments advanced.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Coming from the hon. gentleman I do not have to think very far before knowing whether they are right.


Frank Howard: I am the first to admit to the minister through you, Mr. Chairman, that my arguments could not convince him, but there are other hon. members in this chamber equal in stature and ability to the minister who might be able to convince him if he did not have a closed mind.


Mr. MacLellan:: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me what the hon. member is asking us to do is set the wages of the workers in industry by act of parliament. I should like to ask him if he knows of any country where that is done other than Russia?


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, the page just handed me my Hansard sheets and I did not hear the full question.


Robert Simpson MacLellan: Mr. Chairman, my question to the hon. gentleman was this. I suggested to the hon. member that what he is asking us to do by this amendment is to set the wages of the workers in industry by act of parliament. I asked him if he knew of any country other than Russia where this is done? I refer to setting the actual wage scale of the workers in industry by act of parliament.


Frank Howard: Yes, it is being done right here in Canada at the moment by the Minister of Labour, by virtue of this bill and he is setting the wages at the pre-1960 level. We are only trying to increase them. Where does this occur? In any country where you have a government like this that thinks the same way as the people in Russia do.
I made reference to the action of the government in 1958 in relation to the British Columbia coast steamship service when this government introduced legislation to establish wage rates, increasing by 8 per cent, I believe. I will see if I can find the reference quickly.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Oh, do not be in a hurry.


Frank Howard: I refer to chapter 7 of the Statutes of Canada 1958, subsection 2 of section 4, which reads as follows:
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.

That is where I got the wording of this amendment. This is the place where that type of thing is done, in this parliament.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the Minister of Labour this question? What is the date of the commencement of these agreements under clause 3? There is no mention of the date. I should like to know when they begin and when they end.


Michael Starr: The commencement of the extension of these collective agreements will be upon the proclamation of this act.


Lionel Chevrier: That was not the question. When did the agreements begin, the agreements that the brotherhood have entered into with the railways?


Michael Starr: They run from January 1, 1948 to December 31, 1959.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is a fact that the agreements have already expired?


Michael Starr: They expired on December 31, 1959. No new agreements have been signed as yet. Negotiations, of course, have been going along. All we are doing is extending the collective agreements from December 31, 1959, to May 15, 1961.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The Prime Minister will be very interested now to realize that by legislation he is imposing a collective agreement.


John George Diefenbaker: Not at all.


Lester Bowles Pearson: They expired a year ago.


John Whitney Pickersgill: They expired a year ago.


Edmund Davie Fulton: They are still operating under it.


Lionel Chevrier: That does not matter; you are legislating.
Amendment (Mr. Howard) negatived: Yeas, 24; nays, 92.


Frank Howard: As I indicated, perhaps we should put this on the record as proposals to indicate what sort of negative type government we have on the other side. This deals with vacations with pay. Without going into details, may I say that the conciliation board were unanimous in this regard. The arguments on this are the same as they were in the other amendment. I am sure when the government argues against it their arguments will be substantially the same as they were on the amendment just defeated, as I understand the exchange between the hon. member for Essex East and the Minister of Labour, with the exception that this has to do with what was in effect a unanimous decision of the members of the conciliation board; that is to say the company representative agreed also on this question of vacation
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act of four weeks with pay after 25 years' service. It would seem, then, that this is something that the parties in effect have agreed upon. If that is the case, then we should put it into effect. In any event, I move:
That clause 3 be changed by adding "(1)" after "3" and by adding as subsection 2:
(2) "The terms of each collective agreement are provisionally amended forthwith on the commencement of this act by altering the vacations with pay provisions to provide for four weeks, or 20 working days, vacation with pay for each employee with 25 years of service."
Amendment (Mr. Howard) negatived: Yeas, 26; nays, 88.


Jacques Flynn: I declare the amendment lost. Shall clause 3 carry ?


Mr. Mcllraiih:: Mr. Chairman, in clause 3, as I read the first part of it I find the following:
The term of each existing collective agreement is extended-*
And so on. The existing collective agreement is defined in clause 2 of the bill, so that there is no doubt as to the identity of the agreements which are referred to in the clause. But the point arises here that the language is quite misleading in its implications because the use of the word "existing" in the context of clause 3 would seem to indicate that there are at the present time collective agreements in being and there are no collective agreements in being. According to the answer given by the Minister of Labour a few moments ago, the collective agreements expired at the end of December, 1959. While there is no doubt about the identity of the agreements referred to, the language used in this context is misleading to anyone not understanding these facts.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, we have defined them as existing collective agreements in clause 2 (a).


George James McIlraith: That was the whole point of my statement; you have defined agreements that have been in existence. All I am saying now is that these agreements are not in being now and you have persisted in the error in clause 3 and by the persistence in the misuse of the language you will mislead people who will be reading the bill.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Was this clause referred to the Department of Justice for an opinion, because surely there is merit in the argument put forward by the hon. member for Ottawa West? The term "existing collective agreement" is defined, of course, in clause 2 (a) of the interpretation clause but that has no effect whatever if the agreements are not in fact in existence legally. Will the
422	HOUSE OF
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act Minister of Labour explain this to us in a manner so that we will be sure the rights of the workers, at least to this extent, are protected?


Michael Starr: We had the opinion of the deputy minister of justice, who gave his legal advice and who actually drafted this legislation.


William Moore Benidickson: That may be so but when the question came up as to whether or not there were, in fact, existing agreements, irrespective of any definition in the bill, we saw the minister consult his official who sits in front of him and the official obviously shook his head and said no, there is no existing agreement. Notwithstanding that we find the agreement called an existing agreement in the language of the bill.


Jacques Flynn: Shall clause 3 carry?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, just a minute, Mr. Chairman.


Jacques Flynn: Shall clause 3 carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, I wanted to comment on the observation made a few minutes ago by the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond. The hon. member for Inverness-Richmond asked the hon. member for Skeena a question, I do not know whether or not it was intended to be rhetorical, but the question was, was there any other country except Russia where wage scales and rates of pay were imposed by legislation. That is precisely what the government is asking us to do in clause 3 of this bill, let there be no mistake about that.
We have been told by the Minister of Labour that these agreements expired on December 31, 1959. We have been told over and over again by the minister that the parties would not agree to the continuance of these agreements. It may very well be that according to law and according to the agreements they do, in fact, continue in effect until such time as a new agreement is made. This may very well be a fact. However, the agreements were only made up to December 31, 1959; that was the only period during which there was any agreement. What we are now doing or what the government is trying to make us do is impose this by legislation which, as the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond said, is only done in Russia. Let there be no mistake about that.
I would not have brought up this kind of argument. I think it is the kind of argument that should not be brought up in this house at all. Since the hon. gentleman, a supporter of the government, brought it up I think we had better call facts facts and recognize what we are doing.


Robert Simpson MacLellan: As I understand it the collective agreement has been kept alive by


the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, as it does in all these cases and as this bill intends to do. What is provided by this bill is a postponement of the strike in the hope that the parties will reach an agreement. The opposition would go much farther, to use their own expression, than compulsory arbitration, if they want to stand by that. They would go much farther in the proposed amendment by providing that not only should arbitration be compulsory but, more than that, wage rates should be set by parliament. It seems to me that is a new departure in industrial relations.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend, of course, has used loosely the phrase "compulsory arbitration". This does not involve in any way the application of the principle of compulsory arbitration, notwithstanding the observations made by the Prime Minister. As the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has properly pointed out, this particular legislation does what my hon. friend, by his question, implied was done only in Russia. This legislation does provide for the payment of wages to the railway workers concerned, and what it does in that regard is to determine by law that those wages shall continue at levels which the board has held are not reasonable and are below the standard set in the case of the durable goods industry.
When my hon. friend complains about us seeking to fix wages, that is precisely what we have done. We are doing the same thing as this bill does, only we are seeking to make sure that the wages are at a level that is consistent with what the board considers just and reasonable in the circumstances.


Robert Simpson MacLellan: I think this is a very important point. In the first place, it is a well established principle and has been for many years that parliament has the authority to ask labour and management, when they cannot come to an agreement, to postpone a strike or a lockout while they negotiate. This principle has been long established. This is what we are asking for in this bill, that they do postpone the strike a little longer. The opposition is suggesting this evening, not just an extension of the principle of postponing the right to strike but that an actual agreement should be written by this parliament for the workers in a private industry. Personally, I never heard the likes of it before.


An hon. Member:: That is exactly what is being done here.


Robert Simpson MacLellan: This is a principle we have had for many years, that parliament may ask the parties to a labour dispute to postpone a strike or lockout while they negotiate further. This has been an accepted principle for many

years. What the opposition is suggesting we do in this parliament is to write the actual wages that should be paid to the workers in an industry. By the same token we could do the same in the steel industry or the automobile industry or any other industry. If we do that the first thing we know we will have the principle of socialism that all wages and profits are fixed here in parliament.


William Moore Benidickson: The hon. member who has just spoken has made reference to his pious hopes that the result of the passage of this bill will be to encourage the parties to negotiate. I suggest to my hon. friend that this bill does the very opposite. There is nothing to make sure that any negotiations will take place until after May 15. This bill is so onesided; it takes a stand-pat position which is exactly the position taken by the companies and makes sure there will be no negotiations between the parties until after May 15.


Frank Howard: If I understood correctly, the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond stated that it is a well established principle for parliament to ask the parties to postpone their negotiations for some considerable period. I want him to reiterate what he said.


Robert Simpson MacLellan: I have referred very simply to the well established principle as contained in any industrial disputes act, whereby a process of negotiation and conciliation is required by the act. Any act that does require that process postpones the right to strike. The bill before us today is merely an extension of that same principle, not the new principle suggested by the hon. member for Skeena by which an agreement should be written in parliament under which men would work. That is a completely different principle.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to ask the hon. member a question for purposes of clarification. I was not sure that I completely understood the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond and I do not want to be unjust to him. I understood the hon. member to say that parliament has frequently intervened in the disputes in order to postpone a strike.


An hon. Member:: No. He never said that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I cannot recall-and I should be glad if the hon. member could tell me of one-a single statute of this parliament that has ever postponed a specific dispute and legislated the status quo.


An hon. Member:: He never said that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If that is not what the hon. member said, all he needs to say is that he did not say it. However, that is what we are being asked to do now.
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act


Robert Simpson MacLellan: The hon. member for
Bonavista-Twillingate seems to have completely misunderstood me. What I said was this. In the ordinary course, in every province of Canada, and in the Dominion of Canada under the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, the parliaments of the provinces and the parliament of the nation have postponed the right to strike by requiring conciliation and negotiation before a strike or lockout. That is a familiar principle. The bill before us is an extension of it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is what happened.


Mr.   McLellan@: I refer to no specific strike. I said that all strikes are postponed by industrial disputes acts.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I do not know whether it is proper to suggest that we might possibly consider returning to common sense in this matter. There is no doubt whatever as to what this clause was intended to mean. I want to read it in order to see whether it does not cover what is the clear intention. I repeat no one seriously doubts what the intention is. I now read clause 2(a):
2.	In this Act,
(a) "existing collective agreement" means a collective agreement between any railway company and any union that was made effective on the 1st day of January, 1958, more particularly described in the master agreement entered into on the 26th day of November, 1958, between the railway companies and their non-operating employees represented by the unions;
It is perfectly clear that that is the agreement which was made on the first day of January, 1958. When we come to clause 3 we find that it states as follows:
3.	Subject to this Act, the term of each existing collective agreement is extended-
And so on. "Existing collective agreement" as described in clause 2, is I submit, clearly this agreement of January 1, 1958.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We are all agreed on that point.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I repeat the intention is clear, and I believe that it could be strongly argued that the wording also is clear.


Mr. Hanbidge:: I wonder whether the attention of the leader of the official opposition has been drawn to the fact that the unity of his party has been somewhat disrupted? From the national view at eight o'clock tonight I understand that in Regina the leader of the Liberal party in Saskatchewan is supporting the government in this bill and absolutely disagreeing with the official opposition.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I wish to thank my hon. friend for his sole contribution to this debate.
424	HOUSE OF
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act


Frank Howard: Coming as I do from British Columbia I may be able to give a bit of enlightenment in this regard. In British Columbia, from 1941 until 1952, a period of slightly more than 11 years, the Liberals and the Conservatives were in the same bed together in a coalition government. It is not surprising that in Saskatchewan they do something like that.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 4-Railway companies to resume and continue railway operations.
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman-


Michael Starr: Before the hon. member for Assiniboia takes the floor I am going to ask my colleague the Minister of Justice to move an amendment to clause 4.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It has been brought to the attention of my colleague the Minister of Labour that there might be some uncertainty as to whether the notices given by the railway companies were notices of lay-off or notices of dismissal. It has been suggested that in some cases the form of notice was a notice of dismissal rather than a lay-off in anticipation of a strike. We therefore consider that it is desirable to amend clause 4, subclause 2 in order to include the words "or discharged" so that the clause would read as follows:
(2) Every railway company shall reinstate every employee who was laid off or discharged since the 1st day of November, I960,-
And so on. It will also be noted, Mr. Chairman, that although the railway companies are obliged by subclause 1 to resume operations forthwith, there is no similar obligation as subclause 2 now stands, to reinstate employees forthwith. It is therefore intended to amend subclause 2 to add the word "forthwith" immediately after the word "shall" in line 17 so that the clause would then read as follows:
(2) Every railway company shall forthwith reinstate every employee who was laid off or discharged since the 1st day of November, 1960, by reason of a curtailment or discontinuance of any of the operations of the company in anticipation of a strike by the employees of the company.
On behalf of my colleague the Minister of Labour I so move.


Hazen Robert Argue: I have an amendment that I wish to make to this clause, Mr. Chairman, but in view of the fact that there is now an amendment before the committee I will defer my remarks until this amendment is dealt with.


William Moore Benidickson: In connection with the clause as amended may I say this? I think that apprehension is entertained, not that there might be some difficulty in having 

rehiring in accordance with the law as it will appear but rather as to whether the law will be nullified or avoided by an early subsequent discharge of those laid off. I wonder whether the Minister of Labour has noticed the press concern on this point and whether he would indicate to what extent he thinks that sort of thing can be prevented.
We are all aware of the facts that as to rail jobs today 14,000 or 15,000 lay-offs have taken place over an extremely short period of time. That information was presented to the government's conference on unemployment in October. Railway jobs have plummeted to new lows for the twentieth century. The concern felt is to what extent those who were ostensibly laid off in anticipation of a strike or in connection with whom that excuse was used might be assured of retaining their jobs. They might in fact be rehired but their concern is this. What assurance does the Minister of Labour offer that they will not, within a very short period thereafter, be laid off or discharged?


Jacques Flynn: Do I understand that the hon. member has been speaking on the clause as amended or that it has been carried?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The amendment.


Jacques Flynn: The hon. member said that he would like to make some remarks on the clause as amended.


William Moore Benidickson: I should have said on the clause as it will appear after amendment.


Jacques Flynn: The hon. member was speaking on the amendment.


Léon Balcer: Perhaps I can answer for the Minister of Labour on this matter. As the house may have noticed these last few days since these discussions have been going on in Ottawa and Montreal, many times I have been asked questions about this matter of lay-offs. Every time I immediately inquired of the management of the Canadian National Railways about every matter that was mentioned in the house. I have been very glad to report that these various reports made in the house have been mostly exaggerated.
For example, at noon today the hon. member for Assiniboia read a telegram to the house from a Mr. Abbott of Moncton saying that 124 employees had been laid off. I am glad to report to the house that after inquiring from the management I received the assurance that the management had made an inquiry and this telegram was not according to the facts; there had been no lay-off of 124 men.
As far as the C.N.R. is concerned, I can tell the committee that the company has already given an indication that it will carry out the provisions of clause 4 (2) of this bill

to the letter. To that effect the president of the Canadian National Railways has sent instructions-


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Who is the president of the C.N.R. now?


Léon Balcer: -to railway superintendents as follows, after reciting section 4 of the bill:
In the light of the introduction of this legislation I wish you to issue instructions to the appropriate supervisory officers that employees laid off because of the falling-off of traffic in consequence of the anticipated rail strike on December 3 are to be restored to their normal service. It is my desire that there should be no doubt that the legislation as drafted will be implemented strictly by the Canadian National Railways.
Yesterday, Mr. Chairman, many members brought to the notice of the house the declaration of union leaders who said they were going to observe the law. That is a very gratifying statement. We are sure that the unions will observe the law; they are law-abiding citizens. I think we can say the same thing of the management of the two railways, that the law will be observed to the letter. The C.N.R., as I have said, has already sent this notice to various superintendents all along the line, and this was done immediately after the first reading of this bill in the house.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I have listened to what the minister has said and I have no doubt that his intentions are good. But the fact is that this bill contains no positive provision in favour of the employees except these generalities contained in subsection (2).
Anyone who has been dismissed, or is not employed by the railroad because he was laid off since November 1, will undoubtedly be reinstated under this bill. But there is no guarantee that his period of employment will be beyond a particular, definite period, even for more than one day. I believe there should be a provision in this bill that will give the government some responsibility to see that the provisions of subsection (2) are observed.
At the appropriate time-and I invite the minister to give consideration to this-I will move that clause 4 be amended by the addition of the following words as another subsection, subsection (3) of clause 4:
(3) Every railway company shall show cause before an arbitrator appointed by the Minister of Labour for failure to reinstate every employee laid off in circumstances outlined in subsection (2).
Only in that way will there be any guarantee, and even then the guarantee will not be airtight. But there is no more effective means at our disposal that I am aware of. Anyone who is familiar with strikes or with 90205-6-281
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act situations involving dispute between labour and management will confirm my statement that there are employees who are always the victims because of their participation in strikes; and undoubtedly that is the situation in this particular instance.
I ask the minister if he does not think that the amendment which I propose to move at the appropriate time is one that strengthens this provision and provides for the inadequacy that exists in it.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, I must say that I am extremely surprised to hear the hon. member for Essex East tell this house that he thinks the railroad companies will not obey the law and will break these provisions.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is not what I
said.


Léon Balcer: That is exactly what the hon. member said.


An hon. Member:: Yes, it is.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I want to make sure that these men are protected. That is what we want.


Léon Balcer: These men are going to be protected by clause 2, and I think that is absolutely clear. Of course, we cannot tell the railroad that it should employ a certain number of people if it does not need them on account of the curtailment of traffic. The management has to carry on the business of the company in an economic fashion and in a business like way. We cannot expect them to keep people on their payroll for whom there is absolutely no work.
But as far as persecution is concerned- as the hon. member has mentioned-I am convinced that the employees are very well protected by clause 2, and I do not-


Paul Joseph James Martin: They are not protected at all.


Léon Balcer: I am convinced that the management of the railroad will observe the law to the letter.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister a question? Is it a fact that the curtailment to which he has referred has been at the rate of 3,000 employees per year since his government has been in office?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, I have not seen the latest figures and therefore I cannot comment on that matter. But I will take the word of the hon. member. It is quite possible, because the railroads have been experiencing some pretty difficult times recently and-as was brought to the attention of the house earlier-the revenue of the C.N.R. has been in difficulties. Of course, that is because
426	HOUSE OF
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act the traffic has been slow, and when the traffic becomes slow unfortunately men have to be laid off.
However, I am convinced-and this government will never tolerate action of this sort-that the management of the C.N.R. will persecute none of its employees just on account of labour troubles. We will never stand for that; the house can be absolutely certain of that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is not good enough.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, since I raised this question of the reinstatement of persons who have been laid off because of the falling off in traffic I want to say to the minister that I appreciate the statement that he has made and I appreciate the fact that some progress is being made with regard to the reinstatement of employees who have been laid off.
When I endeavoured shortly after 2.30 this afternoon to read the telegram to which the minister referred, the Speaker advised me that the question might better be raised when the house was in committee. For the benefit of the government and the members of this committee I should like to read the contents of the telegram which was sent to me by Mr. L. K. Abbott, the general chairman of the Canadian brotherhood of railway transport and general workers. It is headed, Moncton, New Brunswick, and it reads:
News reports here indicate local railway officers say 124 employees who were given lay-off notices would not be rehired unless traffic increased. Presidents both railways and other officers publicly stated these notices had bearing on strike action of unions. Apparently their position is reversed indicating careless statements to suit a given situation which in this case would debar rehiring of employees. Legislation proposes wage freeze and postponement of strike but apparently loose enough to permit lay-off of employees. Opinion employees here you can't have one without the other and respectfully urge urgent decision by government instructing railways rehire all laid-off employees and maintain their employment regardless.
The minister said instructions had gone out to rehire employees who had been laid off in anticipation of the strike and added that according to his information the contents of this telegram were not entirely accurate. I ask the minister this question: can he assure the committee that the 124 individual employees referred to in this telegram will, in fact, be rehired and reinstated? The hon. gentleman does not need to answer the question right now; he can answer it when I sit down.
[Mr. Balcer.)

The minister bums with indignation that one should doubt or question the statement by the president of the C.N.R. that all persons who have been laid off will be rehired but, after all, what he has read is an instruction from the president of the company and while it is helpful it is still no absolute guarantee to any individual employee that he will in fact be reinstated. The minister himself has said the question is complicated by the fact that traffic was falling off anyway, irrespective of a decline in traffic in anticipation of a railway strike. How is one to determine whether the employees laid off as from November 1 were laid off because of a general decrease in traffic which had nothing to do with the strike, or whether they were laid off because of a decrease in traffic in anticipation of a strike? I think this puts the management in a very strong position if they wish to lay off employees wholesale and do so on the basis that there was a normal falling off of traffic which had nothing to do with any anticipation of a rail strike. Who decides? How can a person say that he was laid off because of anticipation of a strike rather than because of a normal decline in traffic?
The amendment I had hoped to move would have led to the deletion from line 17 of all the words after the figure 1960. Then there would be no doubt whatsoever; it would be assumed that any employee who had been dismissed later than November 1 had been laid off in anticipation of a strike. Admittedly this would lead to the reinstatement of some employees who would have been laid off anyway in the normal course of events, but I suggest that when the jobs of many workers across this country are involved, any error that is made should be made in favour of the employees and that the employees should not be placed at the mercy of railway management even if the railway management has the intention, which I do not question, as spelled out by the president in the words placed on the record tonight.
I realize, as I say, that the adoption of this proposal might lead to the reinstatement of a handful of employees who might normally have been laid off anyway, but this proposal would remove from the minds of the employees any doubt whatsoever that the companies had taken advantage of a national emergency to discriminate against them. I ask the minister to consider this proposal. If I move it, and a vote is taken and it is defeated, we shall have an argument and a case on the record, but that will not be of much help to the employees. But if the minister and his colleagues can see the merits of the argument and introduce the proposal themselves it would make me much happier

than if the amendment were introduced from this corner only for it to be defeated in the committee.


Mr. Creaghan:: Mr. Chairman, I think I can perhaps throw some light on this subject. In my opinion in this case the management is probably a bit confused. A week ago today, last Friday, 82 men in Moncton got notice of discharge. None of these 82 men were to report to work on Monday morning of this week. The statement just announced by the minister means that once this bill is passed those 82 men will be reinstated forthwith.
The amendment introduced by the Minister of Justice is one which should be very well received by all junior men employed in the railways and by all those who have been laid off since November 1. I think it is fair for us to assume that the lay-offs which took place on Monday, the 82, were all made in anticipation of this strike. I have received telegrams from Mr. L. K. Abbott, and others, and the figure he used when he sent his telegram to the leader of the C.C.F. party suggests that 124 men were laid off in the Moncton area. He should have used the figure of 82 with regard to the Moncton area and the figure of 124 with regard to New Brunswick. In New Brunswick 124 men got notices, but they are not all workers in the Moncton area. That is what probably caused this confusion, and that is why the management gave the information which they recently gave to the Minister of Transport.
In conclusion I want to urge the Minister of Transport and the government to force the management of both railways during the period when this bill is operative, up to' May 15 if necessary, and particularly the management of the C.N.R. over which we have control, to place a very generous interpretation upon clause 4 and insist that management now curtail the habit of piecemeal dismissals for all reasons including that of anticipation of a strike.
Amendment (Mr. Fulton) agreed to.


Hazen Robert Argue: Failing a response from the minister in connection with the proposition I made, I should like to move:
That paragraph (2) of clause 4 be amended by deleting all the words after "1960" in line 17.
Amendment (Mr. Argue) negatived: Yeas, 24; nays, 85.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, for the reasons I have already stated I feel I must offer an amendment to this clause. I must say that the response of the Minister of Transport does not satisfy me. It is not a question of whether the management of the railroad is going to deliberately flaunt the law. One knows that in circumstances like
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act this men do lose their positions because of the attitudes taken by their immediate supervisors and not necessarily the management as a whole. Anyone who has had anything to do with this situation knows it is not possible to simply rely on the assurance given by the Minister of Transport, not that we do not credit the hon. gentleman with the fullest sincerity, but this kind of reliance in the circumstances is not satisfactory. I therefore move that clause 4 be amended by the following words as subclause (3) of clause 4:
(3) Every railway company shall show cause before an arbitrator appointed by the Minister of Labour for failure to reinstate every employee laid off in circumstances outlined in subsection (2).
I would hope that this measure would win the support of the treasury because it is fully consistent with the declared principles of the bill of rights passed in the last session of parliament.


Frank Howard: One question, if I may. Will it include those laid off and discharged?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, I will cover that later.


Mr. Broome:: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question of the minister. Is this proposal not taken care of by regular grievance procedure of the unions?


Paul Joseph James Martin: We want adequate safeguards.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who just spoke has raised a very good point. There is no doubt about it, this would be a formula.
Speaking on this amendment, it is clear that in effect it deals with the breaking of the law by the company, more or less. That is certainly what it means.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Oh, no.


Léon Balcer: This amendment says that
every railway company shall show cause before an arbitrator appointed by the Minister of Labour when the law has been broken, as it were, as set out in subclause 2 of clause 4. Subclause 2 is very clear. It makes it an offence for a railway company not to reinstate an employee who has been laid off or discharged since November 1 by reason of curtailment or discontinuance of any of the operations of the company.
Any company that does anything stated in this clause is breaking the law. What the hon. member seeks by this amendment is simply to say that railway companies shall come before an arbitrator and explain the reason why they are breaking the law. I think the amendment is superfluous. Subclause 2 is a very good guarantee.
428	HOUSE OF
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act
As far as lay-offs are concerned, the laying off of any employees who have been rehired for a few days or weeks and laid off again where there is any question of persecution, as I said before, this government will never tolerate anything like that and will keep a keen eye on the situation.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am afraid the minister has greater faith in human nature than his experience in this department will ultimately warrant. No one suggests there is any doubt about the meaning of subclause 2 which provides that every railroad company shall reinstate every employee who is laid off or discharged, etc. That is very clear but the clause has no sanctions whatever.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Oh, it has.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It contains no means of enforcing the directive provided for in the subclause. It simply says that every railroad company shall reinstate every employee, etc.
We want to put into this bill some teeth by which that particular directive will be carried out without question. We feel this is one way it can be done. My hon. friend referred to the grievance procedure. That would not really help. That would simply involve one who is out of work having an appeal made on his behalf by someone who is engaged in the railway addressed to a particular officer in the railway company, one of the very interested parties.
Where an individual has lost his job and has not been reinstated in accordance with this particular subclause, we are asking the minister to consider having the railway company go before an arbitrator selected by the minister and not by the company and to explain the failure to reinstate the employee laid off or discharged. That is what we are asking. The minister is prepared to accept the good faith of all concerned in the situation; we are not.
This is not a question of anyone deliberately breaking the law, but there are many reasons, and there are complications in a situation like this. It should not be entrusted merely to the statement that there is an obligation to reinstate employees under particular circumstances. I believe that if the minister thinks the proposal is a good one -and he has said that-then it should be readily accepted for the reasons I put forward.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I point out to the hon. member that this bill was carefully drafted with the provisions of the relevant existing law in mind. This imposes on the company a statutory obligation to reinstate every employee laid off or discharged.


My hon. friend says that there is no sanction behind it. May I remind him of the provision of the Criminal Code which makes it an offence for anybody not to comply with a statutory obligation. There is a general provision of the Criminal Code, and a company which refused or failed to reinstate an employee who is entitled to reinstatement would be subject to the sanction contained in the Criminal Code. I suggest to hon. members that quite apart from the fact that I do not believe the companies will defy the law-I am satisfied they will obey it, and obey it conscientiously-but if my hon. friend mistrusts, based upon his 25 years of experience, then may I point out to him that there is far more sanction in the provision of this bill as it stands, plus the Criminal Code, than there is in his suggested amendment. His suggested amendment contains no sanction at all. All it says is that they go and show cause before an arbitrator. It does not give the arbitrator any powers. The powers required are in this subclause of clause 4 as reinforced by the Criminal Code. In our view there is nothing further necessary in so far as the obligation, and the enforceable obligation, to reinstate are concerned. Then, as has been pointed out, after reinstatement, if there is discriminatory discharging after that, the collective agreements are in force and the grievance procedures are in full force and effect to take care of such a situation.


George James McIlraith: I wonder whether the Minister of Justice will explain to the committee how the collective agreements are made applicable to this new statutory right contained in clause 4 of the bill that is given to employees. What section of the collective agreement would be appplicable to this new right given to employees under clause 4?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Clause 4 entitles the employee who is discharged or laid off in anticipation of the strike to be reinstated in his employment. Once reinstated in his employment, he is employed subject to the terms of the collective agreement between the company and the union, which is continued in force by the provisions of the statute and therefore the grievance procedures of that collective agreement and the general procedures outlined in the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act would apply to any discriminatory discharging that might take place after reinstatement.


George James McIlraith: That answer is quite complete except that it ignores the real point of the matter. The concern is for those employees who feel they were entitled to be reinstated but were not. There is nothing in the minister's answer that would make the

grievance procedure applicable to such former employees of the railway company because those former employees did not get their rights by virtue of their employment with the railway company but got their rights under this clause of the statute re-enacted at this time, long after the agreement was brought into operation.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is where the other sanction that I referred to comes into effect. If the employee was entitled to be reinstated and is not in fact reinstated, then there is a violation of this statute, because this statute imposes on the railway company the obligation of reinstatement. Therefore, if they deliberately follow conduct which is a violation of their statutory obligation, then they are guilty of an offence under the Criminal Code.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Does my hon. friend realize that in refusing this amendment he is disposing of the last opportunity that has been given to the government to take one positive step through this measure in favour of the railway workers?


Edmund Davie Fulton: My hon. friend should not pose in this very transparent manner. It is a fortunate fact that the statements of my hon. friend do not bring into existence circumstances which are in fact not existent, however much he might like to think his statements did make them existent. My hon. friend takes, to himself far too much power in that Tegard.
The fact of the matter is that this bill was carefully drawn to preserve the balance between the companies and the men, not to take .sides, as my hon. friends have sought to take them, varying from one side to the other as the convenience of the moment suited them.
This bill was drawn to preserve the balance between the interests of the company and the men fairly and impartially, and in this respect the position of the men was taken care of by subclauses 1 and 2 of clause 4, which requires the companies to resume or to carry on operations and to reinstate the men in employment. There is a statutory obligation on the part of the companies to do that, and in that respect we have in a practical manner already taken care of the interests of the men in fact and not, as my hon. friend seeks to do, by words and wind.


George James McIlraith: It is regrettable that the Minister of Justice thinks that legislation, merely because it is brought in by the government, is so perfectly drafted that it cannot be improved, because it should be apparent to anyone who is familiar with the problems of drafting that it is very rarely indeed that improvements cannot be made even to the .best of drafting.
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act
Mr. Pallet!: Even some blotters are not perfect.


George James McIlraith: I did not catch the interjection of the chief government whip.
Mr. Pallet!: I merely said, even some blotters are not perfect.


George James McIlraith: That is quite right. In spite of his statement about the perfection of this clause, the minister surely will agree with me that the clause is fully complied with if those employees who have been laid off by reason of the anticipation of a strike are reinstated for one day and one day only.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If the men are reinstated for one day and one day only and then let out without just cause, I point out again that the grievance procedures would come into force-


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is ridiculous.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -because the collective agreements are in force and if the men are laid off without just cause, if they are fired, if they are discriminated against, then the ordinary procedures which parliaments have provided for in such circumstances will be in full force and effect.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a word on this question. I am not fully conversant with what happens with regard to court cases. Perhaps the minister can enlighten the committee on how a man would bring into force those sections of the Criminal Code if he felt he should have been re-employed and was not. How would he take advantage of those sections of the Criminal Code? What would be the cost to him or to his representatives in proving his case, or having the company prove its case, in court?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I cannot give an answer to that offhand. The summary provisions of the code are rapid and efficient and not unduly expensive.


Paul Joseph James Martin: They are very cumbersome and slow.


Frank Howard: There is also the question of costs to the individual to prove his case.


Mr. Pallell:: No.


Frank Howard: Somebody says no. I do not know whether that is right or not.


Mr. Thrasher:: It does not cost any money to lay an information.


Frank Howard: This is what I have been asking the Minister of Justice. If the company did not want to employ a man and he thought he had a grievance, would he have to
430	HOUSE OF
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act mortgage his farm to go into court and prove his case? He might not get any pay.


George James McIlraith: He would get one day's pay.


Frank Howard: How does he get one day's pay? I just wonder if the minister could explain how one overcomes the cost. The parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Labour indicated that it would cost nothing to lay an information. What I was getting at is, what about a person who felt he should have been reinstated by virtue of this particular clause but who in fact was not reemployed by the company? His protection, apparently, is under the Criminal Code because he feels the company has not dealt fairly with him. What would be the cost of prosecuting that case through the court, whether it was under the Criminal Code or in a higher court?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I can only assume that the unions would stand behind their men. Unions are as skilled as any of the rest of us in ascertaining their rights, and they have skilful counsel to do it. I do not imagine the unions are going to suddenly start leaving their men out in the cold if the men have a claim to reinstatement and are not reinstated. As the parliamentary secretary points out, it does not cost anyone anything to lay an information, except time and trouble.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That does not always yield action, as the minister well knows.


Frank Howard: I was asking the Minister of Justice about a different situation. This has nothing to do with whether or not the unions stand behind their members. I am sure they do. If costs are involved in this, they will be met. I am concerned with what the costs are. I know very little about legal phraseology. If it costs nothing except a little bit of time to lay an information, and that is the process one has to go through, what happens then? Are there any costs involved following that? I would be inclined to think there would be.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I cannot maintain that there are no costs in connection with a criminal prosecution. Once the information is laid the law enforcement officers are responsible for conducting the prosecution. There is time and inconvenience in connection with attending court. The unions, as I understand it, employ experienced and skilful legal counsel to make certain that the interests of their members are protected. In so far as any advice to the members by union counsel is concerned, that would be given and, as I said, it is the obligation of the law enforcement agencies, once the information is properly laid, to put the forces of the law in motion.


Frank Howard: I was given to understand by other members of the cabinet that this particular bill dealt fairly with each side and did not favour one side or the other. I see I was incorrectly informed.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I point out to the Minister of Justice that he has been indicating that there are steps to be taken to bring the case before a prosecutor, and so on. Apart altogether from the time it may take, apart altogether from the mood of the court official and so on, the fact is that if a prosecution is made there will not be any reinstatement. There will be a fine. What we are calling upon the government to provide is that the men who are not reinstated in accordance with this bill shall be reinstated; that is what we are asking. We are asking for an effective way of dealing with men who have the right to be employed on the railway. The fining of the railway or an official of the railway for not carrying out this provision is not what we have in mind. We are asking that these men be reinstated, and all the explanations of the Minister of Justice do not really meet the point. The company will be fined, but we are asking that the men be reinstated and no magistrate's court has the power to reinstate a man into employment.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I point out that the amendment moved by the hon. member does not reinstate the men either. My hon. friend is taking things to a great extreme when he suggests that a company which is found by a court to be guilty of violating these provisions and is fined for that offence is going to continue the offence of failing to reinstate the man. I do not believe that the companies operate in this way.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is exactly what they would do.


Edmund Davie Fulton: My hon. friend says the companies will deliberately violate the law, notwithstanding the opinion of the court.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I did not say deliberately. The Minister of Justice, I think, ought to let this matter be handled by the Minister of Labour.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have the floor, Mr. Chairman. My hon. friend has said in answer to me, when I said that he is suggesting the companies who are found in violation of the law and fined will continue the offence, they will continue to fail to reinstate the man. My hon. friend said that is exactly what will happen. In other words my hon. friend is saying that these companies will deliberately violate the law; and that is exactly what he said.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I want the Minister of Labour to know that notwithstanding that he seeks to give the impression-


Michael Starr: I am not even in this debate.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I meant the Minister of Justice. Every time I look at the Minister of Justice my fatigue becomes greater and greater.


Mr. Marlineau:: Subclause (2) of clause 4 makes it obligatory for every railway company to reinstate every employee who has been laid off since November 1, 1960. In other words, if a railway company violates the provisions of this bill the right of the employee is also transgressed. The employee certainly has a right to obtain redress by way of mandamus or otherwise because it is a right, according to this bill, to be reinstated.


Peter Francis Martin: Then you will have costs.


Lionel Chevrier: What about the costs of the mandamus?


Paul Raymond Martineau: Certainly there are costs involved, but if the railway company is at fault then the railway company will have to pay the costs.


George James McIlraith: Will the hon. member give his opinion as to the amount of damages that would be awarded to an employee in the event of a prosecution in such a case?


Paul Raymond Martineau: I cannot give an opinion on the amount of damages. Certainly the amount of damages would be the amount of salary lost by that employee.


Lionel Chevrier: He would still have the costs of the mandamus.
Amendment (Mr. Martin, Essex East) negatived: Yeas, 24; nays, 86.


Jacques Flynn: I declare the amendment lost. Shall clause 4 as amended carry?
Clause as amended agreed to.
On clause 5-Regulations.


Peter Francis Martin: I should like to ask the Minister of Labour what regulations he now contemplates are necessary. Have any regulations been devised? If so, will he table them or will he tell the committee the nature of their provisions?


Michael Starr: This is the usual regulation section provided in legislation of this nature. Just what regulations, if any, will be required cannot be contemplated at this time.


William Moore Benidickson: I do not know what the minister means when he refers to "legislation of this nature". We have not had much
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act legislation of this nature, fortunately. However, we had regulations that appear as clause 7 of the statute of 1958 of this government and reference has been made many times to it, namely the British Columbia coast steamship service legislation. This government has always said that it was not a government that wants to take needlessly powers by order in council. I would therefore assume that they would not put into a clause dealing with regulations matters which they did not feel it was necessary to put in or matters which refer to regulations that they would not propose to use if necessary. Despite all that has been said about abhorrence by this government of compulsory arbitration I find that when the regulations were last presented by this government in legislation of this nature, as the Minister of Labour calls them, we had in section 7 clause (c) phrases such as these:
7. The governor in council may make regulations ...
(c)	for establishing procedures for effecting a settlement between the company and a union and for concluding a collective agreement in revision or amendment of the existing collective agreement; and
(d)	for referring to a board of three arbitrators appointed by the governor in council such matters relating to the revision or amendment of an existing collective agreement as the parties thereto may request-
That part is voluntary but here is the compulsion:
-or as the governor in council may deem expedient,-
My point is that when we had last had what you might call legislation of a similar nature we had the intentions of the government to an extent spelled out. But I never saw under these circumstances more of a blank cheque than what is asked for here. Here we have brevity but we have extreme wideness of opportunity because it provides that, in the context or for the purposes of this bill, the right to make such regulations as the governor in council deems necessary or desirable for the purposes of carrying out any of the provisions of this act. We are not given any outline of possible intentions, even such as that which was given the last time legislation of a similar nature was presented in 1958 and which had reference to the steamship strike settlement of that year.


John George Diefenbaker: This evening I have endeavoured to follow the debate as it has continued, with the exception of a period of absence of some ten minutes. I have heard the various arguments advanced and am most anxious that everything in the nature of a suggestion that will assure the improvement
432	HOUSE OF
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act of this bill should be accepted. I have listened to the words of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River with respect to clause 5. I share his view that at all times parliament should take care not to grant anything in the nature of a power in this regard unless it is absolutely necessary in order to meet those particular cases which a general enactment cannot be expected to cover. Speaking personally, I see no reason why this clause should be in the bill. I must say that it is always an easier course to take to have a provision such as this one; but throughout the years I have constantly taken the stand that the enactment of regulations should be strictly circumscribed. I would have no objection whatsoever to a motion that clause 5 be deleted. It is not for me so to move. But if any hon. member wants to move that section 5 should be deleted-in which event it would mean that it would be necessary for the following sections to be renumbered-I would be the first one to agree with him.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask the
Prime Minister this question? Was this clause not discussed in the cabinet?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am asking a simple question and am not asking for long speeches.


John George Diefenbaker: Of course the hon. gentleman, with that wide knowledge he has-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Never mind the lecture.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentleman, with the wide knowledge he has-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I can lecture also.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the hon. gentleman kindly contain himself.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would ask the Prime Minister to contain himself.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentleman is regarded as a constitutional authority.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will the Prime Minister never mind the lecture? Will he answer the question?


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentleman
knows from his experience, aside altogether from his knowledge, that what takes place in cabinet is not placed before the House of Commons. I thought I was falling in line with the wishes of hon. gentlemen. It just shows, Mr. Chairman, the degree to which hon. gentlemen opposite are prepared to go. They have objected to this clause. I accept the


objection and say that we will withdraw it. Then for some reason-a lack of that feeling that one would expect-they immediately raise a red herring such as that which is now placed before the committee by the hon. gentleman. We are prepared to accept an amendment to withdraw this clause. What more could we do?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Prime
Minister, of course, delights in constantly lecturing each and every hon. member when the occasion presents itself. What I am objecting to is this.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is my turn to do some lecturing to the right hon. gentleman. After the suggestion was made by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River I noticed what happened. The Minister of Justice crossed over and spoke to the Prime Minister. I can see the Minister of Justice, that faithful acolyte. He said to the Prime Minister, "Now, Mr. Prime Minister, do not forget that we brought in the bill of rights; we must not in this bill do anything that will put you in an embarrassing position before posterity". The Prime Minister then rose and said that he had seriously considered the suggestion made by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, that there was much merit in that suggestion and that, after careful consideration, he thought this clause should be withdrawn but that he, of course, could not withdraw it.
Of course there is no reason why the Prime Minister could not withdraw it. However, he said that he could not do so. He wanted to be gracious, leaving that great honour to the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River. My question was a simple one. I asked the Prime Minister the question, was this clause discussed in cabinet? Obviously it was discussed in cabinet. Was the Prime Minister there when it was discussed? Obviously the Prime Minister was there. Then why was this measure brought into the house? Why all this display of great concern for regulation? I will tell you why-because the Prime Minister himself loves to act.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I must say that if I can ever emulate the hon. gentleman as an actor I will indeed be proud of my achievement.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, now that the Prime Minister's histrionics are finished, just a few minutes ago the Minister of Labour told us this was a normal clause, a useful clause, and an important clause and he wished to keep it in the bill. The Prime Minister has now said he wishes to take it out.


Léon Balcer: No. I am not surprised-


Lester Bowles Pearson: We will take it out; but get together on this.


Léon Balcer: -at the hon. member for Essex East, but I am surprised at the Leader of the Opposition. I said nothing of the kind. I said this is a normal clause which is put into acts of this kind-


An hon. Member:: There is no act.


Léon Balcer: -in case regulations have to be drafted. So far we do not contemplate any, but if there should need to be any this clause is hormally drawn. That is all I said.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is all right. That is what I said. Just get together, that is all.


Lionel Chevrier: You are a little confused over there.


Frank Howard: The Prime Minister can perform a fine service to this country and withdraw the whole bill.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, I am
somewhat in the position of the Secretary of State for External Affairs when ten years ago we had similar legislation. You will recall that the Secretary of State for External Affairs suggested that the period for a voluntary settlement be extended from 15 to 30 days. The prime minister of that day offered the hon. member the opportunity of making the amendment, and he said:
I should like to know the prime minister's opinion of this amendment. I am not quite clear as to his stand on it. He is being unusually coy, and I question whether or not I should make the amendment.
However, when the prime minister offered to make the amendment for him, he then said, "No, it is my amendment". I move, Mr. Chairman, seconded by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate:
That clause 5 be deleted and the following clauses be renumbered accordingly.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Now do not vote against it.
Amendment (Mr. Benidickson) agreed to.
Clause 6 (new clause 5) agreed to.
On clause 7 (new clause 6)-Rights preserved.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, this is perhaps an opportunity to raise a question in connection with clause 6 because the clause deals with the question of existing collective agreements, the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act and its relationship to them, and so on. I would like to ask the
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act Prime Minister a question on his words as reported at page 359 of Hansard, where he says:
If there is an agreement to raise wages it shall go back to January 1, 1960.
Where in the bill is this contained? By what authority will this take place?


Lionel Chevrier: Let the Minister of Justice in.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Where is the Minister of Justice?


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask this question of the Prime Minister based on his comments of yesterday as reported in Hansard at page 359, where he said:
If there is an agreement to raise wages it shall go back to January 1, 1960.
I wonder if the Prime Minister would explain to me and the committee where in the bill provision for this is made; where this would be a statutory requirement.


An hon. Member:: That was for the regulations.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, what I said yesterday was that as soon as the freeze on freight rates is raised then an application can be made by the companies, if they so choose, for an increase in freight rates, and at that time consideration will be given by the board of transport commissioners to the agreements in effect back to January 1, 1960.


Frank Howard: Undoubtedly the Prime Minister said words to this effect in some part, that if the railways apply for a freight rate increase and the freeze is lifted the board of transport commissioners will listen to their case. I suppose this is quite true. But I am concerned about the bald, bare-faced statement that if there is an agreement to raise wages it shall go back to January 1, 1960.
I wonder how the Prime Minister can be so definite and say that it shall go back to January 1, 1960.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I have nothing to add to what I have already said on that point. It is very clear and very definite. It is not part, and it would not be part of this bill in any way.
That is an application to take place on or about May 15 or thereafter. If an application is made to the board of transport commissioners at that time, I have made it perfectly clear that both parties shall take into consideration the agreements as of January 1, 1960.


Lionel Chevrier: It was clear and definite, but in contradiction of the acting prime minister's statement two years earlier.
434	HOUSE OF
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act


Frank Howard: What the Prime Minister has just said may be quite clear, but we are talking about two different things. He is talking about what the board of transport commissioners will take into consideration if and when the railways apply for a freight rate increase, and presumably they are already ordered to do this and we can expect an increase in freight rates next year-I do not know.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I rise immediately on a question of privilege, the suggestion that there has been any order that they shall do this, that there will be a raise in freight rates, is a most improper suggestion. I am not going to ask for its withdrawal, but these insinuations and innuendoes that flow from the hon. gentlemen with such ease are not in keeping with an intelligent discussion on this matter.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, on the question of privilege that the Prime Minister has raised, perhaps I could point out to him, through you, that it was not a question of privilege for which he could ask for a withdrawal of the statement; and if he asked for it, in all probability he would not get it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, in view of what the Prime Minister has just said he might be interested to learn-if he has not already learned-that he was reported on the eleven o'clock T.V. national news tonight as having indicated earlier today that a freight rate increase would be granted in May in order to obtain the necessary money to pay the increase in wages.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, any statement that appears on the radio or television, on the eleven o'clock news or any other news, would have to do with what took place in the house, for no other statement has been made by me directly or indirectly. So if there is an inference such as that, it must have been based on something said today and was not based on what has been said by me.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, if I may continue with my question. I think the Prime Minister and I are talking about two different things. He is talking about the possibility-


An hon. Member:: We are thinking of two different things too.


Frank Howard: -of the railways applying for a freight rate increase. If the freeze is lifted they will then be in a position to do this. If they do, the board of transport commissioners will take certain things into account. That is fine. That is clear, concise and understandable.
But it is also clear, concise and understandable that the words of the Prime Minister


as reported on page 359 of yesterday's Hansard were: "If there is an agreement to raise wages it shall go back to January 1, 1960." The Prime Minister said that if there was an agreement between the employees and the railway companies to raise wages it "shall go back to 1960." I should like to know by virtue of what authority the right hon. gentleman is so definite that this agreement shall go back to 1960.


John Cameron Pallett: Would the hon. member read the rest of that statement?


Frank Howard: Yes, apart from the freight rates piece.


John Cameron Pallett: Read the whole thing.


Frank Howard: If the parliamentary secretary would not be so impatient he will have it read.


Lionel Chevrier: What is the page, please?


Frank Howard: Page 359 of Hansard for
November 30. The parliamentary secretary said, "Read it all" and I will read it all. I do not know just where the Prime Minister began that paragraph.
Mr. Speaker, Hansard will tell the story. My recollection was that the hon. member in question did ask what action is being taken in this regard. It the hon. gentleman says he did not ask a question of that nature I will accept his denial of his having asked such a question.
This was in answer to an exchange between the hon. member for Laurier and the Prime Minister. Then the Prime Minister went on to say:
In no way is labour being denied its rights. There is a postponement because of the action of the government to preserve the equality of all parts of Canada until equalization has been provided for as a result of the recommendations of the royal commission. After the commission has reported, consideration can be given to any agreement arrived at as between the employers and the employees. If there is an agreement to raise wages it shall go back to January 1, 1960.
That is the particular sentence to which I referred. It says "it shall go back".


John Cameron Pallett: Read on.


Frank Howard: I can read the whole page.


John Cameron Pallett: Read the next sentence.


Frank Howard: I assume the hon. member for Peel, particularly because he has shiny glasses, is able to read as well as I can.
Mr. Pallet!: The hon. member has deliberately misled the committee as to what the Prime Minister said. Reading on from where the hon. member for Skeena left off it says:
In other words, there is no prejudice to the unions in any way whatever, or to the workers. There is simply in the national interest the need

of action to preserve and maintain the economy of Canada against the disastrous effects of a strike at this time.


Lester Bowles Pearson: How does that alter it?


Frank Howard: This question of union and management relations is a question of the relationship between the unions and the companies. This government is asking parliament to interfere with the collective agreement in one respect though it has consistently refused to take the next step, as it has shown by voting against certain amendments which have been moved from this side of the committee. This statement of the Prime Minister says that the agreement, if there is one, shall go back to January, 1960. Perhaps the words slipped out and the Prime Minister did not mean them. What I am trying to point out is this: if that is to be government policy, this legislation should say so, and if it was a slip of the tongue an explanation should be given so that the employers and the union may know what the position is.


Paul Raymond Martineau: It seems that the explanation is very simple. The effect of this bill would be to suspend the right to strike, and once the delay mentioned in the bill has expired the parties will be in exactly the same position as if no act had been passed. If, today, they are able to claim wage increases retroactive to January 1, 1960, then, when this act expires, the employees will still be in that position.


Frank Howard: That has been mentioned a number of times and it is clear that that is the intent of the bill. But if that is the case, for the Prime Minister to be consistent he should have said "if there is an agreement to raise wages it is possible for it to be retroactive to 1960". But that is not what he said. He said it "shall be retroactive". I think the unions are entitled to know whether or not, in the back of the minister's mind, there is some way in which statutory authority can be given to this collective agreement to go back to that time. The Prime Minister said they "shall go back to January 1, 1960."


Donald MacInnis: He said "shall" but that is conditional. The first part of the sentence said: "if an agreement is reached".


Frank Howard: Everything this government does is conditional but there is nothing conditional about the word "shall". It is a definite word.


Donald MacInnis: The hon. member should read the beginning of the sentence.


Frank Howard: I read the beginning and I listened to the hon. member for Peel reading the latter part of it. I listened to an explanation from two parliamentary secretaries
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act to the Prime Minister and I still have not an answer from the Prime Minister as to what he meant by the word "shall". Obviously he meant nothing by it.


Donald MacInnis: Would the hon. member not agree that the word "shall" does imply that there is no prejudice in this bill and that the ability of the union to get a contract which would be retroactive until that date has been preserved?


Frank Howard: I would agree that the ability of the unions to get any kind of contract has been denied them by this government.
Clause agreed to: yeas, 89; nays, 25.
On clause 8 (new clause 7)-Coming into force and termination.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to give the Prime Minister an opportunity, if the government wishes to take it, to let parliament enact this legislation instead of having the final act taken by the governor in council. There does not seem to be any good reason why this bill should not become effective on receiving the royal assent instead of on proclamation by the governor in council, though I do not intend to make any motion to that effect.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I rise simply because I think this should be on the record right away before we pass on to something else, and that is that the Liberal party and either the C.C.F. or the new party-I do not know which-by the vote they have just cast on clause 7, now clause 6, have voted against a provision which preserves the rights of the union to bargain collectively and make agreements retroactively and which makes it clear that this statute does not take away any rights. This suggests an action amazingly inconsistent with what they said before and I think this deserves to be drawn to the attention of the committee and placed on the record so that all those interested in this bill and the stands of the parties may find on the record that the opposition parties have just cast a vote against the interests of the unions.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Justice has made a statement on a clause which has already been passed, not for the reason stated by him when he was out of order but to attempt to conceal the confusion pointed out by the hon. member for Skeena.


Frank Howard: I merely point out to the minister and others that if someone offers
436	HOUSE OF
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act me an entire barrel of rotten apples does it make any difference which is the least rotten?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The hon. gentleman would not know.


Jacques Flynn: Shall the new clause 7 carry?
Clause agreed to: Yeas, 95; nays, 27.
Schedules A and B agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third time, by leave now?


Frank Howard: Next sitting of the house.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I have some indication as to what we will do tomorrow and Monday?


Mr. Churchill:: Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that we will take third reading of Bill No. C-45 tomorrow-


Some hon. Members:: Today.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -Friday, the 2nd. When that is completed we will proceed with the resolution in the name of the Minister of Labour dealing with technical and vocational training. Monday will be private members' day.
At 1.48 a.m. the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Questions



ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
The following answers, deposited with the Clerk of the house, are printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. Robichaud: 1.	Were tenders called by the Department of Defence Production during the months of September and October, 1960 for the supply of dairy products in the Halifax area?
2.	If so, what are the names of those who submitted tenders and the respective amounts of each?
3.	To whom was the contract awarded and what is the street address of the successful tenderer?
Answer by: Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (Minister of Defence Production):
1.	It is assumed that dairy products mean milk and cream. If this assumption is correct, competitive tenders were not invited because the price of milk to the consumer in Nova Scotia is controlled by provincial legislation. Therefore, requirements are allocated to all the dairies in the area that have been approved by the command medical officer, Department of National Defence, as being capable of supplying in accordance with the specified standard.
2.	See (1) above.
3.	The names of the approved dairies in the area, all of whom received contracts, are:
Elm Avenue Dairy Ltd., Elmsvale, N.S.; Maple Leaf Dairy Ltd., Chebucto rd., Halifax, N.S.; Woodlawn Dairy, Canal street, Dartmouth, N.S.; Farmers Ltd., 155 Windsor st., Halifax, N.S.


Mr. Badanai: 1.	Has the government agreed to a charter for the new organization for economic co-operation and development?
2.	How soon can we expect a statement regarding the Canadian ratification of this charter?
3.	What will be the Canadian representation to this organization?
Answer by: Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):
1.	No.
2.	Detailed recommendations for the establishment of this organization are now in the hands of the 20 governments concerned and ministers representing these governments will be meeting in Paris on December 13 and 14. If the recommendations are approved, the agreement will be laid before parliament in due course.
3.	If and when the new organization is created it is expected that Canada will be represented by a permanent delegation. Canada presently maintains a permanent delegation in Paris to both NATO and O.E.E.C.


Friday, December 2, 1960