1960-12-02

STANDING COMMITTEES

[Stage Direction]
Mr. John Pallet! (Peel) presented the
report of the special committee appointed to prepare and report lists of members to compose the standing committees of the house, as follows:

[Stage Direction]
Messrs:
MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE BILLS Messrs:
Aiken	McGee
Barrington	Mcllraith
Bell (Carleton)	McWilliam
Caron	Meunier
Deschambault	Montgomery
Godin	Nielsen
Grills	Ormiston
Henderson	Paul
Hodgson	Pickersgill
Howard	Richard (Ottawa East)
Johnson	Valade
Macquarrie	Webb
Mandziuk	Webster
McBain	Woolliams-29.
McDonald	
(Quorum-10)	
RAILWAYS, CANALS	AND TELEGRAPH LIN
Messrs:	
Allmark	Keays
Asselin	Kennedy
Badanai	Lessard
Baldwin	Maclnnis
Bell (Saint John-	MacLean (Winnipeg
Albert)	North Centre)
Bourbonnais	Martin (Essex East)
Bourget	Martini
Bourque	McBain
Brassard (Chicoutimi)	McDonald (Hamilton
Brassard (Lapointe)	South)
Browne (Vancouver-	McGee
Kingsway)	McGregor
Bruchesi	McPhillips
Cadieu	Michaud
Campbell (Stormont)	Monteith (Verdun)
Campeau	Pascoe
Chevrier	Payne
Chown	Phillips
Creaghan	Pigeon
Crouse	Pitman
Denis	Pratt
Drysdale	Rapp
Dumas	Rogers
Fisher	Rynard
Garland	Smith (Calgary South)
Grills	Smith (Lincoln)
Hardie	Smith (Simcoe North)
Horner (Acadia)	Thompson
Horner (Jasper-Edson)	Tucker
Howe	Valade
Johnson	Wratten-60.
Anderson Baldwin Batten Beech Bigg Broome
Campbell (Stormont)
Carter Chown Cooper Crestohl Danforth Forbes Forgie Garland Granger Horner
(The Battlefords)
LaMarsh, Miss Kennedy Knowles MacEwan
MacLean (Winnipeg
North Centre)
Macnaughton Mandziuk Martin (Timmins)
(Quorum-15)
Matthews
McBain
McCleave
McDonald (Hamilton South)
McFarlane
McLennan
McMillan
Milligan
Mitchell
Monteith (Verdun)
More
Morton
Nixon
Ormiston
Peters
Regnier
Robinson
Rogers
Simpson
Smith (Lincoln)
Smith (Winnipeg North)
Smith (Simcoe North)
Stefanson
Webster
Wratten-50.
BANKING AND COMMERCE Messrs:
Aiken Allmark Argue Asselin Baldwin
Bell (Saint John-Albert)
Benidickson Bigg
Brassard (Chicoutimi)
Broome Campeau Cardin Caron Cathers Chevrier Clermont Creaghan Crestohl Drysdale Hales Hanbidge Hicks
Horner (Acadia)
Jung
Macdonnell MacLean (Winnipeg North Centre)
(Quorum-15)
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS Messrs:
MacLellan
Macnaughton
Martin (Essex East)
Mcllraith
McIntosh
More
Morissette
Morton
Nasserden
Nugent
Pascoe
Pickersgill
Regier
Robichaud
Rowe
Rynard
Skoreyko
Slogan
Smith (Winnipeg North)
Southam
Stewart
Stinson
Thomas
Woolliams-50.
(Quorum-20)
Allmark
Beech
Bell (Carleton)
Benidickson
Bissonnette
Bourbonnais
[Stage Direction]
Standing Committees
Bourget	McGrath
Brassard (Chicoutimi)	McGregor
Broome	Morissette
Bruchesi	Morton
Campeau	Nugent
Chown	Pickersgill
Coates	Pigeon
Danforth	Pratt
Deschatelets	Regier
Denis	Rouleau
Drysdale	Robichaud
Dupuis	Smith (Simcoe North)
Grenier	Smith (Winnipeg North)
Hales	Spencer
Hanbidge	Stefanson
Hellyer	Stewart
Keays	Tucker
Lahaye	Valade
Macdonald (Kings)	Villeneuve
Macdonnell	Winch
Macnaughton	Woolliams
McGee	Wratten-50.
(Quorum-15)
AGRICULTURE	AND COLONIZATION Messrs:
Argue	Leduc
Badanai	Latour
Belzile	McBain
Boulanger	McIntosh
Brassard (Lapointe)	Michaud
Brunsden	Milligan
Campbell (Lambton-	Montgomery
Kent)	Muir (Lisgar)
Clancy	Nasserden
Clermont	Noble
Cooper	Pascoe
Danforth	Peters
Doucett	Phillips
Drouin	Racine
Dubois	Rapp
Dupuis	Regnier
Fane	Ricard
Forbes	Rogers
Forgie	Rompre
Godin	Smallwood
Gundlock	Smith (Lincoln)
Hales	Southam
Hardie	Stanton
Henderson	Stefanson
Hicks	Tardif
Horner (Acadia)	Thomas
Howe	Thompson
Kindt	Tucker
Knowles	Villeneuve
Korchinski Lahaye	Webb-60.
(Quorum-20)	
STANDING ORDERS Messrs:	
Aitken, Miss	Garland
Argue	Grafftey
Batten	Horner (Jasper-Edson)
Best	Loiselle
Bourdages	McWilliam
Brassard (Chicoutimi) Meunier	
Campeau	Milligan
Danforth	Spencer
Forgie	Webb
Frechette	Webster-20.
(Quorum-8)	
MARINE	AND FISHERIES Messrs:
Anderson	Browne (Vancouver-
Batten	Kingsway)

Cardin	McGrath
Carter	McLennan
Crouse	McPhillips
Danforth	McQuillan
Drysdale	McWilliam
English	Michaud
Gillet	Murphy
Granger	Noble
Grenier	O'Leary
Howard	Pickersgill
Keays	Phillips
Legere	Robichaud
Macdonald (Kings)	Speakman
MacLellan	Stefanson
Matthews	Stewart
McCleave	Tucker-35.
(Quorum-10)	
MINES, FORESTS AND WATERS Messrs:	
Aiken	MacRae
Baskin	Martel
Cadieu	Martin (Timmins)
Campbell (Stormont)	McFarlane
Clermont	McGregor
Coates	McQuillan
Doucett	Mitchell
Dumas	Muir (Cape Breton North
Fleming (Okanagan-	and Victoria)
Revelstoke)	Nielsen
Godin	Nugent
Granger	Payne
Gundlock	Ricard
Hardie	Robichaud
Hicks	Rompre
Kindt	Simpson
Korchinski	Slogan
LaMarsh, Miss Leduc	Stearns-35.
(Quorum-10)	
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS Messrs:	
Allmark	Martin (Essex East)
Beech	Martini
Benidickson	McDonald (Hamilton
Bourdages	South)
Browne (Vaneouver-	McWilliam
Kingsway)	Mitchell
Caron	Muir (Cape Breton North
Clermont	and Victoria)
Creaghan	Noble
Drouin	Pigeon
Godin	Pitman
Grafftey	Ricard
Granger	Simpson
Lafreniere	Skoreyko
Lahaye	Small
LaMarsh, Miss	Smith (Winnipeg North)
Maclnnis	Spencer
MacLean (Winnipeg	Stanton
North Centre) Mandziuk	Weichel-35.
(Quorum-10) r,	
DEBATES Messrs:	
Argue	Nixon
Campbell (Lambton-	Paul
Kent)	Pigeon
Chevrier	Regnier
Fortin	Richard (Ottawa East)
McPhillips Monteith (Verdun)	Roberge-12.
(Quorum-7)	

Standing Committees
Roberge	Stewart
Robinson	Thomas
Rogers	Webster
Speakman	Weichel
Stearns	Winkler-40.
(Quorum-15)
EXTERNAL AFFAIRS Messrs:
Aitken, Miss		Macquarrie
Allard		Mandziuk
Batten		Martin (Essex East)
Cardin		McCleave
Cathers		McGee
Crestohl		McIntosh
Eudes		Montgomery
Fairfield		Nesbitt
Fleming (Okanagan-		Nugent
Revelstoke)		Pearson
Garland		Pratt
Hellyer		Regier
Herridge		Richard (Ottawa East)
Jung		Slogan
Kucherepa		Smith (Calgary South)
Lafreniere		Valade
Lennard		Vivian
MacLellan		White-35.
	(Quorum-10)	
	ESTIMATES	
		Messrs:
Anderson		Homer (Jasper-Edson)
Argue		Howe
Baldwin		Korchinski
Benidickson		LaMarsh, Miss
Best		MacLellan
Bissonnette		McCleave
Bourbonnais		McDonald (Hamilton
Bourdages		South)
Bourget		McFarlane
Broome		McGee
Brassard (Lapointe)		McGrath
Bruchesi		McGregor
Campbell (Lambton-		Mcllraith
Kent)		McQuillan
Cardin		Me William
Caron		More
Carter		Parizeau
Cathers		Payne
Chown		Pickersgill
Clancy		Pugh
Coates		Ricard
Crouse		Richard (Kamouraska)
Dumas		Skoreyko
Fairfield		Smith (Calgary South)
Fleming (Okanagan-		Stewart
Revelstoke)		Stinson
Fortin		Thompson
Gillet		Vivian
Grafftey		White
Hales		Winch
Hardie		Winkler-60.
Hellyer		
	(Quorum-20)	
	VETERANS AFFAIRS	
		Messrs:
Badanai		Kennedy
Batten		LaMarsh, Miss
Beech		Lennard
Benidickson		Macdonald (Kings)
Broome		MacEwan
Cardin		MacRae
Carter		Matthews
Clancy		McIntosh
Denis		Me William
Fane		Montgomery
Forgie		O'Leary
Fortin		Ormiston
Herridge		Parizeau
Jones		Peters
Jung		Pugh

[Stage Direction]
(Members to act on the part of the Commons) Messrs:
Allard	Howard
Asselin	Korchinski
Barrington	Lahaye
Belzile	Lessard
Bissonnette	Letourneau
Boivin	Maclnnis
Bourdages	MacLellan
Bourque	Martini
Brunsden	McLennan
Cadieu	Me William
Campeau	Meunier
Caron	Michaud
Clancy	Morissette
Cooper	O'Leary
Creaghan	Phillips
Deschambault	Rapp
Deschatelets	Ratelle
Dubois	Richard (Kamouraska)
Dupuis	Robinson
Fane	Rouleau
Fisher	Skoreyko
Fortin	Slogan
Gillet	Smallwood
Godin	Southam
Grafftey	Taylor
Gundlock	Webb
Henderson	Winkler-54.
LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT (Members to act on the part of the Commons) Mr. Speaker and Messrs:
Aitken, Miss	McFarlane
Belzile	McGee
Bourbonnais	Mcllraith
Bourque	Muir (Lisgar)
Brunsden	Nixon
Campeau	Pigeon
Eudes	Pratt
Fairfield	Racine
Fisher	Ratelle
Fleming (Okanagan- Regier	
Revelstoke)	Richard (St. Maurice-
Forbes	Lafleche)
Frechette	Richard (Ottawa East)
Grenier	Rouleau
Hanbidge	Simpson
Kindt	Skoreyko
Knowles	Small
LaRue	Smith (Lincoln)
Lennard	Smith (Simcoe North)
Lessard	Smith (Winnipeg North'
Macquarrie	Southam
Martel	Stinson
Matthews	Tremblay-45.
	RESTAURANT
(Members to	act on the part of the Commons)
Mr.	Speaker and Messrs:
Bourque	Hales
Campbell	Horner (The Battle-
Carter	fords)
Deschatelets	Lafreniere
Doucett	Legere
Godin	Latour
[Stage Direction]
442	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry
Letourneau	Stearns
Martin (Timmins)	Tardif
McGregor	Taylor
McQuillan	Villeneuve
Muir (Lisgar)	Weichel
Pratt	Wratten-25.
Richard (Ottawa East)
Mr. Pallet! moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister) moved:: That the standing committees of this house shall be severally empowered to examine and inquire into all such matters and things as may be referred to them by the house, and to report from time to time their observations and opinions thereon, with power to send for persons, papers and records.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of reports that a number of collieries in Nova Scotia are to be shut down, can the Prime Minister say whether arrangements have been made for a meeting between the Dominion Coal Company and the federal government to the end that these mines may be kept open?


John George Diefenbaker: No such meeting has been arranged as yet. However, continual discussions have been going on in connection with representations which have been received from the areas in question. I think it was some 10 days ago that a meeting took place in Ottawa at which the whole matter was carefully reviewed not only by the representatives from Cape Breton but by representatives of the company and the ministers concerned.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy River):: I wonder if the Minister of Finance can now give some indication to the house of the date when he is likely to bring down his revised budget.


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: The house will be advised in due time.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, you ruled a question by me out of order as being concerned with a person's private affairs, and as I was not sure of my ground I resumed my seat. Now I have had reliable information, and I wish to rephrase my question. In view of the fact that the Bank of Canada has purchased a car for Mr. Coyne in the United States and is now in the process of purchasing an even more luxurious one, would the Minister of Finance inform the house whether this is government policy?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think the hon. member must be aware from the form of his own question that government policy is not involved in this-situation in any way. The Bank of Canada is not responsible to the government. The Bank of Canada is responsible to parliament, and the government has no control whatever over the internal operations of the Bank of Canada.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: A supplementary question. Does the minister agree with the purchase by the Bank of Canada of these automobiles in the United States?


Mr. Speaker:: The answer to the main question seems to include the supplementary, since the minister indicates that this is not an administrative responsibility of his under the Bank of Canada legislation.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Can the minister say whether any arrangements have been made to permit the sale of the current stock of unsold houses under the new terms of the longer repayment period which was approved by this house last week?


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: The matter is under consideration.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. O. White (Middlesex East):: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the right hon. gentleman received any

reports regarding a summit meeting of the communist leaders of the world being held in Moscow?


John George Diefenbaker: As the house knows, a meeting of the leaders of communist parties has taken place in Moscow and has been going on for some three weeks. A short communique was issued. It reveals nothing about what progress if any has been made toward bringing about a compromise in the dispute between the U.S.S.R. and communist China.
All I can say is that we will have to await further developments before endeavouring to assess the meeting or its effects on that dispute, which of course, has very significant and important implications for western relations with the communist countries.


Mr. Lucien Cardin (Richelieu-Vercheres):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Prime Minister say whether the Canadian communist party was represented at this meeting?


John George Diefenbaker: I cannot say that in answer to the hon. gentleman. All I know is that there were 81 communist parties represented. Whether the Canadian communist party on this occasion fell behind in its usual position in that regard, I cannot say.


WATER RESOURCES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works arising from an item I noticed in the press. A minister of the Ontario government is reported as saying that he did not know whether the funds placed at their disposal by this government for sewage disposal and water pollution control would be available to the Ontario water resources commission. My question is, would any of these funds be available to this commission, which is in charge of watersheds, pollution control and sewage disposal in some parts of Ontario?


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Port Arthur has no doubt read in the terms of the bill, the contracts will be entered into by C.M.H.C. with the municipalities and funds will be advanced direct to the municipalities.
Inquiries of the Ministry



HUMAN RIGHTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Marlin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Public Works if he would kindly table the regulation which he announced the day before yesterday, regarding an attempt on the part of the government to avoid discrimination in the matter of taking advantage of the benefits of the C.M.H.C. legislation?


David James Walker: I would be very happy to do so, Mr. Speaker.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, in view of urgent action being considered by hundreds of constituents I represent, could the Minister of Justice inform the house whether members of the cabinet are intending to visit Victoria within the next two weeks to discuss Columbia river developments? If so, could the minister say what members of the cabinet will be in attendance?


Hon. E. D. Fullon (Minister of Juslice):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there will be a meeting in Victoria next week of the Canada-British Columbia policy liaison committee. I am not sure whether the names of the members of that committee have been given. It is not customary as a general rule, I think, to disclose the names of cabinet committees, but I will be glad to give the names to the hon. member privately, and if they have already been disclosed I would have no objection to giving them to the house.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If the minister gives them to me privately, may I use them publicly?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am sure there would be no objection to the hon. member passing on to his constituents the names of the ministers who will be going. There is no secret about it. My recollection is that there is a general rule against disclosing the membership of cabinet committees. I am advised, however, that we have on previous occasions given the names of ministers who have attended these particular meetings. Those who will be going are the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources and myself.
444	HOUSE OF
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act MAINTENANCE OF RAILWAY OPERATION ACT



PROVISION FOR CONTINUANCE OF RAILWAY OPERATIONS

Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour) moved: the third reading of Bill No. C-45, to provide for the continuation of the operation of railways.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege referring to yesterday's Hansard, which gives an inaccurate account of activities in the committee of the whole last evening by showing that the committee did something which in fact it did not do. I am not saying that Hansard or the records of the house were tampered with, but perhaps I can explain the question of privilege in this way. Hansard of December 1, at page 436, indicates the following as almost the last item:


The Chairman:: Shall the new clause 7 carry?
Clause agreed to: Yeas, 95; nays, 27.
Schedules A and B agreed to.
My recollection, which is substantiated by the recollection of three other members of this party, is that the question with respect to schedules A and B was not put; that the committee did not consider them; that the question was not put on them although Hansard says it was. This, I say, is substantiated by those of us who were here, because we remember it; and we remember it for the reason that the hon. member for Timis-kaming was interested in it. We discussed among ourselves during the proceedings last evening his desire to raise a particular question on schedule A, the one which sets out the names of the companies, because the hon. member wanted to deal with the Ontario Northland Railway. He waited for the schedule to be called. When it was not called, we perhaps assumed that it was not necessary to vote on the schedules. However, upon checking the rules of the house we found that schedules are treated in the same way as clauses and must be considered by the committee. They can be amended, deleted, voted down and so on, just the same as a clause.
The members who substantiate my own memory are the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue), who was here last evening at that stage of the proceedings, the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) and the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher). All of us were sitting close together and discussed this particular question to be taken up on schedule A and schedule B.
I went to the Hansard office, Mr. Speaker, and I assume that because of the lateness of the sitting this morning the so-called Hansard blues were not yet back from the Queen's


printer, so that one was not able to compare Hansard with what the blue says. However, I was able to obtain a copy of the typescript; this is how it is classified. I received a copy and I checked it this morning. I understand it is a copy of the blues, in fact. I will read from the copy I have in my hand: "PPPP-1- 1.40 a.m." It gives the discussion that took place, and I should now like to compare it with the copy of Hansard that I have. I read from Hansard at page 436:


Jacques Flynn: Shall the new clause 7 carry?
Clause agreed to: Yeas, 95; nays, 27.
Schedules A and B agreed to.
I shall now read from what appears in the typescript:


Jacques Flynn: Shall the new clause 7 carry?
Clause agreed to: Yes, 95; nays, 27.
Up to here it coincides with what appears in Hansard, but in the typescript there is no reference to schedules A and B being agreed to, as appears in Hansard. The typescript goes on but does not mention schedules A and B. It shows the preamble agreed to, the title agreed to, the bill reported, and so on.
My question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, is that Hansard shows we did something in the committee of the whole which in fact we did not do.
Second, the bill is not properly before us because consideration of it was not completed in committee. Schedules A and B were not dealt with and were not considered by the committee of the whole, and Hansard is incorrect in this regard.
As I said, I do not wish to say whether Hansard has been tampered with, or just how this reference that schedules A and B had been agreed to got in Hansard. In any event, sir, I say that they were not considered in the committee. It is the specific recollection of four of us, the hon. member for Assiniboia, the hon. member for Port Arthur, the hon. member for Timiskaming and myself, all of whom were sitting rather close together, that these schedules were not put to the committee and were not considered by the committee as they properly should be if the bill is in fact to become any sort of law at all.
I think we will all agree that if they were not considered and the bill were enacted it would be extremely unfortunate if the bill were not in fact a proper piece of legislation, as it would not be if certain parts were excluded from it: I therefore must found a motion based upon the question of privilege. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Timiskaming:
That this bill be not now read the third time-
This is not a negative approach but rather the only way I can do this.

-but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole for the purpose of considering schedules A and B.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Speaker, without discussing the question of the Hansard report, I simply want to say that the hon. member is perfectly right. In the last minutes of the proceedings last night the chairman did not call for approval of schedules A and B.


Mr. Speaker:: Before putting the motion I must determine whether there is a prima facie question of privilege, and I shall be glad to hear hon. members on that point. A motion based on privilege must be founded on a finding by the Chair that there is a question of privilege. I think there is a proper question of privilege in that if, as is asserted and as appears to be the case, the Hansard report of the final stages of the proceedings of the committee is incorrect, that is a matter that the house will be concerned with as a breach of its privilege to have its proceedings correctly reported.
However, the consequences which the hon. member for Skeena suggests do not appear to me to be self-evident, because what in fact ensued was that the chairman reported the bill as amended and the house itself adopted the report of the committee which was a report of the amended bill without reservation or limitation. If there was an irregularity in the proceedings of the committee that irregularity, it seems to me, is cured by the action of the house itself. Therefore the suggestion made by the hon. member for Skeena appears to me, without opportunity for further reflection, not to follow from the omission which was made in committee.
On the other hand, the incorrect report in Hansard is a matter which I think the house very properly has a duty to take into account. Whether the hon. member, in view of what I have said, wishes me to proceed with this motion is a matter for him to decide.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I just want to hear from the hon. member for Skeena whether he wants to proceed with this matter.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, my concern is not so much with the question of privilege relating to Hansard as with the effect of the irregularity on the process of ensuring that the bill is dealt with properly.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in so far as Hansard is concerned, what the hon. member says is perfectly correct. The chairman of committees and Deputy Speaker has said that in fact what is reported in Hansard did not take place.
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act That could be deleted from Hansard. I would point out that in clause 2 of the bill, the interpretation section, on which we voted, subclause (b) reads as follows:
"Railway company" means a company listed in schedule A.
Likewise, subclause (c) reads:
"Union" means a trade union listed in schedule.
So that in fact both these schedules were dealt with in clause 2, the interpretation clause. All that is necessary is simply to have deleted from Hansard the additional words that were surplus.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, with reference to your suggestion that any deficiency in the committee's proceedings was corrected by its subsequent report and the subsequent action of the house, may I point out that in fact the official record of the proceedings of the house is Votes and Proceedings, not Hansard. At page 69 Votes and Proceedings reports as follows:
Bill C-45, an act to provide for the continuation of the operation of railways, was considered in committee of the whole, reported with amendments, considered as amended, and ordered for a third reading at the next sitting of the house.
As the hon. member for Skeena himself pointed out, the schedules are part of the bill. Accordingly, and as you pointed out, Mr. Speaker, the house received the committee's report, approved the amendments and ordered the bill read for a third time at the next sitting of the house. That is what is recorded in the official record of the proceedings of this house, Hansard of course being not properly speaking an official record of the proceedings of the house but merely a record of what was said here. The official record therefore confirms what you yourself have said, Mr. Speaker, namely that the bill having been considered by the house-that is to say, the whole bill-any defects in the proceedings in the committee were not only rectified by the house but are officially recorded as having been rectified by the house.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twillin-gate):: I agree completely with what has been said by the Minister of Justice. It is not to that point that I wish to address myself at all. I wish to address myself to the question of whether this motion should be entertained at all at this time. Your honour recognized the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson), and the Leader of the Opposition took his seat because Your Honour recognized the hon. member for Skeena on a question of privilege. But on a question of privilege the hon. member is not entitled to move a motion unless that motion is based on a privilege of the house and is not entitled to move one that he could only have moved after he had been

Maintenance of Railway Operation Act recognized as a participant in the debate. While the motion itself may be perfectly in order, the hon. gentleman was not recognized by Your Honour for the purpose of debating the third reading of the bill. It therefore seems to me that his motion could not properly come before the house at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. members for their assistance at this time. As I say, there is a question of privilege with respect to the report of the debates. If the hon. member wished to found a motion on it, I would entertain the motion. It seems to me that this motion does not relate to that question of privilege but is a motion calling on the house to refer the bill back to the committee of the whole for the purpose of considering schedules A and B, and that is a motion which could properly be made on third reading not as a matter of privilege. I think it should not be introduced now as a motion on the only question of privilege which appears to me to be valid having regard to what the hon. member has said. In other words, the motion relating to privilege should relate to the breach of privilege which I have recognized, namely the transcript of Hansard.
Does the hon. member for Skeena wish to say anything further?


Frank Howard: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It seems to me that perhaps you should consider whether or not consent should be given to this procedure, because it seems to me we are then putting the cart before the horse. In fact, if this matter is not dealt with now we shall be considering a bill on third reading. The Leader of the Opposition, who will be speaking to it, and others presumably who will be speaking to it, will be speaking to a bill which in my opinion-even though inadvertently it may appear in this way-is not properly before the house.
In view of that consideration and the comments made by the hon. gentleman, I think perhaps unanimous consent should be given to proceed with this motion and deal with it in committee. I am sure it will take only a few minutes.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member is only raising a point of order, and it is a point of order. However, he is not entitled to raise it in the middle of the speech of the Leader of the Opposition. When his turn comes to speak, if he wishes to put that matter forward I shall, of course, be glad to submit the matter to the house.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On the point of order may I say this, and I shall be brief. I submit that the point made by the hon. gentleman does not arise. As has been pointed out, if there was a deficiency in the committee's proceedings the house chose to rectify that deficiency.


In other words, if the committee chose to report a bill without having in fact considered the schedules, as the chairman of the committee agrees was the case, nevertheless the house received the report and has said in effect, "We are going to overlook the fact that the committee did not consider the schedules in the bill".
It was within the power of the house to do that. The house has received the report and has ordered the bill, including the schedules, for third reading. Therefore, that not only having been done but having been officially recorded, the fact of the matter is that any shortcomings in the committee's proceedings were overlooked by the house and the bill has been accepted as having been dealt with in the committee.


Mr. Speaker:: I am inclined to agree with what the Minister of Justice has said. Perhaps I am not strictly correct in saying that the point of order cannot be disposed of now. I recognized the Leader of the Opposition, but points of order, as hon. members know, are taken at any time. As this is a point of order that affects the validity of our proceedings in debating this bill on third reading, I think it should be disposed of.
In view of the considerations put before the house by the Minister of Justice, as to which I have already indicated my preliminary view on the matter, I propose to give my decision. Has the hon. member for Skeena anything more to say on the point of order?


Frank Howard: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The point of order is whether or not the house is in order in debating third reading. In view of what took place last night the point which was made by the Minister of Justice and which I myself raised is that the house last night accepted the bill as amended, accepted the report of the committee, and moved to approve the amendments. Therefore, if there were irregularities in committee they have been cured by the action of the house itself. The fact that there was not an opportunity to debate the schedules by themselves in committee would, in my opinion, be a good reason for moving the motion in question, but not as a point of order.


Frank Howard: If I may, I should like to say this. Even though perhaps the house inadvertently did something that it did not know it was doing, perhaps I should not make the motion at this time but should do so in the course of events if I may catch your eye.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: I do not intend to try to block or delay passage of this bill at this time by

Maintenance of Railway Operation Act
any procedural move. However, before the vote is taken I intend to set out briefly but I hope clearly the sole but significant difference between the government and the Liberal opposition on this bill. We agree with the government that there should be no railway strike at this time. We have already so stated in the course of debate on second reading of the bill. We agree with the government that it has become necessary to prevent this strike which otherwise would start tomorrow morning. We have already made that statement.
We do not agree with the government that the workers involved in this matter should be compelled by law to continue to work at wages below the standard accepted in comparable occupations where strikes are permitted, which standard has been used in negotiations previously. Our position is that in compelling the men to remain at work, the bill should also compel the companies to pay wages that a conciliation board, with a chairman appointed by the government, found to be fair and reasonable.
We believe therefore, Mr. Speaker, that clause 3 should have been amended to vary the collective agreements in order to bring them into conformity with the recommendations of the Milvain conciliation board. If the government had accepted that change in the bill, which we have already proposed, we of course would have voted for third reading of this bill with the amendment.
This would have assured overwhelming, perhaps even unanimous, parliamentary approval for legislation to prevent a threatened railway strike. However, if the government persists in maintaining the bill as it is, we cannot vote to force men to work for wages judged to be substandard by the Milvain conciliation board set up by the government. Therefore the government and its supporters will have to take exclusive responsibility for this unjust method to prevent a strike, which strike, however, we also believe must be prevented at this time in the public interest.


Mr. Winch:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I recognized the Prime Minister, crossing the floor of the house, if he is interested in speaking.


John George Diefenbaker: It does not matter to me, Mr. Speaker. I had just risen, but if the hon. gentleman wants to proceed it is perfectly all right. I do not want to interfere.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, on this occasion of third reading of this very important bill I would like to say a few words and take a few minutes' time on behalf of our group in this House of Commons.
We recognize very completely the importance and seriousness of the problem which is facing this country and this house, and the difficulties that arise. We recognize- and all hon. members have stated this- the effect that a cessation of work in the transportation industry could have, not only on those directly involved but those who would be indirectly affected as Canadian citizens engaged in other operations in our Canadian economy.
A great deal has been said both pro and con in these last few days on the legislation which is now before us. 1 think the position of our group has been made exceedingly clear. We regret that matters should have come to a position where the introduction of such legislation was deemed necessary by the government. We have pointed out that in our opinion, had there not been delayed action by the government it should have been possible, among responsible government, responsible employers and responsible employees, to work out a satisfactory solution. We feel most strongly-and we have demonstrated this by word and by vote up to this time-that in the introduction of the legislation the government has not taken what we consider a fair approach or an unbiased attitude. We in this group, sir, cannot accept in principle the introduction of legislation which will remove from a segment of the workers of this country an inalienable right ^yaXan ky law and given to most, because of the failure of government, employers and employees to work out a satisfactory solution.
Very briefly, we feel it is wrong. We cannot endorse the removal of a right, in particular in an industry which is very strongly regulated by government, when there is a majority report and when it must be admitted by all fair men upon due consideration that the 110,000 employees affected now have a gap, I believe, of around 29 cents an hour compared with the standard which has been generally accepted; that is, compared with those employed in the durable goods industries.
We feel that on almost every ground of principle affecting the rights of these workers, their positions and their standards, the government is really remiss in the manner in
which the legislation has been introduced_______
or should I say in what is left out of the legislation as far as the employees are concerned.
The government is asking, through the medium of this legislation, for the removal of what should be inalienable rights. As the law is going to be amended at this time, these rights will be removed. These employees, having carried on in a responsible manner now for over a year, are being asked

Maintenance of Railway Operation Act to continue tor another six months with no change in their standards and with no remedial action to close the gap between the standards which have been accepted for many years. In particular, Mr. Speaker, we cannot see how, with the passage of this legislation there will be a different position on May 15 of next year. In other words, we are going to have a continuous period of anxiety for just over six months, and then perhaps we will have to face the identical situation which we are facing at the present time.
We think that is unfortunate. There is nothing in the legislation, and nothing has been said by the government, that can possibly lead us to any conclusion other than that this is merely a policy-wise move, a stall, hoping that something may happen in the next six months. The Prime Minister stated what will most likely occur before May 1; that is, a lifting of the freight rate freeze, which I think undoubtedly must involve the question of whether there will be a continuation of the subsidy as far as freight rates are concerned. That is a situation, sir, which is almost untenable when you look at it today and try to look forward to what the situation will be on May 15. It is these reasons, amplified in the two days' discussion, that we felt had to be mentioned on the motion for third reading of this bill.
But, Mr. Speaker, there is one point that disturbs us greatly and it is this. As the legislation now stands-definitely as the legislation now stands-and considering anything expressed by the Prime Minister or the Minister of Labour, there is nothing to indicate that there will be any differentiation between now and six months from now. This can only lead to what I term a period of anxiety for the employees directly or indirectly affected. We feel that something should be placed in the legislation itself which would indicate that there was a possibility of removing the cause of this anxiety in the next six months, that this should not be left to wishful thinking on the part of the Prime Minister or the Minister of Labour with the probability that we shall be facing a situation on May 15 similar to the one we are facing at the present time. In other words, we feel there should be some provision in the legislation to direct that between now and May 15, when this bill becomes inoperative, there shall be a continuation of negotiations.
We feel that both men and industry must be reasonable. I know that workers are reasonable, because few things are so unpleasant as being out of work. The Canadian economy, as well as the position in which the workers find themselves, demand the removal

of this period of six month's anxiety leading to a likely repetition of the present situation six or seven months from now. Although I personally regret very much the necessity of placing in legislation any provision to insist that responsible men should get together,
I do not feel, because of the importance of this question to the country's economy and to the workers involved, that we can afford to leave the situation up in the air. It is simply not good enough to rely on wishful thinking.
It is because we feel that this question is of major importance that I move, seconded by the hon. member for Skeena:
That Bill No. C-45 be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole house for the purpose of reconsidering clause 3.
May I say in this regard that I should like to have mentioned more fully the purpose I have in mind, but there are certain rules of procedure; some things are in order and others are out of order. I know this is in order. I want the house to understand that the purpose of this amendment on third reading is to get the bill back into committee of the whole on clause 3 in order that the committee might give consideration to whether we should not give a legislative indication to the companies and to the employees that there is not to be a hiatus between now and May 15, and that the parties must get together as responsible people in an effort to work out a collective agreement before the expiry of a bill which is to become an act of parliament.
May I end by saying that we in this group are moving this amendment because we feel it is our responsibility as members of parliament to do so in the interests of the Canadian economy and of the Canadian workers who are directly or indirectly affected.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We have discussed for some hours the question involved in this amendment. We have no quarrel whatever with the point of view put forward by the hon. member who has moved the amendment. Indeed, on more than one accasion in the last two days we have expressed our support for that point of view.
However, we do not wish to take the responsibility for referring this bill back to committee now, with the risk that discussion of the bill in committee might be prolonged for a period of time which would make a strike inevitable. That is the only reason we are unable to support this amendment on third reading.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not intend to repeat the arguments which were made during the discussions which have taken place on this very important bill. I think one of the most interesting phases in connection with these discussions has been the degree to which there has been full and frank consideration of the issues by hon. members in all parts of the house.
The Leader of the Opposition has stated that while he agrees with the principle inherent in the amendment which has been moved, for the reasons he gave he did not himself move a similar amendment, if I correctly interpret his words. This has been one of those occasions when the government, in the interests of the people of Canada as a whole as well as for the preservation of the full and complete conciliation procedures which are on the statute books of this country, had to take action, and take it in the manner in which it has been presented to this house.
In so far as the Leader of the Opposition is concerned, he stated he wanted to set out the significant difference at this time between the government and the opposition. Well, he finds himself in a very difficult position in that regard, because he said "We do not want a rail strike at this time". At the same time he says parliament should assure by legislation the acceptance by both parties of a majority conciliation report in order that the results which all of us are trying to achieve may be attained. The great danger in that position is this. If parliament enacts that the majority report of the conciliation board shall be accepted by the employers and the employees and makes that mandatory, then we will have indeed established for this and future occasions that conciliation board majority reports are binding on the parties. My hon. friends opposite cannot have it both ways.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is misrepresenting the position we have taken on that point, as he did the other day.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member feels that his view is not properly expressed he could wait until the Prime Minister finishes.


John George Diefenbaker: I can understand the feeling of the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, because he has to wiggle on this.
I am trying to point out clearly that my hon. friend cannot have it both ways. If the majority report had recommended something different than it did, would he then have said that parliament should act? If he does, then indeed we have made a step forward in that so far as the railways of this country are
90205-6-294
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act concerned, when conciliation proceedings take place whether the majority report is favourable or unfavourable to labour it must be accepted.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is not the position.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, I know the difficult position of my hon. friends opposite. I realize the situation in which the opposition finds itself. It wants to pick and choose its position. It wants to take the stand, "Oh, of course, in the public interest we do not want a strike," and in order to prevent a strike taking place there shall be acceptance by parliament of the majority report which is not acceptable to the employers or employees. If we agree on that, if parliament is prepared to take that stand, then indeed we will have made a step forward toward the attainment of compulsory arbitration in all cases, for once a board of conciliation majority report is given the parties are bound.
As far as the rates of wages for the nonoperating railway employees are concerned, I have read the report. I would not contend- and I know this will not be accepted by the employers-that the employees are receiving rates of wages in keeping with wage levels in similar industries beyond the railways. I am expressing that viewpoint-


Lester Bowles Pearson: My hon. friend is forcing them to accept those wage rates by law.


John George Diefenbaker: Those words come from the Leader of the Opposition. He will not take the stand that a majority report is binding; not at all. The hon. gentleman just wiggles and squirms on this question, because he realizes that the people of Canada in the public interest demand that the railways shall continue operation. On the part of the government we demand that the conciliation processes shall be maintained, and we contend that compulsory arbitration as imposed in 1950 is inappropriate at this time.
This has been a trying situation and all of us realize that fact. The action taken will be misinterpreted, but the responsibility must be shouldered in the public interest.
It is interesting to note the difficulty of the Leader of the Opposition, because that tribune of the people in Saskatchewan, Mr. Thatcher, the former seatmate, room-mate and friend of the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue), who since has seen the light, gave his opinion last evening according to a Canadian Press dispatch. I read from the press dispatch:
Saskatchewan Liberal leader Ross Thatcher said today he is in complete agreement with the emergency legislative action taken by the federal government to prevent a nation-wide strike of non-operating railway employees.


Hazen Robert Argue: What paper is that?
450	HOUSE OF
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act Mr. Diefenbaker: The Globe and Mail. Mr. Thatcher is among the people and he cannot allow himself the luxury of accepting the position taken by his own national leader.


Hazen Robert Argue: You might have him next.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not care to speculate about those perambulations. I continue:
Mr. Thatcher said the interests of the public at large must be considered and rightly or wrongly it seems that those interests require the railways to keep moving.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: My hon. friend says
"Hear, hear," but I ask my hon. friend if he is prepared to say "Hear, hear" to the next point. The following sentence in this dispatch reads:
Mr. Thatcher criticized Liberal leader Lester B. Pearson for moving an amendment to kill the legislation on the grounds it imposes a compulsory and discriminatory wage freeze on workers involved.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before the hon. member goes further I just want to remind him of the rule on reading from newspapers that reflect on what has been said in the house. So far it has not related to what has been said here and has related to government policy, but it seemed to be leading in that direction.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On that point, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister ought to be allowed to proceed and we will expect to be given the same latitude. We have indicated that we would like to shorten this debate in the public interest, but the Prime Minister apparently wants to keep it going all day.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, surely I am not going to have a form of closure applied by the opposition. They used to apply it when they were over here, but surely they are not going to have it in reverse form in the opposition.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Go ahead; we have all day.


John George Diefenbaker: I simply intended, Mr. Speaker, to recommend to the Leader of the Opposition the reading of this Canadian Press dispatch because Mr. Thatcher is in disagreement with the amendment moved by the hon. gentleman and those associated with him.
I go further. I often hear radio reports quoted in this house. This morning I heard a report quoted over CFRA. The former Liberal prime minister, Mr. St. Laurent, said in Toronto last night, according to this report that "he agrees with Prime Minister Diefenbaker's action in the current rail crisis," 'but he added that "he would not like to be prime minister right now."


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has quoted a former prime minister. If he would be fair or if he knew he would realize that that statement was corrected by a Canadian Press dispatch from Toronto which says-and I wish to refer to it because the Prime Minister brought up this matter in an inaccurate form-


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Lester Bowles Pearson: As usual the Prime Minister was inaccurate.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Leader of the Opposition is interrupting to make a correction. Unless the hon. member who has the floor yields it, the proper time to make any necessary correction is at the termination^ of the speech. The Leader of the Opposition will then have the floor.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Prime Minister wants to persist in his error.


John George Diefenbaker: When it comes to a question of fairness there is one hon. gentleman from whom I will not take any lessons. I am simply referring to what has been said as reported. I can realize the exacerbated feelings of my hon. friends opposite. I am simply pointing out this fact. As far as the Leader of the Opposition is concerned, he finds himself in a position where he has to accept as a bounden mandatory principle that compulsory adherence to a majority report shall be followed in this country. If that is the policy, there are many who advocate that course, that we should have in the national interest legislation of that kind.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Nonsense.


John George Diefenbaker: I have not belonged to that group. In 1950 I took a strong and firm stand-and have throughout the years- against that form of legislation.
It has been said by the hon. member for Vancouver East that there should be a continuation of the conciliation processes provided for in the legislation. At any time an agreement is arrived at, this legislation ceases to be effective. I want to see these people together. We brought them together; we endeavoured to ascertain whether there was any possibility of agreement. I have said, and I repeat, that there was not that attitude on the part of either that would bring about anything in the nature of an agreement, reasonable in its characteristics. The preamble of the bill reads:
Whereas the processes of collective bargaining between the major railway companies and the representatives of their non-operating employees have failed to produce agreement, and the public interest requires that further efforts to react

agreement be resumed at a more favourable time without prejudice to the rights of either party and without interruption of the railway service;
Further on, in paragraph 3, we find the following:
Subject to this act, the term of each existing collective agreement is extended to include the period beginning on the commencement of this act and ending on the day on which a new collective agreement between the parties thereto in amendment or revision thereof comes into effect.
This makes every provision for a continuation of the conciliation proceedings. More than that, I think these people should be brought together at once. We continue the railways in operation. I for one will do everything I can to bring them together and regularly call them together so as to assure that discussions will continue and that justice will be done. So far as unfairness to the employees is concerned, there can be no justification for any truculent attitude being taken toward them.
There is one thing that I must answer, namely the suggestion that we in any way had acted for the benefit of the C.P.R. On the one hand, it was said and repeated that the Canadian Pacific railway wanted a strike to put the men in their places. That has been repeated here on more than one occasion. It must have been asserted with knowledge or it would not have been asserted, although I have no knowledge of that fact. If that is so, this legislation is a most effective answer to those who say there was any relationship between the Canadian Pacific and the government in this regard, because the tragic results which would follow such an attitude shall not and will not be countenanced.
I want to underline and emphasize that once again. The suggestion that that railway company would endeavour to do this to the workers of this country is such an outrageous one that if it has any foundation in fact, we have met it by preserving completely and absolutely the rights of labour and assuring at the same time the operation of the railways.
As far as the Canadian National Railways management are concerned, while the government has no authority over them-it is a separate and independent organization, and any interference in any way would be immediately challenged as improper and unjustifiable-I want to make it perfectly clear that if the management of the railway does things that ought not to be tolerated, that will do injustice to the workers of this country, this government, while scrupulously maintaining independence of that railway, will
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act certainly have the attention of the management brought to any such unfairness or discrimination against any of the workers of that railway. I want that definitely understood.
It has been a trying problem, sir, for all of us. We have tried to discharge our responsibilities. We have recognized that there will be misinterpretation of what we have done; that there will be endeavours to take political advantage of the course of action, as though we were in fact freezing wages to the detriment of the worker. As I said, we will maintain the conciliation processes from now until May 15. Instead of fixing a date away beyond, we fixed it in May so there would be no unjustified prolongation of the problem. We will bring these people together from time to time. Then, as I pointed out before, as soon as the freight rate freeze is lifted we will be in a position to bring about measures such as the hon. member for Assiniboia said were necessary to remove injustices and discriminatory rates, as far as that can be achieved, and the railways will be in a position to proceed in the only way in which expenses can be paid, namely either by grants or subsidies from parliament, in which case it comes out of the people through taxation, or through freight rates, which means that the users must pay additional amounts because of the increased expenses of operation.
We say this, and I repeat; it has been a difficult problem. I think parliament in the action it will take or is taking, provided that this bill is passed, to bring about a period not of inaction but of continued discussion between the parties, is doing the right thing. I believe the voice of reason will be heard; that public opinion has a tremendous influence on the production, the generation and the maintenance of reasonable, good common sense. If not, when we lift the freeze we will give the assurance that those who are workers on the railways, with their unions representing them, will be able to present their case, and that whatever is substituted in the place of the present agreements will be retroactive in fact to January 1, 1960.
There is no prejudice; there is postponement in order to prevent a strike taking place. Instead of taking the other course and bringing in compulsory arbitration, as suggested by the opposition-that in effect is what they say-we took the course we believed to be reasonable, namely the maintenance inviolate of the rights of labour, at the same time maintaining the public interest and welfare of 17,500,000 other Canadians. I think that in the process of time, as this becomes apparent and the rights of both sides become clear in the perspective of the days
452	HOUSE OF
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act ahead, what we have done will turn out to have been the proper and, indeed, the only course, the course of reason and of common sense.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before the hon. member for Essex East speaks, I prevented the Leader of the Opposition from making an explanation which he is at liberty to make now, if he wishes to do so, at the end of the Prime Minister's speech.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister misrepresented again today the position which he said we have taken with regard to the policy adopted to the effect to be given to majority reports of conciliation boards. I wish to make it perfectly clear that we have never taken the position that majority reports of conciliation boards should automatically be made effective. We have taken that position only in respect of action taken by parliament to put people back to work and forbid them from striking.


Mr. Churchill:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Leader of the Opposition is explaining what appears to him to have been a misrepresentation of his view. It seems to me it is really a matter of argument, because it is a question of interpretation of the consequences of the stand taken by the Leader of the Opposition rather than a misstatement of fact or a misrepresentation of what has been said.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will not argue the point, of course. I will simply say that the Prime Minister has made a misstatement with regard to our position on this matter, and the record will show that he made a misstatement this morning as he did the other day.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is simply that the Leader of the Opposition was interrupted by yourself when he rose to correct what he alleged was a misstatement with respect to a report of something that had been said outside the house, and now he has been given the privilege of making a second speech on third reading.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is untrue.


Mr. Speaker:: If that is the consequence, it was inadvertent, but the Leader of the Opposition did attempt during the speech of the Prime Minister to make an explanation which he felt should be made and I reminded him that unless the member who had the floor yielded the floor his explanation should be deferred until the end of the speech. I did


not want to do any injustice to the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. member for Essex East.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, it is regrettable that in a matter of this importance our procedures are such that the Leader of the Opposition is not allowed to state again the position of this party in matters which obviously the Prime Minister has not apprehended or does not want clearly to understand. It is also regrettable, I think, that in a matter of such national importance as this particular measure, and when we are in the final stages of the passage of the bill, the head of the government of our country should indulge at such a time in what was so obviously a political statement.


John George Diefenbaker: Not at all.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I say it is regrettable that in a matter involving the nation economically and otherwise, the Prime Minister, instead of giving the nation direction, should have sought to take political advantage of the very difficult situation with which every member of the house has been faced in this matter. He has introduced observations involving personalities outside of parliament, thereby seeking to gain advantage, seeking to give the impression that the Leader of the Opposition does not have behind him the support which the Leader of the Opposition is entitled to receive.
I wish to say to the Prime Minister that from observations that have been made by some hon. members who sit behind him and from statements that have appeared in the press, it is evident that all hon. members in my right hon. friend's party do not share many of the views he has expressed throughout the debate, but that is to be expected. I want to say that the Liberal party in this house, true to its convictions and its principles, stand united to a man behind the Leader of the Opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What about the Liberal party outside the house?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It would be impossible for the house to proceed if everyone attempted to speak at the same time. The hon. member for Essex East has the floor.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I should have thought that in a matter of this importance the Prime Minister of our country would have recognized, just as he has acknowledged was the situation so far as he was concerned, that there were very difficult decisions to make with regard to this matter. No political leader can justify his leadership if he is not

prepared in great moments to take decisions fearlessly in accordance with his honest beliefs and convictions-


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is what the Prime Minister has done.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -the Leader of the Opposition has taken his stand courageously in the face of the same difficulties that attend the right hon. gentleman and other hon. members of this house. Whatever may be the national mood at the moment, if there is a particular mood that can be properly determined, I have no doubt that the position taken by the Leader of the Opposition and the Liberal party in the house with regard to this matter will, by May 15 next, be proven to be the only sound position that could have been taken.
The Prime Minister sought to indicate that a former distinguished prime minister had taken issue with the position which we have taken in the house. The Leader of the Opposition sought to correct that. I think it is well that the full Canadian Press report be put on the record, in view of what I think was a very unfortunate initiative taken by the present Prime Minister and one which was not worthy of the man who holds that office. It was a misstatement of fact, not put forward by the Prime Minister to settle this strike in a statesmanlike way but rather to take advantage of the situation in a cheap, political way.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I hope the hon. member who is speaking will appreciate the significance of what he is saying and reconsider it; because while no exception can be taken to the imputation that political use is being made, I think the combination of "cheap" and "political" is not one that he would want to perpetuate.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult to agree that the words "cheap" and "political" are unparliamentary, but if Your Honour is of this view I have no hesitation in saying that I regard the observations made by the Prime Minister as not being worthy of a man who, in a national crisis, heads the government of the country.
That is what I say. What the Prime Minister might well have affirmed, is to have said that we have had great differences in this matter, that it is a difficult problem, that the government had its responsibilities and the Leader of the Opposition had his responsibilities. He might have said that he was convinced that, notwithstanding these varying views, we had all acted in the national interest as we saw it. However, that is not the course which the Prime Minister took. For that reason I have made these observations with
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act regard to the conduct and the words of the Prime Minister. What the former prime minister said, as reported in the Canadian Press dispatch, is as follows:
Toronto, Dec. 2	(CP). Former Liberal prime
minister Louis St. Laurent said last night he agrees that legislation to prevent tomorrow's scheduled rail strike was necessary.


John Whitney Pickersgill: So do we.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is our position precisely.
He told a young Liberal club at Osgoode hall, however, that he had not seen the bill introduced in parliament by Prime Minister Diefenbaker and so had no views on its terms. He added he would not like to be prime minister right now.
What is wrong with that statement? No one would want to accept responsibility under these circumstances. But I say that when he was prime minister and was dealing with a matter of this sort involving the national interest-and the record is there to prove this statement-he did not make, either at the end of the debate or at any time during the course of the debate, remarks that were not worthy of the man who held the office of prime minister.
The hon. member for Vancouver East I think it was, made some useful observations when he expressed what I am sure is the desire of every hon. member of this house. The Prime Minister expressed a similar view, namely that it is to be hoped that between now and May 15 an effort will be made by all parties concerned to try and bring about some agreement between the parties.
I put on the record yesterday the statement of Mr. Frank Hall. I did so in answer to the statement made by the Prime Minister that the conciliation proceedings had been preserved and had been given guarantee in so far as continuation was concerned. I took issue with that statement of the Prime Minister. In support of the position I took I pointed to the statement made by Mr. Frank Hall yesterday when he said that, because of this measure and because of the attitude of other parties in the negotiations, it was not practical to conceive that in the interval any successful negotiations could be undertaken. That is, of course, a statement to which the Prime Minister has not addressed himself, and which arises out of what Mr. Hall believed to be one of the weaknesses in the measure before us.
It is also regrettable that the Prime Minister should seek, for obvious purposes, to persist in making assertions that are contrary to the facts. Notwithstanding the denial the other day of the interpretation placed on the words of the Leader of the Opposition by the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister said that Liberal

Maintenance of Railway Operation Act policy as stated by the Leader of the Opposition was that we were urging, by the position we took, that all decisions of conciliation boards must necessarily be accepted.
That statement is as far from the fact as any statement could possibly be. What the Leader of the Opposition said was that in this particular situation the basis of settlement should be the majority award. That was not by any means a declaration to the effect that all conciliation board decisions in railway or other cases should automatically be imposed on the parties concerned. Why the Prime Minister makes that statement is difficult to understand, except on the ground that he seeks to gain some political advantage.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Anyone who understands labour-management problems must recognize that as not being possible at this stage in the development of the techniques being used in the conciliation of labour-management disputes. What the Leader of the Opposition said was this. He said that since this was a national crisis, since it involves matters of great national import, since we were taking away from labour one of its inalienable rights-not merely suspending it but taking it away-that action could not be justified unless at the same time we recognized the legitimate claims and demands of labour in the context in which they are made.
We thought those legitimate demands were recognized by the conciliation board in its majority decision when it said that wages providing for an increase of 14 cents should be accorded. In the face of that majority award we felt it was only right that in this unusual situation, where the rights of labour have been violated in the national interest, we should not send men back to work at wage levels below those recognized by the conciliation board itself.
There can be no doubt about the position of the Liberal opposition in this matter. It was stated again this morning by the Leader of the Opposition, who said first of all that we agree with the government that there should be no railway strike at this time; that we agree with the government that it has become necessary to prevent this strike which otherwise would start tomorrow; but that we do not agree with the government that the workers should be compelled by law to continue to work at wages below the standard accepted in comparable occupations where strikes are permitted. That is the position. In a matter of such great importance why the Prime Minister at this particular stage of our proceedings should want to take the attitude he took a few moments ago is difficult to understand if one did not know the

Prime Minister. This is not compulsory arbitration as the Prime Minister continues to say it is.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, yes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Prime Minister says yes, it is compulsory arbitration. As we said yesterday, this is compulsion without arbitration. But if it is compulsory arbitration, I will say this. Because of the decision of the government, if this is compulsory arbitration then it is compulsory arbitration imposed on the workers to continue to receive the wages which they have been receiving and about which they have been complaining, a complaint which the board said was justified. This is compulsory arbitration against the men on the part of the government, if compulsory arbitration is involved.
But it is not that at all. What this bill does is this. It perpetuates a situation; it singles out this particular group of workers, it freezes their wages, when no other group of workers in the country under our law, our practice or any of our decisions, is so treated. That is the situation. What the government is doing is to say that the minority report, that of Mr. Vineberg, shall be the basis of settlement.


John George Diefenbaker: Not at all.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is what the government is doing. The government is saying that the wages shall continue to be at the level at which they were before the decision made by the conciliation board. That is the clear result of this legislation. This legislation confirms the position taken by the company and supported by its spokesman on the conciliation board. That is the clear situation. The Prime Minister says, "We have respected the rights of labour in this legislation". There is no provision whatsoever in this bill that respects the rights of labour.
We asked last night, with regard to the employees who have been dismissed, that some machinery be set up to guarantee that any individual wrongfully dismissed might have an opportunity, without great cost, of having his case determined. That was denied us. Every single request made by the opposition groups that had to do with improving the position of labour under this measure was denied by the government. Therefore one cannot possibly support the statement of the Prime Minister that by this measure the rights of labour are being preserved.
Mr. Speaker, I say to the Prime Minister that the time for this government to show its concern and interest in labour is not in the future, as the Prime Minister mentioned at the end of his statement. The time was when the provisions of this bill were being

formulated. I say to the Prime Minister that labour will not say of him and of this government what it said of the former prime minister after the passage of the bill in 1950. Labour did not like many of the provisions in the bill of 1950, but after the bill had been passed, after the energetic, sincere and industrious efforts of the former prime minister, labour and the people of this country joined in praising and recognizing the statesmanlike attitude taken by that prime minister. That will not be the situation with regard to this bill.
The Prime Minister argues that the rights of labour have not been prejudiced. We went over that yesterday. They have been prejudiced in at least six important instances. The negotiations that the labour organization will have to carry on with the railway companies next September have been made difficult by the terms of this bill. The Prime Minister has not made it easy for them. He has not made it easy for himself, for his government, for the companies or for the country, by the situation he has brought about by postponing this measure until May.
He has given false hopes. He has sought to create the impression that a royal commission will give relief, notwithstanding the statement of the chairman of that royal commission that before it are not involved those matters concerned in this particular labour-management dispute.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is a matter of national importance. We in this party have sought to deal with this question in the light of what our conscience dictated. We have sought to discharge that duty honourably, and we do not deny that others in every quarter in this house have approached this problem in the same manner.
We believe our position was the correct one. Time may indicate that we were wrong, but I do not believe it will. I am sure that because we have adhered to sound, well known principles we will be proven in time to have taken the correct course. I am sure that in time this disposition of the government to postpone important issues will be proven to be wrong.
In any event, whatever attitude we have taken in this house, it ought to be possible for us to argue that we have taken it honourably, that we have taken it with no other consideration in mind than the national interest. I regret that the Prime Minister of this country, the head of our government, has given us one of the most unsatisfactory standards of conduct of statesmanship in this regard that we have ever had in the history of this parliament.
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act (Translation):


Hon. Pierre Sevigny (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I would not wish, by taking up the time of the house, to delay passage of this legislation, essential as it is to the welfare of our whole country.
For almost half an hour now, the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) has been indulging in remarks which I cannot leave unchallenged.
I shall take the liberty of repeating at this time the words of the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent who, only a few hours ago, said that in the present circumstances he did not wish to be this nation's prime minister.
Mr. Speaker, to be prime minister of this nation at this juncture is indeed a difficult task. I am, however, pleased to say, on behalf of my colleagues, and of all hon. members, that never have I been as proud to be a Conservative, nor as proud of my party and of this nation's Prime Minister, as I have been since this threat of a strike first came up, for I have realized that we have, at the head of this country, a man vitally concerned with Canada's interests and the welfare of his fellow citizens, and who proved it by introducing appropriate legislation to prevent a strike which would throw the whole nation in a state of chaos and disorder.
Mr. Speaker, when I hear the hon. member for Essex East who, professing to speak on behalf of the members of his party, accuses the Prime Minister of playing politics in this house, whereas actually all that the Prime Minister is trying to do is to prevent the disaster which this strike would mean, I must say the hon. member is unworthy of the fine traditions of a party that was once great but will soon no longer be so because it is following an abject policy.
If it be true that helping the nation is politicking, then I urge the Prime Minister to keep doing so.


Mr. Yvon Dupuis (St. Jean-Iberville-Napier-ville):: Mr. Speaker, the Associate Minister of National Defence and member for Lon-gueuil has just referred to the hon. member for Essex East in terms which are unwarranted.
As a member of the opposition and a member from the province of Quebec, like the Associate Minister of National Defence, I wish to say that the remarks made by the member for Essex East have been worthy of a former minister in a great Liberal government.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what has the minister said in connection with the bill before us? Nothing at all. Has he refuted the substantial arguments advanced by the member for
456	HOUSE OF
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act Essex East? Not a bit. He who disclaims indulging in politics, rose in his seat to say that the Liberal party was once great and soon no longer will be.
May I ask the associate minister, who is not in the habit of taking part in the debates, as would befit his position, kindly to note the statements made today by the hon. member for Essex East, to heed them well, and when next May the results are known of the policy now being evolved, the associate minister will realize that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) was right, that the member for Essex East was right, and that all that is being done at this moment is to put off an issue that will be all the more serious next May.
(Text):


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Speaker, may I say something in reply to what the hon. member has said?


Mr. Speaker:: The associate minister has just spoken. Unless it is a personal explanation involving his statement that he wants to clarify, he has no right to take the floor again.


Mr. Walter Pitman (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, this group has put forward an amendment-


An hon. Member:: Which group?


Walter George Pitman: -not to delay this legislation. My remarks will be brief and I hope, unemotional. However, at this point I would like to state the differences which exist between this group and the other parties in this house.
We believe, as do the other parties, that there should be no railway strike. We do not believe there should be any compulsion on workers to work at a wage level which has been found unacceptable by all standards and which would be unacceptable to any fair-minded Canadian. We do not believe that workers should be prepared to compromise themselves and compromise their fellow workers by doing so.
On the other hand, we do not believe that we in this house should legislate to the effect that management should pay, either. I think the Minister of Labour and the Prime Minister made a very good point when they suggested that there might be a time in the future when the house would be faced with similar legislation when the unions will have refused to accept a majority report of a conciliation board. On the other hand, I also accept the statement of the Leader of the Opposition


that he does not wish for an arbitrary solution. He believes there should be free play as between workers and management.
However, we believe that when parliament has to legislate in a situation such as this, neither labour nor management should be put at a disadvantage. That is why this group believe that if there is a national emergency the people of this nation would be willing to allow a favourable atmosphere to occur, an atmosphere in which neither management nor labour would be at a disadvantage. Here again, I think the former minister of transport had a good point when he called attention to the fact that this was an unusual situation because freight rates are frozen. By May 15 freight rates will be unfrozen and the royal commission report will have come down. At that time I am sure there will be a favourable atmosphere, because the workers will not be at a disadvantage and neither will management because they are not being obliged, through legislation, to pay higher wages.
I think this is the basis upon which a statesmanlike decision can be achieved. I think this is the basis upon which the citizens of Canada would be prepared to accept a subsidy until May 15 which, as the Prime Minister has pointed out, would amount to very little. On this basis I believe a change of atmosphere could occur immediately, a change which would bring together labour and management, and allow them to continue negotiations and, perhaps more than anything else, find a standard which would be acceptable and reasonable for the nonoperative railway workers, one which would be much higher than that suggested in the majority report of the conciliation board.


Douglas Mason Fisher: There are very few remarks I want to make now on this bill. It is not the practice for one opposition group to challenge another opposition group to explain its position, but there is one thing I do want to note. The prime point made by the Liberal-labour opposition, as I am going to call it, is that they possess a managerial concept which is peculiar and unique. This is the prime point they made in support of how they would handle this situation.
No one likes to be catty or nasty about these points, but I think we deserve an explanation of this managerial asset which the Liberal party has. I have looked around this chamber and I do not think the members of the Liberal party will be insulted if I say I do not see any managerial mystique right here. I can think of a number of names- Mitchell Sharp, Davidson Dunton, Bill Buchanan, Walter Gordon, Bob Fowler and

others-but they are not here, and we do not know whether they are part of this managerial concept, this shadow cabinet, which the Liberals have.
The hon. member for Essex East says, in complete sincerity I am sure, that the key point is that the Liberals would go ahead on 'sound principles'. This, again, is a part of the managerial conception.
What are these sound principles which are so basic and so unique to the Liberal party? I think what we shall have to do is accept, or anticipate, an argument on small "1" liberal principles, not large "L" Liberal party principles, because I am having a very difficult time seeing how this Liberal managerial concept makes any great contribution to this particular situation. I am not going to say the same things about the other points which the Leader of the Opposition brought up, because I think they were worth while, but he did lead off by talking about this managerial mystique nonsense. Of course I am biased, but I just cannot see this managerial ability which the Liberal party apparently supposes itself to possess at the present time. It is nothing but a social nostalgia on the part of the hon. gentleman; memories of C. D. and all that.
I think I can finish before one o'clock. In so far as the royal commission on transportation is concerned and some of the remarks made by the Prime Minister on television- the right hon. gentleman will correct me if I inadvertently misquote him-as I understand it the Prime Minister said on television that the royal commission had to a degree been delayed or held up by illness. I have checked this matter-


Mr. Speaker:: I note what the hon. member said about finishing by one o'clock, and I would remind him now that there is nothing in the bill which relates to what he is discussing at the present time.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Is Your Honour referring to the managerial concept?


Mr. Speaker:: I refrained from making any comment then, but I do now.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The whole basis for this six months' delay until May 15 in the bill is the royal commission hearings. So far, the royal commission has not missed a single hearing that I know about due to illness. There has been illness of members, of course, and I understand that at the present time the chairman is not in as good physical condition as we might hope. I have here the last printed volume of the proceedings open at the 24,000 page mark, which surely indicates how extremely complicated this question is. I wish to underline the fact that this commission, by 90205-6-30|
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act the terms of this legislation, or at any rate by its implications, will be obliged to come up with a report by March 31, although it still has hearings called for January which may run into February.
This illustrates the pressure which is being placed on the royal commission as a result of this legislation, a pressure which is most unusual, especially when we recall that royal commissions have for generations been the butt of jokes founded on the length of time they take to make their reports. Hon. members may recall the legendary royal commission on kissing which, according to A. P. Herbert, was set up in 1874 and has not reported yet. This commission, however, has to get its work done in maybe three months, and by then it will have more than 25,000 pages of evidence. Thus I make the final point that this bill places a most unfair burden on the royal commissioners, people for whom, ordinarily, I have no great sympathy.
One of the points which have been brought to the attention of the royal commission throughout its hearings has been that the railways, in the last couple of years, have been reaping tremendous advantages throughout the years in productivity increases as a result of the introduction of new equipment. There has never been any discussion here as to how that relates to the present situation.
May I call it one o'clock?


John George Diefenbaker: I wonder if the house would be willing to continue. If there are no other speakers to follow the hon. gentleman, perhaps he could conclude and we could have a vote on this.


John Whitney Pickersgill: So far as we are concerned I think we would be willing to take that course.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I want to make a point that the productivity increases have been immense. While it is true that the revenue of the railways has been frozen, the companies have had tremendous possibilities for saving. That is certainly the key to most of the western arguments before the royal commission. Surely this gives the railways the leeway to do something about better wages.
We have heard no argument raised on this particular point, but if I were a railway worker I know I would have in mind the development of central traffic control, the running of two divisions, greater productivity of diesels and new yards, and so on, because all this should put the companies in a better position. To argue from the operating revenues of the railway at this time is not nearly as relevant as to look at the costs.
I think this point should be underlined. The
458	HOUSE OF
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act workers in this case are working for a management that has had a decreasing scale of costs in terms of productivity as a result of innovations. This should be a strong factor in any consideration of wage rates for them.
In conclusion, I reiterate that we are against the bill and support the amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: It is one o'clock, but if the house will unanimously consent to the question being put now we may proceed.


Frank Howard: We are in an unfortunate position. We do not know how long this will go on. The division will consume some time, and I intend to raise another point which may well cause another division. I think we should adjourn until 2.30.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is the house ready for the question?


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, before we take this vote, I should like very briefly to go over the main points of criticism and the main propositions that are being put forward by our group at this time.
Our first position is that this legislation should not have been necessary; that the government might have taken another course that would have solved the problem, and would not have placed parliament in the position of having to deal with legislation that we think is repugnant to the Canadian way of life, is undemocratic and should not be embarked upon by any free parliament except in a very extreme emergent situation, which we think did not need to arise.
We agree with all those who have said that everything possible should be done to avoid a strike; that a strike would bring difficulty perhaps chaos to many communities and industries in this country, and that management, workers and government should together have been able to bring forward a proposition that would have avoided a strike.
Beyond question there is compulsion in this bill. This is what the bill is about; it is to force the railway workers and the companies to maintain and continue operations until May 15. The Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) said that this is not compulsory arbitration. He argues that after May 15 next year the parties will go back to their original position. In this legislation he has failed to give anything to the workers involved. The attitude of the Liberal party is that had there been in this legislation a provision for


compulsory arbitration along the lines of the legislation of 1950, they would have been in support of it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not at all.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is not the
position.


Hazen Robert Argue: The position of the Liberal party is that this kind of legislation with that provision added is something that they could support. We are opposed to this legislation, as we were opposed to the legislation in 1950. We are opposed to compulsion without arbitration; we are opposed to compulsion with arbitration. We feel that the workers have a good case. The Prime Minister has admitted it, the Liberal party in the house has stated it and we have stated it, and yet in this legislation nothing is being done to recognize that principle; and so the workers involved are exceedingly disappointed with what is now taking place.
I have said on a previous occasion that in our judgment the C.P.R. was in a financial position to meet the majority report of the conciliation board. However, it is understandable that the Canadian Pacific railway would dig in its heels and say no when they became aware that the government would bring about this kind of legislation which would remove the pressure that the workers had been able to place on the railways. The government assured the railway and the country that the company would continue operations even without an increase in wages, and therefore the company had nothing to lose.
We have suggested that, as an alternative to the compulsion in the bill presented by the government, as an alternative to the compulsion that the Liberal party is prepared to support, there is and there was another way out, where compulsion would not have been necessary, where the government might have taken action to resolve the problem in a way that would help the workers and the Canadian public. We suggested that a subsidy should be paid from the national treasury and that this subsidy at least from now on until May 15, and perhaps beyond that, would have removed the grievance of the workers and the opposition of the railway companies to signing an agreement. We think this was a reasonable proposition. The government will argue and does argue that a subsidy in this instance is wrong. The Liberal party is not prepared to support this kind of a subsidy. We suggest that a subsidy of this size for this purpose at this time is a much fairer way to deal with this question than the attitude taken by the government to force the men back to work and say that next May 15 our policy is to load the additional wages on to the freight users of this country.

What the Prime Minister has said is that a strike next spring may be possible. He said that the government is removing the right to strike at this time, not the right to strike in the future. The Prime Minister is saying that with the restoration of the rights of free men in this situation an application can then be made to the board of transport commissioners. As I see it, what will happen, what the government intends to happen, is a very large increase in freight rates next spring. It wants to bring about the postponement of the problem until then at which time the burden of the increase will be loaded on the freight service users of the country.
As a matter of fact, an additional part of their policy has become clear, namely that the subsidy now in effect for the purpose of maintaining freight rates as they exist will be withdrawn and the country will face a very large and, I am positive, discriminatory increase in freight rates because it is practically impossible to bring about a complete equality of all freight rates even though, as I have said, I have great confidence in M. A. MacPherson, the chairman of the royal commission.
We do not reject subsidies as part of a national policy. We think it is time for a general transportation policy that will provide parity of treatment to the workers.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I just say to the hon. member in a cautionary way that the question of subsidies has been proposed and disposed of in the course of the proceedings on the bill and it does not now have any part in the bill which is being discussed. Strictly speaking, the matter before the house is the content of the bill. I know that the debate has ranged afield even on third reading but I hope the hon. member will not pursue at any length matters which are not before us.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, your admonition is, I think, fair. However, I think it is perfectly correct to say that the debate on third reading so far has been very wide ranging and reference has been made to many things far removed from the contents of the bill. I was about to say, and on this point I will conclude in a couple of sentences, that we have suggested that there should be a national transportation policy of which subsidies should be an integral part, a national transportation policy which will provide parity for the workers in the transport industry generally, which will provide equality of treatment and where any subsidy will be applied in a fair and equitable manner to the
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act railroads, air lines, truck transport companies and the workers who make their living in all of these various branches of the transportation industry.
I think one of the reasons for the impasse today is the hodgepodge that has developed over the years in our transportation industry. We are suggesting in this amendment that the house should once again give consideration to the proposition that particular provision should be made for the continuation of conciliation procedures in the hope that the railway companies and the workers may yet come to an agreement. I think the amendment before the house is based upon a very desirable objective. We are disappointed that the Liberal opposition has decided to vote against it but nevertheless we think it is a good proposition.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, before the vote is taken I should like to correct a misstatement that the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) made-I do not accuse him of being intentional about this-with respect to the position of the Liberal party. As I heard him say it, he said that this legislation would be acceptable to the Liberal party if it provided for compulsory arbitration. That, of course, is completely wrong.
What the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) said this morning was that this legislation would be acceptable to the Liberal party if it was amended to impose the terms recommended in the majority report of the conciliation board. That is not arbitration but rather a determination by parliament which is a very different thing. We are concerned with an agreement that expired on December 31, 1959 and is only continued in operation by the general law, and under the bill we are determining that that shall be the agreement. We think that if we are going to impose settlement by parliament, and that is what the government is asking us to do, the settlement imposed by parliament should be one that was determined independently to be fair. That is our position.
The government is asking parliament to compel the men to stay at work, and we support that, but the government is also compelling the men to stay at work at wages that the men refuse to regard as fair and reasonable, and we do not support that. We think, as the Leader of the Opposition said, that if you are going to compel the men to stay at work the companies should be compelled to pay between now and next May the amounts determined in the majority award, that there should be no subsidy now but that next May or June or whenever it is-here we differ completely with the C.C.F.-a general review

Maintenance of Railway Operation Act be made after the report of the royal commission, which we do not think should be prejudged and any disability to the railways resulting from this imposition should then be taken into account in the policy determined by parliament. That is the position we take.
We are not suggesting that in this case there should be compulsory arbitration. There is nothing to arbitrate. There are two positions. The companies say that they do not want to pay anything more. The men say that they are satisfied with the majority award. When I said there was nothing to arbitrate I was perhaps wrong. An arbitration would involve the determination of something in between these two positions. That is what an arbitration would do. We are not in favour of arbitration. If parliament is going to compel the men to work, we are in favour of that compulsion being accompanied by compulsion on the companies to pay the wages that the independent chairman appointed by the government determined would be fair and reasonable in the circumstances.


John George Diefenbaker: Before the vote is taken, Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. This morning I referred to a statement by the former prime minister of Canada, Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent. I read from a copy of the Canadian Press dispatch. The Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Essex East, whether intentionally or inadvertently, both left the impression that I had omitted some words from the Canadian Press dispatch and that the press dispatch had said, as I recall the words of the Leader of the Opposition, that Mr. St. Laurent had not even read the bill. So that there will be no mistake as to what the Canadian Press dispatch said, I wish to put it on the record in full as a matter of personal privilege. It reads as follows:
I wanted the record clear so there would be no suggestion that any portion of the dispatch was left out by me.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has read his Canadian Press dispatch. We have read the Canadian Press dispatch that we have received and, paraphrasing it, there were words in that dispatch to the effect that Mr. St. Laurent had nothing to say about the bill because he had not read it. I am informed that the first Canadian Press dispatch-and perhaps it is the one which the Prime Minister read-was superseded by another dispatch correcting the earlier one.


John George Diefenbaker: I had anticipated that answer. This is the last one.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That matter can be cleared up by getting in touch with the Canadian Press. But on the question of privilege may I say this. The Prime Minister this morning -and I think Hansard will show it- did not refer to a Canadian Press dispatch.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, yes.


Lester Bowles Pearson: He referred to the broadcast over CFRA. Now he reads a Canadian Press dispatch.


John George Diefenbaker: Read this afternoon's Journal.


An hon. Member:: Pretty cheap.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Further misrepresentation.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. The question, is now on the main motion.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I want to spend just a moment or two on this question of the two schedules A and B-


Mr. McPhillips:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My point of order is this, that the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), having seconded the amendment, has thus
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act availed himself of the right to speak on the main motion and cannot be heard at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the hon. member give me the citation. I know there is a suggestion that this is the rule, but it has not been enforced.


Albert DeBurgo McPhillips: I have not the citation before me now, but I am quite satisfied that is the rule; and it has been enforced in this chamber on many occasions.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I happen to recall it being enforced once last session.


Mr. Speaker:: I would like to be sure of this, because I know there is a suggestion that seconding a motion does count as speaking, whether or not a member rises in his place. To my recollection it has been applied to prevent the moving of another amendment. But if a member has been named as a seconder and has not availed himself of the opportunity of speaking, my recollection is that we have not enforced the rule that that must be counted as having spoken. In the absence of clear authority as to our practice here, I would not like to deprive the hon. member of an opportunity of speaking.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I can only say, Mr. Speaker, that I know the question was examined at the last session. There is a citation on the point. I cannot lay my hand on it at the moment, but I know this citation was applied last year. I was personally concerned in the result. The application of this citation resulted in the house being spared one speech to which it would otherwise have had to submit.


Mr. Speaker:: Before I hear the hon. member for Skeena, I think, if I am not mistaken, that the point raised there was whether the hon. minister who moved the third reading could defer his speech by saying nothing until his reply at the end of the debate. Was that not the situation?


Frank Howard: Perhaps I did not indicate this too clearly when I spoke earlier, but I do not understand how the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) could raise a point of order while I was already started on one. This question was discussed with the clerk of the house yesterday, and I found I had to take it up in a formal way-


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member rises to speak on a point of order the question does not arise, and I will hear him.


Frank Howard: The point is that this bill is not properly before us.

Division


Edmund Davie Fulton: That was disposed of this morning.


Frank Howard: I know the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) has a tendency to dispose of a number of things, but he has not disposed of this because he was not in the Speaker's chair.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The Speaker disposed of it.


Frank Howard: I point out to the Minister of Justice that I declined to proceed at that stage. My point of order is that the bill is not properly before us because schedules A and B were not considered in committee and, in fact, the committee reported incorrectly what had occurred when the report was made last evening. It is true the house accepted this report, and the argument can be made that by accepting it-


Mr. Speaker:: If I may interrupt the hon. member, that is the point of order which he raised this morning and I disposed of that point of order as a preliminary to founding a debate on third reading. The hon. member indicated then that our proceedings would not be regular on third reading if his point of order were well taken, so I had to dispose of it.
What was deferred was not consideration of the point of order, but his motion, the independent motion which he could have moved on third reading as an amendment inde-pendly of any question of order. Thus, if what the hon. member has said is the entire substance of his point of order I must disagree with him and say it has been disposed of.


Frank Howard: It is not the entire substance. The entire substance is that two wrongs do not make a right. If this house was wrong in the first instance in accepting the report, I submit that two wrongs do not make a right-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is repeating his argument, but it is quite clear in my mind that the action of the house in accepting the report of the committee, accepting the amendment to the bill and ordering the bill for third reading was an independent action and is not dependent for its validity on the proceedings which took place in committee. Therefore the house was quite in order in proceeding to read the bill for the third time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker-


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there is a matter I should like to bring before the house at this time if the hon. member will allow me. The bill now goes to the other place where it will be deliberated upon. I am wondering whether at this stage the house might give consideration to agreeing to sit after six o'clock in the event that by that time the other place has not dealt with the bill in all the stages necessary to permit royal assent this evening.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I think that is a reasonable request from the Prime Minister and we will be glad to agree to it.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: In view of all the circumstances this group agrees with the proposal.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the suggestion that the house continue to sit beyond six o'clock or that it rise at six in the normal way and be reconvened by the sounding of the bell?


Some hon. Members:: Reconvene at the sounding of the bell.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it unanimously agreed that the adjournment take place at six o'clock and that the house may be reconvened at the sounding of the bells if and when this matter has been disposed of in the other place?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
may's 16th edition
Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, may I take one moment on a question of privilege. I have that reference which Your Honour requested earlier. It is in May's 16th edition at page 449.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I trust that the hon. member will keep it before him for the occasion when it is needed again. I think it is hardly a matter of privilege now.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I simply wished to indicate that the reference is there.


Mr. Speaker:: It is hardly a matter of privilege to instruct the Speaker needlessly.
Questions of Privilege



MR. BENIDICKSON    REFERENCE TO SPEECH OF MINISTER OF LABOUR

William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which I think affects all hon. members of the house and which will certainly prove to affect the privileges of many outside the house.
Your Honour will appreciate our unusual difficulty today in that we sat until about two o'clock this morning and that was followed by an early morning sitting today. In consequence of this I was not able to look at my own Hansard until a few moments ago. I do not have the privileges of many others in the house who concurrent with the sittings of the house are supplied with blue sheets from Hansard.
I refer Your Honour to page 398 of Hansard of December 1 where the remarks of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) appear. I was aware at that time that I would likely shortly follow the minister who was concluding the debate on second reading and in consequence thereof I made very close notes of some of the pertinent remarks he was making. I made careful notes and I still have those notes in my hand. I find that in the first paragraph of his remarks yesterday he referred to "the best possible way" which I have here in quotation marks. In the second paragraph of his speech on page 398 in the left hand column I find to my surprise that he is reported to have said in that paragraph:
The purpose of this bill is to extend the present agreements to May 15 and to give the opportunity for collective bargaining-
At that point for the purposes of reply, as I indicated, I made notes. I distinctly heard the minister say that there would be given the opportunity after May 15 to strike. There is nothing in the text today that has reference to the words "opportunity after May 15 to strike". To establish that was elementary to my remarks during the course of the debate.
If Your Honour will look at the next page 400, in the right hand column, you will find that this subject also interested the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin). The hon. member for Essex East was questioning the minister as to the rights of the workers after May 15. In the right hand column on that page the hon. member for Essex East is reported as having said:
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?
I intervened at that point and said:
The minister has already said he will give them the opportunity to strike on May 15.

Questions of Privilege
I know that some ministers who, as I say, are supplied with blue sheets from Hansard and do not have to go to the debates office on the third floor as some of the rest of us do, occasionally have the assistance of their staff-their secretaries or executive assistants-in the revision of their Hansard text. I should like the minister to indicate to the house whether he personally made any elimination of the phrase I read from my notes or if not whether he would inquire and ascertain if any member of his staff made a correction in the Hansard text differing from the note I have outlined?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I immediately say I personally made no correction.


William Moore Benidickson: Would the minister make inquiries and ascertain whether any member of his staff made an alteration of that kind?



MR. MARTINEAU    REFERENCE TO SPEECH OF THE HON. MEMBER FOR ESSEX EAST

Mr. Paul Mariineau (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I should also like to raise a question of privilege affecting the privileges of this house and also relating to Hansard. I refer Your Honour to page 374 of yesterday's Hansard where the hon. member for Essex East is reported to have said:
No one knows better than the hon. gentleman the meaning of what I have said.
I remember distinctly the exact words which the hon. member used, as do many other hon. members of the house including my deskmate the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell), and the words he used were the following: "No one knows better than I the meaning of what I have said." Therefore, I should like to ask the hon. member for Essex East whether he or anyone in his behalf changed that wording.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister have just now conferred on this matter. To relieve their blood pressure, may I say I made the correction.



MR. PEARSON    REFERENCE TO STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER

Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, now that we are in the mood for questions of privilege, I should like to refer to one that was raised a few moments ago by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) when he challenged the accuracy and the validity of an intervention made by myself in regard to a statement which he attributed to the former prime minister, Mr. [Mr. Benidickson.)
St. Laurent, basing his own statement on a CFRA broadcast this morning. On that occasion I read a Canadian Press dispatch which contradicted the accuracy of that which the Prime Minister put forward, and the Prime Minister has brought this matter up again this afternoon to confirm that he was correct.
I have made some inquiries since the Prime Minister's intervention, and I have the original story of the Canadian Press here. The Canadian Press dispatch was first filed at six o'clock this morning. There was another story filed at 9.24 a.m., correcting the earlier Canadian Press dispatch because of an inaccuracy, and I have that here also. The 9.24 a.m. Canadian Press dispatch, which is the accurate dispatch, says that the first five lines of the 6 a.m. dispatch should be eliminated. Therefore, it is made clear that Mr. St, Laurent was not endorsing the legislation, as quoted from the Canadian Press dispatch, which is confirmed by the Canadian Press in its second dispatch, which the Prime Minister did not use.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Has it been published?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, it has been published.


John George Diefenbaker: The last statement I quoted was from the Ottawa Journal of this afternoon. It was in addition to the one I quoted this morning, which came from radio station CFRA. The last one I quoted was from this afternoon's Ottawa Journal.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is still wrong.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is quite right. The original error appeared in the Ottawa Journal, and it has since been corrected by the Canadian Press.


Mr. Speaker:: Each hon. member appears to have his own press dispatch.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We have the right one.


Mr. Speaker:: It may be a matter of privilege when Hansard is changed; I am afraid it is beyond the control of this house when the Canadian Press changes its copy.



VOCATIONAL TRAINING


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, November 25, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Starr-Mr. Flynn in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to authorize the Minister of Labour to enter into agreements with provincial governments for the encouragement of technical and vocational training and to authorize the making of contributions by Canada toward the cost of programs of technical and vocational training undertaken under provincial

authority, including contributions toward the cost of capital expenditures on training facilities connected with such programs; to authorize the Minister of Labour to undertake programs of technical and vocational training for specified categories of persons; to provide for the establishment and operation of an advisory council and the appointment of its members and staff and to define its duties; and to provide for other related and incidental matters.
(Translation):
Mr. Caron:: Mr. Chairman, a week ago I had to interrupt my remarks at the sounding of the six o'clock bell announcing the adjournment of the house. At that time I was saying that since the beginning of the session the government has suggested amendments to some acts that were already in our statutes, but without saying so forthright, leading us to believe that entirely new bills were being introduced.
As a matter of fact, in the resolution under consideration, there is only one thing different from the act of 1952 and the amendments of 1954, and that is the establishment of an advisory council, and nothing else. Now, we urge the government to consult with the provinces with a view to ensuring a more adequate training to those who are about to start on their own, and those who are already on the labour market and must change jobs when they are not completely ready to do so, especially day labourers. But the department should have entered into negotiations with the province before introducing this legislation. Because we know that education at all levels, comes under provincial jurisdiction. Now, suppose we pass the bill that will follow the resolution under discussion, what will happen if the provinces, not having been consulted, say no for some reason or other? We would have passed a totally ineffective bill.
With regard to the field of education, I wonder if French-Canadian members from the province of Quebec would like to make their opinion known to us, because we all know how they objected to the intervention of the federal government in this field. They have done so repeatedly since 1953, or since the Liberal government decided to assist universities. How can they agree to vote for such legislation today?
I probably could have asked the Secretary of State (Mr. Dorion) if he would care to make again the speeches he used to make before he accepted the joint responsibility of the cabinet, but I would not dare. I should like, however, that some Quebec member
Vocational Training
state his stand and that of his colleagues on this resolution. As for us, our mind is at rest. The Liberals have accepted and recognized that the federal government had the right to interfere in the field of education, in so far as the provinces agreed, and we shall pursue that course.
The present project is a long range one and we intend to endorse it. We recognize that its purpose is to prepare, in a rather distant future, the young generation so that it might play its part within society. But what is being done at the present time? Has the Department of Labour found a way to settle the present economic emergency, when thousands of workers seek employment and thousands of unemployed are unable to withdraw unemployment insurance benefits because they lack the required number of stamps?
Are we able to find, in this resolution, anything which might relieve the immediate plight? Even though I studied every resolution on the order paper, I found nothing which could remedy the present plight of our society.
We are all in favour of long term assistance projects, but we maintain that the government has the responsibility of trying to settle the immediate problem of those who are suffering from unemployment in spite of what the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) had promised, of those who do not have enough bread on their table or enough money to pay their rent and who have to ask the municipalities for help through direct relief.
At this time, the government is following the policy it has adopted in the past, which means that it is passing on its responsibility to the municipalities. Long term legislation can be proposed similar to that which we now have for consideration and which will take one, two or even three years to give results, but in the meantime the municipalities have to bear the heavy burden of unemployment, which is not due to the municipalities but to the carelessness of this administration which did not find the necessary markets for our production surpluses, with the result that we are overstocked with products of all kinds. Manufacturers are forced to idleness at least a few days a week, due to the fact that they cannot sell their surplus production.
That is what the federal government should have done, besides bringing down legislation such as the one now before us and which we support. But it should also have attended to the immediate situation. If it had followed our suggestions a year or two ago, when we warned the government that there was danger

Vocational Training
ahead and we submitted at least 25 suggestions for new legislation; if it had heeded the suggestions made by the opposition we would probably not be in such a predicament at this time. Unfortunately, the minister claimed at the time that the problem was just temporary. He was listening to advice from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) who was satisfied that the recession was over and that we were on our way to prosperity.
Well, Mr. Chairman, we find today that the advice of the Minister of Finance was based on nothing but his own intuition and that we are now faced with a much more serious situation. If the government has decided to offer effective legislation, I submit that that legislation should be amended in order to be of greater assistance to the younger generation.
I would also ask the government to try and find means to help the needy at this time.
It should not be forgotten, Mr. Chairman, that communism does not thrive on people's prosperity, but on their distress. If these hard times were to continue, people of good will will be seen throwing overboard old principles that they used to hold dear and give themselves to the highest bidder.
The government has some responsibilities, and it should find the ways and means to relieve the present want while getting ready to give assistance to those who tomorrow will have to change jobs.
In view of these facts and the present needs and in the light of this bill, I would ask all members, and especially the Conservative members, to abstain from anything that might delay their own bill so that it can be put into force as soon as possible in order that we may bring forward as soon as possible, bills meant to cope immediately with this unemployment situation which is affecting our population. Thus shall we contribute to the greatest happiness of all, and the Liberal party will readily support this resolution.
(Text):


Mr. Best:: Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to rise in support of this most important long range measure. I have listened with interest, as I am sure others have, to the hon. member for Hull. We have no difficulty whatsoever, of course, in hearing him. His voice carries very well. However, I did have difficulty in understanding just what he said and what relation it had to the present measure. He discussed many other subjects.

I feel that the measure now before us could have tremendously beneficial effects on unemployment, on industrial manpower and on productivity in Canada in the near future and, indeed, over the long range years ahead. I can think of few measures more vital and more contributory to advancement within our country. There are a number of important problems facing us today and with the changes in technology in our present world and the ever-narrowing horizons of our world today, trained manpower and skilled people are of paramount importance to our country.
When one studies the figures one notices that in the ranks of the unemployed today there are people who in many instances are not specifically trained in a particular skill so as to be able to fill certain positions. In his speech, as found in Hansard of November 25, pages 231 and 232, the Minister of Labour remarked in the ranks of the unemployed the unskilled are approximately three times as numerous as unemployed workers who have specific training or skills. I think this is indicative of the problem before us and the government is taking steps to bring about increased assistance in this regard.
We realize that education in general comes within the sphere of provincial action but in collaboration with the provinces I am sure that the government can advance at present and even more so in the future, the important cause of technical education in our country. Many people have come to Canada in the last 15 years, as a matter of fact somewhere in the neighbourhood of two million, I believe, and we have tried in most instances to bring to Canada those with specific skills who could contribute something to agricultural and industrial production and other important projects within our country. We sometimes see, and this is the unhappy thing, that it is our native born Canadians who are unemployed and who, because of lack of specific training and knowlege to enable them to be fitted into our increasingly complex industrial situation, sometimes cannot avail themselves of the jobs that are open and waiting.
The minister pointed out in his speech, to which I referred earlier, that while there may be numbers of unemployed there are jobs without job-takers in various areas because of a lack of people in the particular area who are specifically trained. I think one of our problems in this regard is perhaps a psychological one that our country will have to face in the present circumstances and in future years. I refer to the recognition of the

dignity and importance of technical training for our people. We are conscious of the tremendous increase in high school and university education and in the need for plant and other facilities, and more teachers and professors, but we must also realize that with the increasing raising of standards in university education and the increasing volume of enrolment not all of our children can make the best and wisest use of that sort of training. In other words, technical training at some level of secondary education in the high schools and, indeed, at the age level of university education, may be a much wiser course for many young people who are coming of age, as it were, to follow.
The minister has pointed out the interesting fact that in the next five years, I presume up to 1965, more than half a million young Canadians will enter the labour market. This very large number of young people coming forward for education and training must in my opinion have in front of them an increased scope for learning and acquiring the skills which are so highly necessary in this day and age. It is because of this that I feel that a long range attack on the sort of technological unemployment that we see in Canada today must be made through constructive measures of this sort.
In a field such as the construction industry and in home building which our government has aided so much in the last three years, we know that as the rise and fall of home building-the flow as it were in this industry -goes, so does a considerable amount of employment or unemployment in various areas. That result is natural. But sometimes these people are unable through lack of skills, when home building has caught up in certain areas, as it has to some extent at least, to fit into other jobs through lack of specific technical training.
I should like to comment on some other remarks made by the minister in this direction. He mentioned the fact that there are large numbers of men and women unemployed for lack of essential skills. He has mentioned and I have quoted the fact that as to the untrained jobless, as it were, the ranks of the unemployed are swelled by these people to a much larger extent. I think we should be truly troubled by these figures. I thought it of great interest to note on page 233 of Hansard the minister's figures indicating that some 5 per cent of all young people enrolled in our secondary schools are taking a technical course program and that of post-high school technical students in Canada-as I presume this figure means- some 8,000 are enrolled in straight technical schools or programs apart from our high
Vocational Training
schools. These figures are really low. They are fantastically low in a country like Canada, a country such as we have here with a small ribbon-like population stretched over a great area, and which must depend now and in the future on our competitive ability to do things better and in a more productive fashion in order to compete with other markets and with other countries around the world which have a longer tradition in technical training and a much larger labour pool.
This measure, of course, ties in as well with the most interesting mention and presentation of a productivity council for Canada, for technical training is closely allied to increased productivity and greater efficiency of industry, agriculture and production of all sorts within our country. I am sure this productivity council will want to work closely in the future with any system or systems of technical education on a municipal, provincial or federal level. These are some of the things which we are examining today.
We have brought to Canada people from many other lands. The minister has pointed out in the past that these countries, of course, have certain differences in programs. They are older countries with longer traditions and perhaps smaller areas and a growth that has been more stable over a longer period of years but not so dynamic as is ours. These countries have the institutions and the facilities with which to train their young people and indeed to train their unemployed for the minister has mentioned that as well as the young people themselves, we must put into effect some scheme or some program by means of which to train and, as it were, almost to rehabilitate for increased usefulness in society some of those who at the present time do not have jobs and positions. The over-all effect of this program I am certain will be of the utmost importance in the years ahead.
As Canada grows and as our population enlarges and as the course of technical progress increases, not decreases-for I am sure it is increasing-this problem of unemployment, this problem of workers fitting into specific positions will enlarge. Our young people and our people of all ages must, if possible, have more basic technical training in order to enable them to have a flexibility to shift from one job to another. On the job training, while useful and while most important, in many instances must be backed by a basic training in a variety of technical fields that can be applied to a variety and wide spectrum of jobs. As technical progress continues I am sure that the sort of move proposed here today will be of most fundamental importance in solving our unemployment problem in Canada and indeed in the

Vocational Training
positive sense aiding in increasing the productivity, the usefulness and the happiness throughout the whole of our land.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I rise on behalf of this group to express our support for the purpose and principle of this resolution. However, in doing that, may I say that we are looking forward to seeing the details of the bill in order to make certain that the legislation is comprehensive enough to meet a great and growing need with respect to the technical education of our young people in this country.
I want to place before the committee a few of my opinions with respect to this resolution. I would not for a moment attempt to compete with the dynamic, expansive, impulsive and propulsive hon. member for Hull. However, I am going to utilize my meagre talents in this field in order to give the committee my opinion with respect to this measure.
It is an important measure having regard to the fact that what we do in this field will have a great effect upon the future of hundreds of thousands of young Canadians. There are great possibilities for the development of human character and human happiness and for the promotion of human usefulness in the proper application of the legislation suggested by this resolution. As mentioned by the hon. member who spoke previously, there is a phenomenon that is being noticed more and more across the country, namely the growing percentage of unskilled workers in Canada who are unable to obtain employment. I notice it in my own district, and I am sure it is very general indeed. Also being noticed is the increasing number of boys and girls leaving school who do not go beyond grade eight. When that happens I say there is something wrong with our school curriculums when children are not attracted and inspired in the first instance to continue on with their senior education. Then in other instances there is not the native ability or the desire to follow an academic form of education.
When I say that, may I say that I have had some experience with schools, having been chairman of a school board for a good many years and having had to work with teachers on problems related to the administration of schools. It is a fact that increasing numbers of young people are leaving school on arriving at grade eight or less and are not going on to senior education. If we make ample allowance for those who are not naturally inclined or have not the capacity to go on with academic education, there is something wrong when that situation continues to get worse and worse. We have the largest investment, the best equipment and the best 
brained teachers we have ever had in Canadian history so far as schools are concerned, on the lower level particularly, as compared to the little red school houses of from 25 years to 50 years ago-well do I remember them- when children walked three miles to school through three feet of snow and were happy to do so. Now they must be taken there in a bus, and we build a gymnasium in the school in order to give them some exercise so their physical condition will be maintained.
However, I mention this because I am very interested in this question. I see so much of the need for training in my own district. I know of young people whose lives are actually being wasted because they lack the training and the opportunity to attain the skills that are necessary in our technological society.
We need electricians; we need men in the construction industry; we need plumbers; we need bricklayers. It would surprise one to find how difficult it is to obtain first-class tradesmen in the rural areas of Canada. It is difficult to obtain a first-class bricklayer, for example, to build1 a chimney or a wall, or things of that sort. It is also difficult to get plumbers in the smaller communities, because tradesmen are not inclined to go to these smaller communities to obtain a living.
There are some opportunities for tradesmen who want to build up small businesses in many of the smaller communities of this country. I say this from my own experience in the southeastern portion of British Columbia. Also, there is a great opportunity for the training of technicians in the forest industry, in highway construction and other types of construction projects being undertaken throughout this country.
In my opinion we are wasting human resources in two ways. First of all we are wasting human resources because they are untrained technically or as tradesmen to do the things that require to be done to satisfactorily perform the services required in connection with the types of employment I have mentioned. Second, we are wasting human resources in this way. I have had some experience with construction; I have had charge of building a good many miles of highways, and bridges through mountains and in rocky country, through a great deal of rock where thousands of yards of rock or earth had to be moved, and with very primitive equipment compared to nowadays. We are wasting human resources in this respect, because I repeatedly see engineers being^ used to perform a job that a good technician or tradesman could properly perform.
Why do you require a man with an engineering degree to run levels along a right



I960

[Stage Direction]
of way to ascertain whether the cut should be three feet, or the fill five feet, and so on? Why do you require an engineer to carry out timber cruising of a certain type, or volume measurement of timber? Why do you require an engineer for the construction of secondary roads in connection with the logging industry, and the laying of foundations for ordinary, smaller-sized buildings?
I have found at the present time that on numerous occasions the services of an engineer have to be obtained because there was no one on the job with the skill to perform these rudimentary technical services.
Mr. Macdonnell:: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question? I am immensely interested in what the hon. member has said. On the face of it, it seems a paradox that you can obtain fully trained engineers where you cannot obtain a carpenter or plumber. That is what I understood the hon. member to say. How does that come about? Can the hon. member offer any explanation for this situation?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: No; I must say it is a very hard thing to explain. I am not saying there is a surplus of trained engineers and personnel; I am saying that I have known a great many instances where a man with engineering degrees has had to go some hundreds of miles to perform work such as I have mentioned in connection with these types of projects; that is, to perform some rather elementary service in connection with these projects, when a well-trained technician or tradesman could have performed the service.
There were plenty of men on the job who could run bulldozers or earth-moving equipment, who could push wheel barrows and handle picks, shovels, air-drills and that sort of thing, but there was not, in a gang of 100 or more workmen, a man who could take an ordinary level and transmit his readings to paper and lay out, say, a simple cut and fill program along an easy grade.
I mention that because I think there has been a waste of human resources in the unnecessary use of highly trained people, particular in the industries I have mentioned. That is why I think there is a tremendous opportunity for comprehensive legislation that meets the need in this connection and does something to fill this gap between the unskilled and university trained.
The minister was quite correct when he said that European countries have long recognized the formal paths necessary to acquire occupational skills. That is known from European history and the history of the development of technical and trade schools in Great Britain. We have been very laggard in this respect, as indicated by the number
Vocational Training
of persons attending technical schools at the present time. If I heard the minister correctly, the figure is 8,000 students attending technical schools at the present time in a country like this where we have a need for hundreds of thousands of technically trained men and tradesmen.
There is a very narrow margin, shall I say, between a technician and a first-class tradesman in many instances. I was also glad to hear that the government intends to continue research into this problem, because it is a serious question.
There are others who are spending some time studying this question. I was very glad to hear recently that the Canadian welfare council, just from the point of view of the welfare of human beings, is undertaking a very careful study of our manpower needs and the need for technical training, and intends to make representations to the committee of the other place. Also I saw in a press dispatch of November 30 that an interesting representation was made to the committee of the other place by the columnist Mr. F. T. Denton of Toronto. This was an analysis of employment and unemployment in Canada during the past ten years. He said in that report:
Young persons, the unskilled and the less educated are providing Canada with its hard core of unemployment. And if the current trend continues, one million new jobs will be needed in the next five years to absorb the flow of new workers and cut existing unemployment levels to half.
These are pretty startling figures when we are dealing with a problem like this, and I am very pleased to see that there is a growing interest and concern with this question.
The minister mentioned that this system of technical and trade schools was much more advanced in European countries, which is quite correct. I sent to the library for a few books and pamphlets on this question, and I have here a pamphlet issued by the central office of information, reference division, entitled Technological Education in Britain. It is rather interesting. It indicates the possibilities for us. We are only starting in this field in Canada.
I note here that technical education and training first commenced in Great Britain about 1824, as a result of a similar situation to that which is happening in Canada at the present time, but on a much minor scale there. The system progressed very slowly indeed; the tempo of technical education did not really accelerate until the latter part of the Victorian era.
However, to indicate the opportunities which are set out in this pamphlet, there is

Vocational Training
the national college of horology and instrument technology, the national foundry college-a college for foundry workers-the national college for heating, ventilating, refrigeration and fan engineering, the national college of rubber technology, the national leathersellers' college, the national college of food technology, the Scottish woollen technical college, and many others. I just mention those to illustrate the possibilities there are for the development of technical schools to provide training in the skills so badly needed in this country.
I am interested in this problem because first of all it is a Canadian problem. It is a widespread and urgent Canadian problem. I am also very interested in the problem because it is of serious concern to my constituents. Because it is a growing problem, school boards in our province have been urging the provincial government to take advantage of the grants that can be obtained from the federal government under the present vocational training act.
We have had vocational training in schools for years. In my opinion, while it is very satisfactory for, shall I say, the elementary teaching of certain trades and abilities and the acquisition of manual skills, and so on, you cannot train technical personnel and tradesmen along with high school students. Success will require a separate school system entirely where young people who have left high school can enter to be trained as technicians or tradesmen.
That is where the whole scheme has to be well planned by the provinces. I understand that under this legislation the initiative will have to come from the provinces. I hope they respond to this legislation and that it will not be a hit-or-miss affair on their part. Surely, our government in British Columbia, with its knowledge of the population and industrial development in the province together with its projection as to the development which can be expected for some years in the future, can plan a system of technical and trade schools to meet the needs of the young people who require training. I trust it will exercise its initiative and co-operate with the federal government in making the legislation envisaged by this resolution a success. This is important to my constituents.
In many cases people who are desirous of attending training schools or technical schools have been denied that opportunity because of the distances which they would have to travel or, often, because of the cost. These schools will have to be fairly close to the persons they are intended to serve and I suggest that in addition to schools to serve
[Mr. Herridge.l
Vancouver island and the main coastal area we shall need establishments to serve southeastern and central British Columbia.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Did the hon. gentleman mean, when he spoke earlier of technical training as distinct from university training, that the technical training must be clearly and absolutely technical, that the students must devote all their time to technical instruction?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The hon. gentleman must realize that I am a simple backwoodsman with no pretence to higher educational achievement. I speak from experience rather than as one who has had a great deal of academic education or who holds academic degrees. However, I think there is a time when students have to decide whether they are going on to higher academic achievement or whether to leave high school and confine their activities to technical or trade school training. My point was that I do not think it is possible to combine satisfactorily trade training and technical training with the rest of the curriculum inside high schools. While I am interested in teachers in high school teaching vocational training, manual skills, to the higher grade pupils, that is a separate function.
Now I have given a complete outline of my ideas in this respect. All hon. members may not agree with me, but I speak from some experience and knowledge of the problem. Let me say again, in conclusion, that I trust the present legislation is comprehensive enough to meet an increasing need and I sincerely hope the provinces concerned will respond to this opportunity.


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: I think this is a well worth-while measure. Any measure which encourages technical and vocational training is certainly worth supporting, and this ties in nicely with all the other good measures referred to in the speech from the throne. I, too, would like to see this bill brought in as soon as possible, but before that time I should like to suggest a few thoughts which I hope may be reflected in the measure when it is enacted.
With automation advancing at a very fast pace in this highly mechanized North American continent, I think there is a great need for increased technical and vocational training. I am in agreement with the hon. member for Kootenay West that technical and vocational training should be on a higher level than the standard at which it is taught in high schools. I think a person graduating from a vocational or technical school should be able to come out with a degree which will qualify him as a person who has real ability in the field he has chosen to take up.

The province of Alberta from which I come is fast developing into a manufacturing province. Its population is growing rapidly and it is now, I think, the fourth largest province in Canada as far as population is concerned. Because of the success of the oil and gas industry in that province, manufacturing has come to play a prominent part in its development.
Along with the hon. member for Kootenay West, I believe there is a growing need for trained workers. A figure which is not often talked about shows that three out of four jobs becoming available today require a person with a higher education or skill in some trade. This is particularly evident in the province of Alberta as well as in Canada in general. In some of the older countries, particularly in Europe, greater stress is perhaps placed upon sending a person out into the world with a skill or trade of some kind at his disposal. For centuries people grew up in the older countries of the world and, instead of just continuing in school, branched out in the field or skill in which they were trained so as to better equip themselves to compete. Certainly, there are any number of trades which a person can take up-plumbing, electric wiring or electronics, for example. Then, under vocational training, there is a need for butchers and other such trades.
I was interested to hear the hon. member for Kootenay West say there was a great need in some of the rural areas for plumbers and electricians. Men could easily earn a living by going out into some of these rural areas and, possibly, many will be ready to do so after the schools have been set up. I know that in my own constituency, which is largely a rural constituency, there is always a need for plumbers or electricians, whose skills seem to be in high demand. Even in the field of agriculture, with which I am closely connected, there is a growing need for persons with some degree of skill and, in some instances, a high degree of skill. Many advances have been made in the past few years and now we find a large number of farms highly dieselized and highly mechanized, so much so that a farmer has to be a jack of all trades and know a lot about a great number of things if he is to succeed.
In Alberta we have several schools of agriculture, and I graduated from one of them, but I have always thought they could go on and teach highly technical skills in those schools rather than deal in the generalities which some of the subjects cover. They should perhaps give greater training in motor mechanics. Dieselization on the farms has increased the need for this training. Hydraulics today play an important part on the farm. Many farmers find that they require
Vocational Training
some knowledge of the subject in order to fit their equipment with hydraulic appliances and measures that will make farming easier and more economical for them.
Together with more stress on motor mechanics greater emphasis should be placed on meat preparation, butchering and other courses relating to animal husbandry. I was pleased to note that the veterinary college in Ontario has an extensive course relating to various types of meat. Certainly this training would better equip a person who was going into butchering or even someone who planned to engage in raising livestock. This too has become highly competitive and highly technical with the implementation of hormones into the feeding rations of livestock. If more extensive teaching were done in relation to these subjects students leaving agricultural colleges or vocational schools would be better equipped to get along in their respective fields.
With the introduction of these grants some hon. members feared that the federal government was invading the domain of provinces in the field of education. I am sure that most hon. gentlemen realize that the grants will be made available on a shared basis with the provinces by request. As an hon. member from Alberta I hope that my home province will be able to take advantage of these grants thereby better preparing the young people to compete and enjoy life in the years ahead.


Walter George Pitman: Mr. Chairman, as a new member I hesitate to inflict myself on the committee twice in one day but I did want to congratulate the Minister of Labour on bringing this resolution before the committee and to express my earnest hope that it will be introduced as legislation in the very near future.
I rise on this question because I am particularly interested in the area of education. Until only four or five weeks ago I was taking part in education on a full-time scale in another place. Possibly some hon. members would prefer it if I were still doing so.
If this measure is to come up to the expectations of the people of Canada and merit the congratulations of those who sit in this corner of the chamber I think it must fulfil four very important requirements. It must be a dynamic and all-inclusive attempt to meet the needs of every community in these two areas, the training of the unemployed and the training of our young people to meet the demands of this new technological age.

Vocational Training
Second, this proposed legislation surely must be completely adaptable to every community in this nation so that every community will be able to apply to a provincial legislature and take advantage of this measure.
Third, I hope this will be a first step toward a whole new concept of the responsibility of the federal government in the education and training of our youth.
Finally, I hope this will be a part of a new approach to our whole economy for if this proposed legislation is to be effective it must relate itself to a planned, integrated economy.
Unfortunately in the past the whole program of training the unemployed has been most inadequate. Reference has already been made to the Vocational Training Co-Ordination Act passed in 1952 and amended in 1954. As originally envisaged the act was to enable the minister to undertake projects to provide vocational training to fit unemployed persons for gainful employment. In 1954 it was amended to include a provision designed to fit persons for employment for any purpose in the national interest within the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada and approved by the governor in council.
I am not blaming the federal government for the inadequate situation that has obtained in this respect. As I understand it, in many cases the provinces did not even take advantage of the grants that were available. However, across Canada between April, 1958 and March, 1959 there were only 3,568 people trained. I think there were more unemployed in my own constituency last winter than were trained under this program in the whole of Canada. Federal assistance applied for by the provinces in this respect amounted to only $510,479.99.
In a country in which unemployment is a very serious problem surely that is not the scale on which this problem must be met. In Ontario, between April, 1958 and March 31, 1959 there were 94 men and 32 women who were re-trained. I suggest that this problem will not be solved on that scale. The report of the director of Canadian vocational training indicated that the number asking for assistance was not as large as expected. And yet what was the need?
A pamphlet put out by the Department of Labour on the training of skilled manpower admitted that training facilities in Canada were failing to keep pace with the requirement for manpower and that we were importing skilled labour from the United Kingdom and Europe. A winter research program was undertaken to discover the level of ability and training in several areas. It was found, for example, in relation to tool and

diemakers that only 8.5 per cent of Canadian tradesmen in this field had received secondary education in appropriate technical training whereas 46 per cent of non-Canadian tool and diemakers had received adequate training in this trade. That is a commentary upon vocational training throughout this nation as it takes place in the provinces.
If this program is to have a sufficient impact to be of any use in the twentieth century it must be undertaken on a scale that will make everything we have done before look absolutely ridiculous. It is significant that in my own riding of Peterborough we have a general union of unemployed workers. I hope this union will not grow very much stronger but if the situation worsens it may well become the largest union in the riding.
These men have done more than whine about their situation. They are in a serious plight. While perhaps they are not dropping in the streets they are nevertheless suffering mentally and spiritually. Rather than whine about their plight they have taken positive steps through every level of government to provide this kind of training for their members through the hard winter. It is only through re-training that the unemployed will solve their problems when they feel that once again they can make a useful contribution to the community where they live. It is not a matter of accepting a dole. They do not want unemployment insurance. What they want is to return, so to speak, to Canadian society in a useful, vital capacity. I hope this resolution will help these people.
It is important that this program be adaptable to each community. Technical institutions cannot be built in some communities which are too small to support them. I hope this resolution will provide grants whereby these areas may perhaps use the money to provide for their unemployed transportation to some other centre where there is a technical institution that can provide the type of training these people need. I hope it will provide grants not just for buildings but for areas which have buildings which may be used. I suggest vocational schools which might be used from four o'clock in the afternoon until seven or eight o'clock at night. I hope it may possibly provide money for teaching and also for the maintenance of equipment in a great many areas where people could be trained adequately and on the basis of what is possible in the community in which those unemployed people live. It is possible that there will be need to provide assistance to men so that they can take those courses and not mean a hardship to their wives and families when they are actually taking part

in the course. I hope that the legislation will be not only dynamic and all-inclusive, but that it will also be adaptable.
I hope it will provide a new motivation for vocational training. I think that unfortunately we in Canada have never come to acquire the kind of feeling which people in European countries and the United Kingdom have for their crafts. I think we need to motivate people in the direction of vocational training, and instil in them a pride in vocational training. Too often vocational training has become a kind of second rate education. It has been suggested that a vocational school is a dumping ground for the less gifted. I think this has brought vocational training into disrepute in many communities of this nation. I hope that through this legislation vocational training will reach new heights of acceptability by the people of the provinces of this country.
I think we desperately need technicians. We must forget the idea that a technician is a second grade engineer, or an engineer that did not make good. As the hon. member suggested, too often we have people with engineering degrees doing jobs which could be done by technicians. This is an area where the Soviet union has completely surpassed us in education. This is an area where we must catch up. Particularly I hope that this is going to be a step toward a whole new concept as to what the federal government must do through grants, not to control all education but without endangering the autonomy of the provinces to provide assistance to education and training on a scale that will allow every person in this country to attain the height of achievement of which he is capable.
It has been suggested by the dominion bureau of statistics that over the next number of years we will need ten major universities in this country, not all centred in the larger communities but some also in smaller communities. I think one of the unfortunate aspects is that our university education is centred in the large metropolitan areas. In an area like my own, Peterborough, we have people who are desperately trying to set up a junior college. They need help.
This is also a whole new step toward the opening up of a whole new vista of federal assistance and motivation in the area of education because if we wish to make our educational system as good as it must be in the latter part of the twentieth century we need not only technicians and craftsmen but also economists, historians, philosophers and theologians. We need these as well. Let us not provide technicians and discover that the whole meaning of our western civilization has
Vocational Training
disappeared because we forgot that vocational training was only a part of our educational process.
Finally, it must be integrated somehow into a planned economy, and here again I hope, as the hon. member suggested, that the productivity council will come into play.
I wish the hon. member for Bow River were in his seat because I should like to answer the questions he asked a few nights ago when he inquired about the position of the new party in relation to socialism and free enterprise. I would suggest that we have stopped fighting the issue of socialism with a capital "S" and free enterprise with capitals "F" and "E". I am sure the hon. member realizes we live in a mixed economy and that the new party believes that the public sector as well as the private sector has rights, duties and responsibilities.
I was a little bit surprised at his method of attack by reading the words of leaders in this house some 30 years ago. I do not think there is any form of argument that is more historically suspect and academically unacceptable than wrenching from context words uttered 30 years ago.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Would the hon. member permit a question. Is the new party or the hon. member socialistic?


Walter George Pitman: It depends on what the hon. member means by socialism. Remember what Oscar Wilde said, that the only real reason for socialism is to preserve the individual. If that is the hon. member's meaning of socialism I would be very pleased to accept it.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: My definition of socialism does not agree with the hon. member's. I am an individualist but not a socialist.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I thought the hon. member was a Conservative.


Walter George Pitman: One of the unfortunate aspects of this-I hate to bring this up at this time, but the record must be corrected-is that the hon. member for Bow River referred back to the old red herring. I thought that the image of Joseph McCarthy was taking shape right in this very chamber. However, let us be Canadians. Probably we will agree that both the public and private sectors have their meaning and responsibilities, and let us leave it there.
I suggest, however, at this particular season and on this particular resolution we must have a tremendous amount of research as to exactly who we are going to train. Let us not begin the training of machinists and then find that we do not need them. Until we have some kind of planning in our economy, until we know where we are going, until we come up with sufficient research into

Vocational Training
this problem, I have great fear that we may spend a lot of money, that we may create a lot of activity and not really solve the problem of unemployment in the future. Therefore, I hope that this resolution will have a great effect upon the young people of this nation, and especially upon those who are unemployed at this time. I suggest that this is a first step. I offer to the Minister of Labour my congratulations but also, I hope, a challenge.


Mr. Horner (Jasper-Edson):: We have just heard a new definition of socialism. I thought when listening to the hon. member that what he gave us really sounded just like a schoolteacher's definition. However, now that we have this new party definition we can have both free enterprise and socialism together. Unfortunately, this is not true. This is just the socialist's way of gaining power, and then the rest of the restrictions of individual freedom have to come into play, because this is the only way the socialists can operate a planned economy, by having complete stat-ism, and it does not really matter very much whether you call it socialism, communism, or anything else. It means a complete lack of individual freedom and, as such, no longer do we have a free world or a free country.
I suggest to the hon. member that this measure is brought forward not as a part of a planned economy but as a plan on the part of a dynamic government to provide opportunity for all Canadians. So far as I am concerned, there are a few points I should like to touch on briefly. They have been touched on by a previous speaker, but I should like to bring to your attention, sir, the question of decentralization of the schools.
In my area in Alberta particularly, we are concerned and have been concerned not about the importation of European skilled workers but of United States skilled workers in the oil and gas and the pipe line industries. We are now on the verge of terrific expansion in our area with regard to natural gas and the processing plants and extraction plants that go along with it. Very recently I visited one in the Pembina field at the town of Drayton Valley and talked to the young people there who are running these plants. All of them were studying by correspondence and were receiving on the job training under supervision. This was one of the first plants in operation in Alberta and we have several others. We have another one in the Jumping Pound field in southern Alberta and construction is just going to start on another one in the Windfall field in my constituency. There will be a series of these gas extraction and processing plants throughout Alberta.
We are concerned about these plants being manned by United States technicians because

we do not have trained personnel in Canada. I should like to put it on the record that I hope the province of Alberta will take advantage of this program to establish immediately a technical school devoted to the oil and gas industry. In that regard I suggest to them that the town of Drayton Valley would be an ideal location for such a school as it offers all the on the job training required and is centrally located among the major gas and oil fields in the province.
I wish to put another point on the record with regard to the question of decentralization and I should like to quote from the report of the Cameron royal commission on education in the province of Alberta. In this regard they came to this conclusion:
That the scope of educational offerings at public expense in the public school system be broadened to include appropriate courses in many vocational areas.
They went on to suggest that this should be done by a program that would promote and develop community colleges specializing in the particular line which had to do with the raw materials or natural resources of the area. This is why I bring up the question of the oil and gas industry and a technical school in the town of Drayton Valley which is in the centre of the largest oil field in North America.
I wish to refer to one or two other aspects of vocational training and I should like to deal first with forestry. The provincial government recently established a school of forestry at Hinton which so far is under the direction of the department of lands and forests of the province. However, I hope they will see fit to convert it into an educational institution devoted to producing technicians for the forest industry, an institution which would serve northwestern Alberta and part of British Columbia as well.
There is another matter in which I have been interested for a great number of years as a result of my experience many years ago when I served on a town council. From what I can observe there is a great need right across Canada for trained municipal, town and city officials, employees with some training in municipal, provincial and federal law and with some elementary training in bookkeeping. I suggest to the authorities that this might be a field for the establishment of a technical school devoted to the training of municipal officials. In my view it would be a real step forward from the point of view of providing jobs and also providing improved and more efficient administration of our municipalities, towns and cities.
There is one other question I want to raise and it is one I have brought up before in the house on numerous occasions. It has to

do with veterinary medicine. We in western Canada are still hopefully waiting for a school of veterinary medicine. I suggest that perhaps the province could tie in with such a school a program of technical training to produce the technicians required in veterinary medicine and all other aspects of animal husbandry.
Although I realize this may be a provincial responsibility, I believe that if we are going to remain free we have to do more than just provide a technical education for our people, and in this regard I should like to quote from the Cameron commission minority report:
A school that furnishes only a narrow, vocational, workaday training to children of humble parentage is effectually denying the innate dignity of man, a doctrine which asserts that every individual, whatever his trade or his income, is entitled to share in the high, humane tradition of the liberal arts and sciences.
This latter is I think an effective answer to the speech of the hon. member for Peterborough. Most of what he had to say was good until he started to talk about a planned economy and the area in which he would have the government take control. The fallacy of the thinking of the socialists or the new party, if their new program is one of half free enterprise and half socialism, is that these things cannot work together any more than they can take one section of the public, as they are trying to do by taking the labouring class, and make a political party out of them for the purposes, I suspect, of the people who are directing the labour unions rather than for the good of the ordinary working man.


Mr. Kindt:: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the Minister of Labour for having introduced this resolution on technical and vocational training. I am particularly interested to learn from the resolution the broad scope and intention of the government. The resolution seeks to authorize the Minister of Labour to enter into agreements with provincial governments for the encouragement of technical and vocational training and to authorize the making of contributions by Canada toward the cost of the training programs undertaken under provincial authority, including contributions toward the cost of capital expenditures on training facilities connected with such programs.
First of all, I think the important point is that this work is going to be carried on in co-operation with the provinces under agreements with them. Each province will be approached and the plans will be worked out. Undoubtedly the plans may vary to a certain extent from province to province. I shall be extremely interested along with the
Vocational Training
people of southwestern Alberta, whom I represent, in the agreement which is to be worked out with the province of Alberta.
I also note from the text of the resolution that technical and vocational training are to be undertaken under provincial authority.
It is well for us to note that all training which is undertaken will be under the authority of the province which has jurisdiction over education.
The resolution goes on to state that the purpose is to authorize the Minister of Labour to undertake programs of technical and vocational training for specified categories of persons, to provide for the establishment and operation of an advisory council and the appointment of the members and staff and to define its duties, and to provide for other related and incidental matters. The point of great importance there is that technical and vocational training programs are to be undertaken for specified categories and that raises a question in my mind as to what categories will receive vocational and technical training.
All who have spoken on this resolution seem to be agreed that know-how is necessary. They did not use exactly that term but I do so. I believe that any person wishing to make his way in this world must first of all prepare himself with some specialized know-how by means of which to handle a particular job. Whether it is a matter of working with his hands or of working with his brain he must be trained and he must have the skill with which to handle the work he is undertaking.
To come to the vocational end, may I say this. It has been mentioned by others that we should have more people who are able to do such jobs as carpentering-or at least have more training in that field-people able to read blueprints, to do plumbing work, bricklaying, electrical work, stonecutting, blacksmithing and electric welding, etc. Whether you call these people technicians or tradesmen is immaterial for my purposes. It is not necessary for me to distinguish between them, although there is a slight difference. What I am saying is that training for these various trades is work that would be handled in a technical and vocational training school.
The great need for training in these fields requires no extra words on my part or on the part of anyone else. One only needs to try to hire somebody to do any of these specialized jobs in order to find that those available are not as plentiful as they might be.
There is another point that I should like to make and it is on the matter of who should receive this technical and vocational training. I hope the resolution which refers to

Vocational Training
specified categories of persons will include young farmers and young city dwellers. There should be some provision for night classes for students of all ages. Above all, I think these training institutions should provide for technical and vocational training to Indians. There is on Indian reserves a small group of students who could be sent to these technical schools. They might not consist of any more than 5 per cent of the total enrollment at a school but they would benefit greatly from technical and vocational training.
I was on the Eden Valley Indian reserve last fall and the need for vocational training among these Indians was forcibly brought to my attention. If they were even able to take a hammer and saw, go out and cut down a few trees and shape them into homes, it would be of great assistance. It is a rather simple operation. It was performed even by our forefathers in pioneer days but it seems as though it has not been one of those skills which the Indian has acquired. If he were given this vocational training he would be able to provide for himself, not only a decent home but would be able to raise his standard of living.
I have given considerable thought to the question of technical and vocational training schools. Some two years ago I tried my best to get the provincial government of Alberta to start one of those schools at Claresholm and to take advantage of the splendid facilities of the R.C.A.F. field which is at that centre. I should like to say that some consideration was given to the suggestion. Under this resolution and federal program financial assistance is to be given by the federal government and an arrangement is to be worked out with the province of Alberta and I suggest that every consideration be given to the R.C.A.F. station at Claresholm as a suitable site for a new technical and vocational training school.
In closing I want to say again that this is far-reaching legislation and should benefit all classes in our society. Above all, I want to compliment the Minister of Labour once more on bringing in this resolution which is designed to assist in encouraging technical and vocational training throughout all of Canada.


Michael Starr: At this time I should like to put forward a suggestion for the consideration of members of the committee. I want to say at once that it is only a suggestion. There is no intention of any curtailment of discussion on this resolution or at least on this measure. On second reading, for anyone who wishes to take part in the discussion and debate on this particular measure, an opportunity will 
be afforded. Would hon. members of the committee consider passing the resolution today in order to give us the opportunity to discuss second reading of this measure on Tuesday?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Jacques Flynn: Shall the resolution carry?


Frank Howard: So far as the request or suggestion of the minister is concerned, may I say that it has certain merits. However, it has always been our understanding that one of the principles underlying the resolution stage was that it afforded an opportunity for the suggestion of ideas that might be incorporated in the bill when it finally comes along. We all know that debate on the second reading of a bill is confined to the provisions contained in it. For that reason I think we should perhaps call it five o'clock.


Jacques Flynn: Order. It being five o'clock, in order to permit the house to proceed to the consideration of public and private bills it is my duty, pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15, to rise and report progress on this resolution and to request leave to consider it again later this day or at the next sitting of the house, as the case may be.
Progress reported.


Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of public and private bills, the former having precedence pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15.



CANADA FAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES ACT


Frank Howard: the second reading of Bill No. C-9, to amend the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act (crown bound).
He said: Mr. Speaker, my remarks on the introduction of this particular bill will be quite few, because the contents of it are rather short and need no extensive introduction. I think the proposed principle is clear and well established. Also, we had a debate lasting an hour on a bill of a similar nature during the last session.
Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I should say this. The Canada Fair Employment Practices Act which came into force in the summer of 1953-in July, I believe it was-contains the provision, in brief form, that an employer shall not discriminate against employees or potential employees in so far as race, national origin, colour or religion is concerned. It also provides that a trade union shall not

discriminate against potential or present members, nor shall it expel members on the ground or for the reason of race, national origin, colour or religion. The act also sets out certain procedures for the enforcement of its provisions and certain penalties if the act is contravened. Those parts are not germane to this particular bill but are only by way of an aside in this introduction.
We know it is not possible to legislate for a state of mind. Yet it is good to have on the statute books something of this nature that is an anti-discrimination statute, that protects individuals from discrimination because of race, colour, national origin, and so on. It tends to promote the cessation or the lessening of any acts of discrimination that may be based upon those factors that I mentioned earlier.
Perhaps I may read very briefly from section 3 of the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act-which this bill seeks to amend- in order that hon. members should understand how this act applies now. Section 3 reads:
This act applies to and in respect of employment upon or in connection with any work, undertaking or business that is within the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada, including, but not so as to restrict the generality of the foregoing-
Then it sets out a number of things to which it applies. Section 3 (m) is the relevant passage to which I wish to refer, namely: the employment by any corporation established to perform any function or duty on behalf of the government of Canada of employees.
This means that Canadian National Railways, T.C.A., the atomic energy commission, Polymer and the like are covered by this particular act and shall not engage in any of the practices that the present act prohibits.
The purpose of the bill before us is to extend the application of the provisions of the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act to the crown and to the employees of the crown; or, in effect, Her Majesty in right of Canada and the servants and agents of Her Majesty in right of Canada.
One of the principles behind proposing this bill, from our point of view, is that employees in the public service of Canada should be treated substantially the same as employees in private industry in Canada. By that I do not wish to imply that they should be treated as they have been within the last few days by this parliament because of the bill with which we have just dealt. But in general terms they should come into the same set of legislative provisions and regulations in so far as employee-employer relationships are concerned.
I am quite sure, and there is no shadow of a doubt in my mind-and I am sure there
Vocational Training
is no shadow of a doubt in the mind of anyone in this house-that the intent of the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act is followed by the civil service commission in its function of employing people. I am also quite sure that no discrimination exists on these bases whatsoever.
We had some discussion last session. A number of hon. members participated in the debate and raised a number of questions. Perhaps I might briefly deal with those questions at this time. One question raised was whether there might be an inconsistency in applying the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act to the provisions of the Civil Service Act or the regulations made thereunder.
Last year I undertook to check by telephone-and again this year I undertook to check by telephone-with the civil service commission to ascertain whether there existed in the Civil Service Act or in any of the regulations pursuant to it any reference to non-discrimination. I was told that there was no such reference in the act or regulations at the moment. I inquired further and was told that in 1942 there appeared on one of the old employment questionnaires to be completed by potential employees a reference to the colour of the individual, but that this did not now exist.
I was unable to determine just when the transitional point took place, when the reference to colour was eliminated from the questionnaires. I was told that it had existed in 1942 but does not exist at the moment and has not for some time.
I expect this year, if last session's activities are to be followed through, we will be having committees and we will have presented, I presume, a revised civil service bill. I assume that at the behest of the government it will be referred to a special committee of the house. Perhaps it would be appropriate this year for this particular bill now before us to receive endorsation and second reading, because I am certain that every hon. member supports the basic principle behind it. I think the bill should receive second reading at this stage and be referred to this special committee in order that the committee can study the Civil Service Act and the proposed changes thereto. The committee will be able to intermesh, if it so desires, or interweave the principle of this bill into the structure of that act, by either reporting this bill in a favourable light or by intermeshing it into the provisions of the Civil Service Act.
In that way parliament will decide that the act which applies to all other employees in Canada under our national jurisdiction

Vocational Training
shall also apply to the crown in its employment policies. I say again that this is in no way implying that such discrimination exists at the moment, or that such discrimination has existed before. To my knowledge no such discrimination has existed until today except, as I am told, by the reference to colour on the civil service questionnaire.
Whether this actually constitutes discrimination or not is another matter. I think that perhaps those few words will suffice. I am looking forward to perhaps a more pleasant discussion on this particular bill than we have had in the past few days. Also, perhaps there will be less opportunity to resort to questions of privilege on this bill than there was on the bill with which we have just dealt.


Mr. E. J. Broome (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) has pointed out, there will be a special committee, we understand, set up to review the Civil Service Act. I think the hon. member or one of his colleagues should certainly be a member of that committee. At that time this rather pertinent point can be taken up with the committee in the right way. At the present time this bill seems to me to be legislation for the sake of legislation. I wonder at the assiduity of the hon. member for Skeena and the amount of work he can get through, because of a total of some 40 private bills no less than nine are standing in his name. He says this is a small bill which does not mean much-


Frank Howard: Oh, no.


Ernest James Broome: That is rather a short bill which really is not going to change anything as things are today, because the civil service commission, according to his own words, does not practice discrimination in any form in the selection or treatment of its employees. In fact, the hon. member for Skeena underlined this last session, because when introducing his bill he said, as reported on page 1271 of Hansard for February 19, 1960:
The bill which is before the house at the moment is very short. It merely seeks to make the present Canada Fair Employment Practices Act applicable to Her Majesty, her servants, and agents of Her Majesty, or, in effect, applicable to the civil service and to employees in the government service. This, of course, does not suggest that with regard to the employment of civil servants there exists at the present time any such discrimination because of the factors that I set out earlier. In fact, I think I can say without any contradiction or any qualification that no such discrimination enters into the employment of candidates for the civil service.
That is a very straightforward statement and, I believe, a true statement. An equally true statement, which the hon. member for Skeena has just made, is that it is not possible to legislate for a state of mind. It may

be that in practice he and his colleagues do not always follow that axiom, but it is nevertheless true that you cannot legislate into being characteristics which will eliminate intolerance and discrimination. In order to solve this problem we must look to education rather than to laws. I believe that while in Canada today we are not free from discrimination we are freer than many other countries and that we are becoming increasingly alive to the fact that intolerance and discrimination are not worthy of a nation such as this. I believe the people of this country are going along that road, but they are travelling in spurts, and there is, as I say, still a measure of intolerance in sections of the country and in groups.
If the hon. member for Skeena was not too happy about the previous bill which we have been discussing he should have been happy about the bill of rights, the preamble to which states as follows:
The parliament of Canada, affirming that the Canadian nation is founded upon principles that acknowledge the supremacy of God, the dignity and worth of the human person and the position of the family in a society of free men and free institutions:
Affirming also that men and institutions remain free only when freedom is founded upon respect for moral and spiritual values and the rule of law;
Certainly intolerance and discrimination are not the spiritual values referred to here. Part I of the Bill of Rights reads as follows:
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,
I do not intend to read them all, but I will read the first one:
(a)	the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law;
I submit that "liberty" must include the right of employment. Liberty must include the right to make a livelihood without discrimination based on race, religion, national origin, colour or sex.
The hon. member said he had been checking over the various speeches which were made last year when a similar bill was considered, but I note he failed to cover the point raised by the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. Spencer) who brought out the conflict between this measure and the actual set-up of the civil service commission in that the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act is administered by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) and the civil service of Canada is administered by a civil service commission which is responsible to parliament and to parliament alone. The hon. member for Essex

West, who is I believe a lawyer, went into the details of this conflict, and I will go as far as to read what I suggest to be the conclusion which he reached. I am quoting from page 1274 of Hansard for February 19:
In. other words, the Minister of Labour would then be directing the civil service commission to do something it had not done or undo something it had done which in his opinion of the inquiry commission amounted to discrimination.
The hon. member was referring to the fact that the Minister of Labour under this measure could set up an industrial inquiry commission to hear complaints, and I suggest this would certainly bring two branches of government administration into conflict.
Another point which might be considered is whether veterans' preference is not discrimination to some extent. Yet it has been the instruction of this parliament that there should be a preference shown to veterans in connection with civil service commission hiring. There may be restrictions, and there are restrictions in certain fields where security is the prime consideration. Is this discrimination? Evidently the hon. member does not believe that this sort of thing is discrimination, because he categorically stated that there is no discrimination in the civil service.


Frank Howard: On account of the grounds set out in the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act, with regard to colour, racial origin, sex and so on.


Ernest James Broome: That is the point. The point is that at present there is no discrimination and therefore there is no purpose behind this bill. But there is a point in getting written into the act which controls the civil service commission something along these lines, because the thought behind this bill is something with which no hon. member can disagree. The elimination of intolerance and discrimination is something which we all want to see, but I do not think this is the way to do it. I believe the way to do it Is through the Civil Service Act itself as well as through the growth and development of the Canadian people, and the people of the world through a constantly increasing level of education. It is in the schools where we want to wipe out intolerance and discrimination. We want to start there. As the hon. member said you cannot legislate a person into a state of mind.
I believe the hon. member is to be commended for bringing forward this bill. I think, however, there is a lot more meat in some of the other bills that stand in his name in relation to which action could be taken.
Because of the portion of the bill of rights which I read I believe there is no necessity for this bill in this form as an amendment to the Canada Fair Employment Practices
Vocational Training
Act. What the hon. member seeks to do through this bill could be discussed when the committee is set up and we consider the Civil Service Act.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, would my hon. friend permit a question before he completes his remarks? Do I understand the hon. member to say that the bill of rights applies to Her Majesty the Queen in the right of Canada? Is that what my hon. friend is saying?


Ernest James Broome: I am saying that the bill
of rights applies to all legislation which has been passed by this parliament in the past and which will be passed in the future. All legislation must be weighed against the bill of rights to see if an act infringes on any of the fundamental freedoms mentioned therein. If an act so infringes then under the terms of the bill of rights that section of that act would have to be amended.


Frank Howard: Would my hon. friend permit another question. Is the hon. gentleman not aware that an act does not relate to the crown or her heirs and assigns unless it is so specified in the act and that this is not contained in the bill of rights?


Ernest James Broome: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that my hon. friend and I are not in the position of two blind men battling back and forth. The hon. member for Skeena is not a lawyer nor am I. All I can do is accept his word with reservations.


Frank Howard: I find it a great help not to be a lawyer and I am sure my hon. friend does too.


Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosihern):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this discussion this afternoon on Bill No. C-9, my first reaction in examining the bill is that the explanation takes up a greater portion of the printed material than does the actual wording of the bill. I believe I should put on the record the explanatory notes which read as follows:
The purpose of this bill is to prevent discrimination by the government of Canada against its employees or applicants for employment in the public service.
The act presently applies as follows:
3. This act applies to and in respect of employment upon or in connection with any work, undertaking or business that is within the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada, including, but not so as to restrict the generality of the foregoing.
(a)	works, undertakings or business operated or carried on for or in connection with navigation and shipping, whether inland or maritime, including the operation of ships and transportation by ship anywhere in Canada:
(b)	railways, canals, telegraphs and other works and undertakings connecting a province with any other or others of the provinces, or extending beyond the limits of a province;

Vocational Training
(c)	lines of steam and other ships connecting a province with any other or others of the provinces or extending beyond the limits of a province;
(d)	ferries between any province and any other province or between any province and any country other than Canada;
(e)	aerodromes, aircraft and lines of air transportation;
(f)	radio broadcasting stations;
(g)	banks and banking;
(h)	such works or undertakings as, although wholly situate within a province, are before or after their execution declared by the parliament of Canada to be for the general advantage of Canada or for the advantage of two or more of the provinces; and
(i)	any work, undertaking or business outside the exclusive legislative authority of the legislature of any province; and to and in respect of
(j)	employers engaged in any such work, undertaking or business;
(k)	employees or other persons employed or seeking employment upon or in connection with any such work, undertaking or business;
(l)	trade unions composed of such employees; and
(m)	the employment by any corporation established to perform any function or duty on behalf of the government of Canada of employees.
If I understand correctly the purpose of this bill it is to extend to those engaged in the civil service of Canada the benefits that are presently enjoyed by people in other walks of life. It is also my understanding that the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act now encompasses the employees of crown corporations but not the employees of the civil service.
This bill appears to anticipate something that will be coming before parliament in the not too distant future. Reference was made by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Broome) to the forthcoming revision of the Civil Service Act. It might be said that the passage of this bill would not in any way change what might take place at a later time in regard to that act that will be considered at a later date but I submit there is a difference-and it may be a shade of a difference-between the ordinary employees in Canada and those employed by the government of this country. That fact is borne out by some of the provisions now contained in the Civil Service Act.
I refer first of all to the preference to veterans, an association of ideas which I believe Canadians in all parts of the country want to see maintained because of the unequalled contribution that has been made to the preservation of the freedom of Canada by those who have served in the Canadian armed forces, a freedom extending not only to these individuals themselves but to Canadians in all walks of life.
Coupled with that premise, of course, is the other premise relating to those provisions incorporated into the Civil Service Act having to do with the problem of security. The problem of ideological warfare-if you want

to call it that-the clash of ideas from one end of the globe to the other certainly makes every one of us here in the House of Commons and I believe everyone in Canada stop to think when he considers some of the positions that must be held by the people in the employ of the government of this country. It may be said that this is discrimination but I think Canadians in general will agree that it is one of the things necessary for the preservation of our way of life and of the sovereignty of this nation.
I notice that this bill was brought forward last year and discussed' in January and February. No doubt hon. members are familiar with the discussion that took place at that particular time. As I read to you, sir, the provisions that this bill would provide I could not help but ask myself the question: Are any of those provisions already provided for Canadians by virtue of the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act and the provisions that were brought forward last year in the bill of rights, that bill which more than any other was so long overdue in this parliament.
When people talk of discrimination they mention, of course, discrimination in so far as race, colour and religion are concerned. Sometimes there are other forms of discrimination as well. Generally speaking, Canada is free from these types of discrimination. In fact, it would be difficult to put your finger in a substantive way on any particular case at any particular time. There have been times in the past, of course, particularly during wartime, when acts of parliament and decisions of the government have made necessary in the ordinary deliberations of parliament the passing of certain statutes which seemed to have caused a certain measure of discrimination; but, generally speaking, in most instances, those acts were passed for the preservation of freedom in this country, and as such were accepted by Canadian citizens in good faith.
Because of the fact that Canada is reasonably free from this type of discrimination, because of the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act as it stands today, because of the bill of rights, because of the examination of the Civil Service Act, which will be brought forward later on in this session, I cannot help but feel that this bill serves no useful purpose at this particular time in our deliberations and for that reason, I thought that I should voice those expressions of opinion so that other hon. members might judge for themselves as well.


Mr. J. F. Browne (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, with the statement that is contained in the explanatory notes of this bill to the effect that the purpose of this bill is

to prevent discrimination by the government of Canada against its employees or applicants for employment in the public service, I think everyone would agree. Of course, if any case was brought forward to substantiate the claim that there was any such discrimination I am sure we would want to take immediate action to prevent it. However, in this particular case the mover of the bill has stated that to his knowledge there is no such discrimination. Of course, that relieves us of the necessity of taking immediate action.
In view of the fact that the civil service is not generally covered in the same legislation as the rest of our labour force and has not been throughout the years, it is obviously a matter that needs a good deal of consideration. The Civil Service Act, of course, has been set up to deal with employees in the public service, and I think it has been generally conceded throughout the years that public servants have responsibilities and conditions different from those of other employees in the country. Many things have been put in the Civil Service Act to protect those employees, and there are certain advantages that they have enjoyed throughout the years that other employees have not had. Therefore, I do not think we can just accept the statement that everybody should be brought under the same legislation.
As has already been pointed out in connection with this bill, if it were passed it would bring the civil servants under the control of two different bodies. It would have the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) responsible for part of their activities and the civil service commission responsible for another part.
As I have already pointed out, with the study being made of the whole position of the civil service I think it would be unwise to make such a change at this time. I think in the Civil Service Act there are ample safeguards at the present time to prevent discrimination in the civil service. In chapter 48 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, section 19, the following appears:
Except where otherwise expressly provided, all appointments to the civil service shall be upon competitive examination under and pursuant to this act, and shall be during pleasure; but no appointment, whether permanent or temporary, shall be made to a local position within a province, and no employee shall be transferred from a position in a province to a local position in the same or in another province, whether permanent or temporary, until and unless the candidate or employee has qualified, by examination,-
Then, in section 25 we find:
(1) Competitive examinations shall be held by the commission to establish lists of persons eligible for appointment.
90205-6-31J
Vocational Training
(2) Such examinations may be written or oral or in the form of a demonstration of skill or any combination of these, and they shall be of a character fairly to test and determine the relative fitness and ability of candidates actually to perform the duties of the class to which they seek to be appointed, and any investigation of training and experience and any test of technical knowledge, manual skill, or physical fitness that, in the judgment of the commission, serves to this end may be employed.
In that way the examinations are open to everyone, and that in itself provides an adequate guarantee that everybody is going to have a fair opportunity of employment in the civil service. However, as has been pointed out, there are some advantages given for employment in the civil service by way of war veterans' preference. I would not be surprised to see proposed the suggestion that there should be other preference given. My own feeling is that perhaps we should specify that a preference should be given to Canadian citizens. I do not think that that would be an unwarranted preference, and yet under the terms of this proposed amendment it may well be that the power to have people given that preference may be taken out of our hands.
The bill of rights has already been referred to on several occasions, and that is another guarantee that there is going to be fairness in the application of the act. However, I have another reason for believing that the civil service should not some within the scope of the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act, because I believe there are other amendments that need to be made to that act and that perhaps the civil service should not necessarily come within the scope of those kinds of amendments.
For this reason I believe it would be very unwise to proceed with this amendment at this time. I should like to be able to deal with some of the other amendments that I feel should be made to the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act but I fear, Mr. Speaker, that you would rule me out of order at this time so I shall save them for another occasion.


Frank Howard: Would the hon. member permit a question before he resumes his seat?


John Ferguson Browne: Yes.


Frank Howard: The hon. member !made reference to the bill of rights having application and I wonder whether he is aware that section 16 of the Interpretation Act makes this provision:
No provision or enactment in any act affects in any manner whatsoever the rights of Her Majesty, her heirs or successors, unless it is expressly stated therein that Her Majesty is bound thereby.

Vocational Training
Is he aware that such a provision is not contained in the bill of rights and therefore it does not apply to the civil service or to Her Majesty?


John Ferguson Browne: I think the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Broome) already indicated that if an interpretation of a legal point was required you should consult a lawyer and not another member of the house.


Frank Howard: Oh, oh.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see the hon. member joining with myself with respect to interruptions. He is very touchy about interruptions in remarks he makes in the house and I should like to remind him that he should take the same attitude with regard to interrupting others. I think that some of the remarks he makes from time to time during debates go a little too far and perhaps the rules of the house are too lenient in allowing such remarks.


Frank Howard: Are you referring to me?


Malcolm MacInnis: Reference has been made to the bill of rights. I should like to point out that discrimination is completely guarded against under the bill of rights because in section 2 it is provided that every law of Canada shall, unless it is expressly declared by an act of the parliament of Canada that it shall operate notwithstanding the Canadian bill of rights, shall be so construed and applied as not to abrogate, etc., any rights or freedoms. Since the Civil Service Act comes under this jurisdiction this offers complete protection against discrimination on the ground of race, colour, creed or nationality.
The bill before us is an act to amend the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act and its chief purpose is to extend the act to bind Her Majesty in right of Canada and servants and agents of Her Majesty in right of Canada. At the present time crown corporations come within the ambit of the act. Section 3 of the act reads as follows:
This act applies to and in respect of employment upon or in connection with any work, undertaking or business that is within the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada, including, but not so as to restrict the generality of the foregoing.. .
(m) the employment by any corporation established to perform any function or duty on behalf of the government of Canada of employees.
That makes the act apply only to employees of Her Majesty in right of Canada.
The civil service commission has always followed a policy of non-discrimination and has never knowingly transgressed the principles laid down in the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act so far as race, colour or religion are concerned. Any differences in

treatment or application which can be attributed to race or origin have been imposed by the requirements of the provisions of the Civil Service Act. The civil service commission has revised its application forms from time to time to delete or modify questions of a nature incompatible with the provisions of the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act as applied to employees in private industry. This was done because of the close, informal working relations between the Department of Labour and the civil service commission with regard to the application of the principles of the act.
The Civil Service Act gives certain preferences to war veterans and residents of a locality in filling jobs in a particular area and also with respect to the admission to examination of British subjects with at least five years residence in Canada. From time to time, however, as the need arises the commission departs from the operation of the relevant section with respect to a position where it is necessary to admit to examination people who do not qualify in these respects.
The provisions of section 4 of the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act have to do with discrimination on the ground of race, colour or religion, and while it may be contended that in the case of British subjects there is special provision, the effect of the amendment would be to give the Minister of Labour authority to deal with complaints concerning discrimination in employment which in all other respects are subject to the Civil Service Act and the administration of the civil service commission. In view of this situation there could not conceivably be any conflict in the exercise of this authority.
The status given by the bill to the Minister of Labour and to the industrial inquiry commission appointed under the act would be repugnant to the Civil Service Commission reporting as it does solely to parliament and not being under the supervision or direction of any minister of the crown. As outlined, the policies and practices of the commission in protecting a person seeking employment or who is already employed in the public service from discrimination on the basis of national origin, colour, creed or religion, are based upon the application of the principles employed in the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act, the Civil Service Act or otherwise.
I know that from time to time the commission has revised its application forms to delete or modify questions of a nature considered incompatible with the provisions of the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act as applied to employers in private industry. I understand that there are provisions in

the Civil Service Act or the regulations made thereunder that are applicable to appointments to the civil service in relation to residence, security, or citizenship which might be inconsistent with the literal application of the amendment to the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act proposed in the bill.
In view of the considerations referred to it might be deemed preferable that the purpose of the bill should be given effect to under the Civil Service Act rather than under the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act. This consideration is particularly pertinent at this time when legislation for the enactment of a new Civil Service Act is projected for the present session of parliament.


Mr. O. H. Phillips (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, it is very easy to be sympathetic to the principle of the bill but I lost a certain amount of sympathy for the bill when the hon. member who introduced it stated that there was no discrimination in the government service and he did not intend to imply that there was. In fact, as recorded in Hansard last year when he introduced a similar bill he made an almost identical speech and in it he emphasized that he knew of no case of discrimination. I think that the bill would have had a great deal more emphasis if he had been able to show cause for its introduction.
I do not mean to imply that discrimination does not exist anywhere in Canada. Periodically we read of extremely unfortunate situations. These may or may not be valid cases of discrimination. However, I am quite sure that the hon. member will not find discrimination either in the civil service or in the crown corporations.
The civil service commission established by law, clearing any government department and reporting directly to parliament rather than through a minister, go to great effort in order to avoid discrimination. They have certain preferences, however. I am sure that all hon. members have received complaints with regard to those preferences. I know that periodically I get complaints from people in the 20-25 age bracket who say that they lost out in a civil service competition owing to the veterans' preference. I think perhaps they have a certain justification for their complaints in that they say they were not old enough to enlist in any of the services during wartime and get the benefits of the Civil Service Act with regard to overseas preference. On the other hand, I do not think the average Canadian considers this to be discrimination and I think he would want the veterans' preference maintained. A number of people have approached me and wanted to know why the preference could not be
Business of the House
extended to those with handicaps. In small towns in Canada it is quite difficult to obtain employment for a handicapped person. They feel that they should have a certain preference under the Civil Service Act.
The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Broome) mentioned security. I am sure all hon. members realize that security clearance is necessary in certain classifications. Perhaps under this act that requirement could be misconstrued to be discrimination.
I was rather intrigued by several of the explanatory notes, namely sections 3 (a) and 3 (b). Section 3 (b) reads as follows-



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Ottawa, December 2, 1960
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Patrick Kerwin, Chief Justice of Canada, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 2nd December, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
Esmond Butler
Secretary to the Governor General
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Right Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An act to amend the National Housing Act, 1954.
An act to provide for the continuation of the operation of railways.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, would the house leader indicate the business for next week. I think he indicated that Monday would be private members' day, but a further projection into next week would be helpful.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, Monday will be private members' day. On Tuesday we will continue with the resolution in the name

Business of the House
of the Minister of Labour dealing with technical and vocational training, followed by the resolution in the name of the Minister of Trade and Commerce dealing with a national productivity council.
If these two resolutions are completed- and there is a little uncertainty here; it is subject to change-I suggest we may go ahead with the setting up of certain special committees which are listed on the order paper.
We would take them in this order: the select committee on the rules and procedure of the house, the joint committee on Indian affairs, the committee dealing with research
and related matters, and the committee on broadcasting. That is Tuesday. Any uncompleted business would carry over to Wednesday. That is perhaps as far as I can go at the moment.


William Moore Benidickson: Are we likely to have the supplementary budget this coming week?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Perhaps on Monday night I will be able to give a more complete preview of the week's work.


[Stage Direction]
It being ten minutes past six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Question

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

Mr. Chevrier: 1.	How did the question relating to racial origin read in the 1951 census and what was the list of racial origins which might be given in the reply?
2.	Was there a test made in June of 1959 for the 1961 census and used in the cities of Joliette, Galt and other cities, and if so, what was the question relating to racial origin and what was the list of racial origins which might be given in reply to that question?
3.	How will the question relating to racial origin read in the 1961 census and what is the list of racial origins which may be given in reply?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister
of Trade and Commerce):
1.	"Origin" any origin reported by the respondent was accepted.
2.	A trial census was carried out in June of 1959 in the cities of Joliette, Quebec and Galt, Ontario. "What is (your) "origin" in the male line?" Any origin reported by the respondent was accepted.
3.	"What is (your) origin on the father's side?" Any origin reported by the respondent will be accepted.

Monday. December 5, 1960



STANDING COMMITTEES

[Stage Direction]
Mr. John Pallet! (Peel) presented the
report of the special committee appointed to prepare and report lists of members to compose the standing committees of the house, as follows:

[Stage Direction]
Messrs:
MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE BILLS Messrs:
Aiken	McGee
Barrington	Mcllraith
Bell (Carleton)	McWilliam
Caron	Meunier
Deschambault	Montgomery
Godin	Nielsen
Grills	Ormiston
Henderson	Paul
Hodgson	Pickersgill
Howard	Richard (Ottawa East)
Johnson	Valade
Macquarrie	Webb
Mandziuk	Webster
McBain	Woolliams-29.
McDonald	
(Quorum-10)	
RAILWAYS, CANALS	AND TELEGRAPH LIN
Messrs:	
Allmark	Keays
Asselin	Kennedy
Badanai	Lessard
Baldwin	Maclnnis
Bell (Saint John-	MacLean (Winnipeg
Albert)	North Centre)
Bourbonnais	Martin (Essex East)
Bourget	Martini
Bourque	McBain
Brassard (Chicoutimi)	McDonald (Hamilton
Brassard (Lapointe)	South)
Browne (Vancouver-	McGee
Kingsway)	McGregor
Bruchesi	McPhillips
Cadieu	Michaud
Campbell (Stormont)	Monteith (Verdun)
Campeau	Pascoe
Chevrier	Payne
Chown	Phillips
Creaghan	Pigeon
Crouse	Pitman
Denis	Pratt
Drysdale	Rapp
Dumas	Rogers
Fisher	Rynard
Garland	Smith (Calgary South)
Grills	Smith (Lincoln)
Hardie	Smith (Simcoe North)
Horner (Acadia)	Thompson
Horner (Jasper-Edson)	Tucker
Howe	Valade
Johnson	Wratten-60.
Anderson Baldwin Batten Beech Bigg Broome
Campbell (Stormont)
Carter Chown Cooper Crestohl Danforth Forbes Forgie Garland Granger Horner
(The Battlefords)
LaMarsh, Miss Kennedy Knowles MacEwan
MacLean (Winnipeg
North Centre)
Macnaughton Mandziuk Martin (Timmins)
(Quorum-15)
Matthews
McBain
McCleave
McDonald (Hamilton South)
McFarlane
McLennan
McMillan
Milligan
Mitchell
Monteith (Verdun)
More
Morton
Nixon
Ormiston
Peters
Regnier
Robinson
Rogers
Simpson
Smith (Lincoln)
Smith (Winnipeg North)
Smith (Simcoe North)
Stefanson
Webster
Wratten-50.
BANKING AND COMMERCE Messrs:
Aiken Allmark Argue Asselin Baldwin
Bell (Saint John-Albert)
Benidickson Bigg
Brassard (Chicoutimi)
Broome Campeau Cardin Caron Cathers Chevrier Clermont Creaghan Crestohl Drysdale Hales Hanbidge Hicks
Horner (Acadia)
Jung
Macdonnell MacLean (Winnipeg North Centre)
(Quorum-15)
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS Messrs:
MacLellan
Macnaughton
Martin (Essex East)
Mcllraith
McIntosh
More
Morissette
Morton
Nasserden
Nugent
Pascoe
Pickersgill
Regier
Robichaud
Rowe
Rynard
Skoreyko
Slogan
Smith (Winnipeg North)
Southam
Stewart
Stinson
Thomas
Woolliams-50.
(Quorum-20)
Allmark
Beech
Bell (Carleton)
Benidickson
Bissonnette
Bourbonnais
[Stage Direction]
Standing Committees
Bourget	McGrath
Brassard (Chicoutimi)	McGregor
Broome	Morissette
Bruchesi	Morton
Campeau	Nugent
Chown	Pickersgill
Coates	Pigeon
Danforth	Pratt
Deschatelets	Regier
Denis	Rouleau
Drysdale	Robichaud
Dupuis	Smith (Simcoe North)
Grenier	Smith (Winnipeg North)
Hales	Spencer
Hanbidge	Stefanson
Hellyer	Stewart
Keays	Tucker
Lahaye	Valade
Macdonald (Kings)	Villeneuve
Macdonnell	Winch
Macnaughton	Woolliams
McGee	Wratten-50.
(Quorum-15)
AGRICULTURE	AND COLONIZATION Messrs:
Argue	Leduc
Badanai	Latour
Belzile	McBain
Boulanger	McIntosh
Brassard (Lapointe)	Michaud
Brunsden	Milligan
Campbell (Lambton-	Montgomery
Kent)	Muir (Lisgar)
Clancy	Nasserden
Clermont	Noble
Cooper	Pascoe
Danforth	Peters
Doucett	Phillips
Drouin	Racine
Dubois	Rapp
Dupuis	Regnier
Fane	Ricard
Forbes	Rogers
Forgie	Rompre
Godin	Smallwood
Gundlock	Smith (Lincoln)
Hales	Southam
Hardie	Stanton
Henderson	Stefanson
Hicks	Tardif
Horner (Acadia)	Thomas
Howe	Thompson
Kindt	Tucker
Knowles	Villeneuve
Korchinski Lahaye	Webb-60.
(Quorum-20)	
STANDING ORDERS Messrs:	
Aitken, Miss	Garland
Argue	Grafftey
Batten	Horner (Jasper-Edson)
Best	Loiselle
Bourdages	McWilliam
Brassard (Chicoutimi) Meunier	
Campeau	Milligan
Danforth	Spencer
Forgie	Webb
Frechette	Webster-20.
(Quorum-8)	
MARINE	AND FISHERIES Messrs:
Anderson	Browne (Vancouver-
Batten	Kingsway)

Cardin	McGrath
Carter	McLennan
Crouse	McPhillips
Danforth	McQuillan
Drysdale	McWilliam
English	Michaud
Gillet	Murphy
Granger	Noble
Grenier	O'Leary
Howard	Pickersgill
Keays	Phillips
Legere	Robichaud
Macdonald (Kings)	Speakman
MacLellan	Stefanson
Matthews	Stewart
McCleave	Tucker-35.
(Quorum-10)	
MINES, FORESTS AND WATERS Messrs:	
Aiken	MacRae
Baskin	Martel
Cadieu	Martin (Timmins)
Campbell (Stormont)	McFarlane
Clermont	McGregor
Coates	McQuillan
Doucett	Mitchell
Dumas	Muir (Cape Breton North
Fleming (Okanagan-	and Victoria)
Revelstoke)	Nielsen
Godin	Nugent
Granger	Payne
Gundlock	Ricard
Hardie	Robichaud
Hicks	Rompre
Kindt	Simpson
Korchinski	Slogan
LaMarsh, Miss Leduc	Stearns-35.
(Quorum-10)	
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS Messrs:	
Allmark	Martin (Essex East)
Beech	Martini
Benidickson	McDonald (Hamilton
Bourdages	South)
Browne (Vaneouver-	McWilliam
Kingsway)	Mitchell
Caron	Muir (Cape Breton North
Clermont	and Victoria)
Creaghan	Noble
Drouin	Pigeon
Godin	Pitman
Grafftey	Ricard
Granger	Simpson
Lafreniere	Skoreyko
Lahaye	Small
LaMarsh, Miss	Smith (Winnipeg North)
Maclnnis	Spencer
MacLean (Winnipeg	Stanton
North Centre) Mandziuk	Weichel-35.
(Quorum-10) r,	
DEBATES Messrs:	
Argue	Nixon
Campbell (Lambton-	Paul
Kent)	Pigeon
Chevrier	Regnier
Fortin	Richard (Ottawa East)
McPhillips Monteith (Verdun)	Roberge-12.
(Quorum-7)	

Standing Committees
Roberge	Stewart
Robinson	Thomas
Rogers	Webster
Speakman	Weichel
Stearns	Winkler-40.
(Quorum-15)
EXTERNAL AFFAIRS Messrs:
Aitken, Miss		Macquarrie
Allard		Mandziuk
Batten		Martin (Essex East)
Cardin		McCleave
Cathers		McGee
Crestohl		McIntosh
Eudes		Montgomery
Fairfield		Nesbitt
Fleming (Okanagan-		Nugent
Revelstoke)		Pearson
Garland		Pratt
Hellyer		Regier
Herridge		Richard (Ottawa East)
Jung		Slogan
Kucherepa		Smith (Calgary South)
Lafreniere		Valade
Lennard		Vivian
MacLellan		White-35.
	(Quorum-10)	
	ESTIMATES	
		Messrs:
Anderson		Homer (Jasper-Edson)
Argue		Howe
Baldwin		Korchinski
Benidickson		LaMarsh, Miss
Best		MacLellan
Bissonnette		McCleave
Bourbonnais		McDonald (Hamilton
Bourdages		South)
Bourget		McFarlane
Broome		McGee
Brassard (Lapointe)		McGrath
Bruchesi		McGregor
Campbell (Lambton-		Mcllraith
Kent)		McQuillan
Cardin		Me William
Caron		More
Carter		Parizeau
Cathers		Payne
Chown		Pickersgill
Clancy		Pugh
Coates		Ricard
Crouse		Richard (Kamouraska)
Dumas		Skoreyko
Fairfield		Smith (Calgary South)
Fleming (Okanagan-		Stewart
Revelstoke)		Stinson
Fortin		Thompson
Gillet		Vivian
Grafftey		White
Hales		Winch
Hardie		Winkler-60.
Hellyer		
	(Quorum-20)	
	VETERANS AFFAIRS	
		Messrs:
Badanai		Kennedy
Batten		LaMarsh, Miss
Beech		Lennard
Benidickson		Macdonald (Kings)
Broome		MacEwan
Cardin		MacRae
Carter		Matthews
Clancy		McIntosh
Denis		Me William
Fane		Montgomery
Forgie		O'Leary
Fortin		Ormiston
Herridge		Parizeau
Jones		Peters
Jung		Pugh

[Stage Direction]
(Members to act on the part of the Commons) Messrs:
Allard	Howard
Asselin	Korchinski
Barrington	Lahaye
Belzile	Lessard
Bissonnette	Letourneau
Boivin	Maclnnis
Bourdages	MacLellan
Bourque	Martini
Brunsden	McLennan
Cadieu	Me William
Campeau	Meunier
Caron	Michaud
Clancy	Morissette
Cooper	O'Leary
Creaghan	Phillips
Deschambault	Rapp
Deschatelets	Ratelle
Dubois	Richard (Kamouraska)
Dupuis	Robinson
Fane	Rouleau
Fisher	Skoreyko
Fortin	Slogan
Gillet	Smallwood
Godin	Southam
Grafftey	Taylor
Gundlock	Webb
Henderson	Winkler-54.
LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT (Members to act on the part of the Commons) Mr. Speaker and Messrs:
Aitken, Miss	McFarlane
Belzile	McGee
Bourbonnais	Mcllraith
Bourque	Muir (Lisgar)
Brunsden	Nixon
Campeau	Pigeon
Eudes	Pratt
Fairfield	Racine
Fisher	Ratelle
Fleming (Okanagan- Regier	
Revelstoke)	Richard (St. Maurice-
Forbes	Lafleche)
Frechette	Richard (Ottawa East)
Grenier	Rouleau
Hanbidge	Simpson
Kindt	Skoreyko
Knowles	Small
LaRue	Smith (Lincoln)
Lennard	Smith (Simcoe North)
Lessard	Smith (Winnipeg North'
Macquarrie	Southam
Martel	Stinson
Matthews	Tremblay-45.
	RESTAURANT
(Members to	act on the part of the Commons)
Mr.	Speaker and Messrs:
Bourque	Hales
Campbell	Horner (The Battle-
Carter	fords)
Deschatelets	Lafreniere
Doucett	Legere
Godin	Latour
[Stage Direction]
442	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry
Letourneau	Stearns
Martin (Timmins)	Tardif
McGregor	Taylor
McQuillan	Villeneuve
Muir (Lisgar)	Weichel
Pratt	Wratten-25.
Richard (Ottawa East)
Mr. Pallet! moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

John George Diefenbaker: That the standing committees of this house shall be severally empowered to examine and inquire into all such matters and things as may be referred to them by the house, and to report from time to time their observations and opinions thereon, with power to send for persons, papers and records.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of reports that a number of collieries in Nova Scotia are to be shut down, can the Prime Minister say whether arrangements have been made for a meeting between the Dominion Coal Company and the federal government to the end that these mines may be kept open?


John George Diefenbaker: No such meeting has been arranged as yet. However, continual discussions have been going on in connection with representations which have been received from the areas in question. I think it was some 10 days ago that a meeting took place in Ottawa at which the whole matter was carefully reviewed not only by the representatives from Cape Breton but by representatives of the company and the ministers concerned.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Moore Benidickson: I wonder if the Minister of Finance can now give some indication to the house of the date when he is likely to bring down his revised budget.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The house will be advised in due time.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, you ruled a question by me out of order as being concerned with a person's private affairs, and as I was not sure of my ground I resumed my seat. Now I have had reliable information, and I wish to rephrase my question. In view of the fact that the Bank of Canada has purchased a car for Mr. Coyne in the United States and is now in the process of purchasing an even more luxurious one, would the Minister of Finance inform the house whether this is government policy?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think the hon. member must be aware from the form of his own question that government policy is not involved in this-situation in any way. The Bank of Canada is not responsible to the government. The Bank of Canada is responsible to parliament, and the government has no control whatever over the internal operations of the Bank of Canada.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: A supplementary question. Does the minister agree with the purchase by the Bank of Canada of these automobiles in the United States?


Mr. Speaker:: The answer to the main question seems to include the supplementary, since the minister indicates that this is not an administrative responsibility of his under the Bank of Canada legislation.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Richard Garland: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Can the minister say whether any arrangements have been made to permit the sale of the current stock of unsold houses under the new terms of the longer repayment period which was approved by this house last week?


David James Walker: The matter is under consideration.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harry Oliver White: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the right hon. gentleman received any

reports regarding a summit meeting of the communist leaders of the world being held in Moscow?


John George Diefenbaker: As the house knows, a meeting of the leaders of communist parties has taken place in Moscow and has been going on for some three weeks. A short communique was issued. It reveals nothing about what progress if any has been made toward bringing about a compromise in the dispute between the U.S.S.R. and communist China.
All I can say is that we will have to await further developments before endeavouring to assess the meeting or its effects on that dispute, which of course, has very significant and important implications for western relations with the communist countries.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Prime Minister say whether the Canadian communist party was represented at this meeting?


John George Diefenbaker: I cannot say that in answer to the hon. gentleman. All I know is that there were 81 communist parties represented. Whether the Canadian communist party on this occasion fell behind in its usual position in that regard, I cannot say.


WATER RESOURCES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works arising from an item I noticed in the press. A minister of the Ontario government is reported as saying that he did not know whether the funds placed at their disposal by this government for sewage disposal and water pollution control would be available to the Ontario water resources commission. My question is, would any of these funds be available to this commission, which is in charge of watersheds, pollution control and sewage disposal in some parts of Ontario?


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Port Arthur has no doubt read in the terms of the bill, the contracts will be entered into by C.M.H.C. with the municipalities and funds will be advanced direct to the municipalities.
Inquiries of the Ministry HUMAN RIGHTS


HOUSING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Public Works if he would kindly table the regulation which he announced the day before yesterday, regarding an attempt on the part of the government to avoid discrimination in the matter of taking advantage of the benefits of the C.M.H.C. legislation?


David James Walker: I would be very happy to do so, Mr. Speaker.


COLUMBIA RIVER
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, in view of urgent action being considered by hundreds of constituents I represent, could the Minister of Justice inform the house whether members of the cabinet are intending to visit Victoria within the next two weeks to discuss Columbia river developments? If so, could the minister say what members of the cabinet will be in attendance?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there will be a meeting in Victoria next week of the Canada-British Columbia policy liaison committee. I am not sure whether the names of the members of that committee have been given. It is not customary as a general rule, I think, to disclose the names of cabinet committees, but I will be glad to give the names to the hon. member privately, and if they have already been disclosed I would have no objection to giving them to the house.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If the minister gives them to me privately, may I use them publicly?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am sure there would be no objection to the hon. member passing on to his constituents the names of the ministers who will be going. There is no secret about it. My recollection is that there is a general rule against disclosing the membership of cabinet committees. I am advised, however, that we have on previous occasions given the names of ministers who have attended these particular meetings. Those who will be going are the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources and myself.
444	HOUSE OF
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act MAINTENANCE OF RAILWAY OPERATION ACT


PROVISION FOR CONTINUANCE OF RAILWAY OPERATIONS
Michael Starr: the third reading of Bill No. C-45, to provide for the continuation of the operation of railways.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege referring to yesterday's Hansard, which gives an inaccurate account of activities in the committee of the whole last evening by showing that the committee did something which in fact it did not do. I am not saying that Hansard or the records of the house were tampered with, but perhaps I can explain the question of privilege in this way. Hansard of December 1, at page 436, indicates the following as almost the last item:


Jacques Flynn: Shall the new clause 7 carry?
Clause agreed to: Yeas, 95; nays, 27.
Schedules A and B agreed to.
My recollection, which is substantiated by the recollection of three other members of this party, is that the question with respect to schedules A and B was not put; that the committee did not consider them; that the question was not put on them although Hansard says it was. This, I say, is substantiated by those of us who were here, because we remember it; and we remember it for the reason that the hon. member for Timis-kaming was interested in it. We discussed among ourselves during the proceedings last evening his desire to raise a particular question on schedule A, the one which sets out the names of the companies, because the hon. member wanted to deal with the Ontario Northland Railway. He waited for the schedule to be called. When it was not called, we perhaps assumed that it was not necessary to vote on the schedules. However, upon checking the rules of the house we found that schedules are treated in the same way as clauses and must be considered by the committee. They can be amended, deleted, voted down and so on, just the same as a clause.
The members who substantiate my own memory are the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue), who was here last evening at that stage of the proceedings, the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) and the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher). All of us were sitting close together and discussed this particular question to be taken up on schedule A and schedule B.
I went to the Hansard office, Mr. Speaker, and I assume that because of the lateness of the sitting this morning the so-called Hansard blues were not yet back from the Queen's


printer, so that one was not able to compare Hansard with what the blue says. However, I was able to obtain a copy of the typescript; this is how it is classified. I received a copy and I checked it this morning. I understand it is a copy of the blues, in fact. I will read from the copy I have in my hand: "PPPP-1- 1.40 a.m." It gives the discussion that took place, and I should now like to compare it with the copy of Hansard that I have. I read from Hansard at page 436:


Jacques Flynn: Shall the new clause 7 carry?
Clause agreed to: Yeas, 95; nays, 27.
Schedules A and B agreed to.
I shall now read from what appears in the typescript:


Jacques Flynn: Shall the new clause 7 carry?
Clause agreed to: Yes, 95; nays, 27.
Up to here it coincides with what appears in Hansard, but in the typescript there is no reference to schedules A and B being agreed to, as appears in Hansard. The typescript goes on but does not mention schedules A and B. It shows the preamble agreed to, the title agreed to, the bill reported, and so on.
My question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, is that Hansard shows we did something in the committee of the whole which in fact we did not do.
Second, the bill is not properly before us because consideration of it was not completed in committee. Schedules A and B were not dealt with and were not considered by the committee of the whole, and Hansard is incorrect in this regard.
As I said, I do not wish to say whether Hansard has been tampered with, or just how this reference that schedules A and B had been agreed to got in Hansard. In any event, sir, I say that they were not considered in the committee. It is the specific recollection of four of us, the hon. member for Assiniboia, the hon. member for Port Arthur, the hon. member for Timiskaming and myself, all of whom were sitting rather close together, that these schedules were not put to the committee and were not considered by the committee as they properly should be if the bill is in fact to become any sort of law at all.
I think we will all agree that if they were not considered and the bill were enacted it would be extremely unfortunate if the bill were not in fact a proper piece of legislation, as it would not be if certain parts were excluded from it: I therefore must found a motion based upon the question of privilege. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Timiskaming:
That this bill be not now read the third time-
This is not a negative approach but rather the only way I can do this.

-but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole for the purpose of considering schedules A and B.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Speaker, without discussing the question of the Hansard report, I simply want to say that the hon. member is perfectly right. In the last minutes of the proceedings last night the chairman did not call for approval of schedules A and B.


Mr. Speaker:: Before putting the motion I must determine whether there is a prima facie question of privilege, and I shall be glad to hear hon. members on that point. A motion based on privilege must be founded on a finding by the Chair that there is a question of privilege. I think there is a proper question of privilege in that if, as is asserted and as appears to be the case, the Hansard report of the final stages of the proceedings of the committee is incorrect, that is a matter that the house will be concerned with as a breach of its privilege to have its proceedings correctly reported.
However, the consequences which the hon. member for Skeena suggests do not appear to me to be self-evident, because what in fact ensued was that the chairman reported the bill as amended and the house itself adopted the report of the committee which was a report of the amended bill without reservation or limitation. If there was an irregularity in the proceedings of the committee that irregularity, it seems to me, is cured by the action of the house itself. Therefore the suggestion made by the hon. member for Skeena appears to me, without opportunity for further reflection, not to follow from the omission which was made in committee.
On the other hand, the incorrect report in Hansard is a matter which I think the house very properly has a duty to take into account. Whether the hon. member, in view of what I have said, wishes me to proceed with this motion is a matter for him to decide.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I just want to hear from the hon. member for Skeena whether he wants to proceed with this matter.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, my concern is not so much with the question of privilege relating to Hansard as with the effect of the irregularity on the process of ensuring that the bill is dealt with properly.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in so far as Hansard is concerned, what the hon. member says is perfectly correct. The chairman of committees and Deputy Speaker has said that in fact what is reported in Hansard did not take place.
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act That could be deleted from Hansard. I would point out that in clause 2 of the bill, the interpretation section, on which we voted, subclause (b) reads as follows:
"Railway company" means a company listed in schedule A.
Likewise, subclause (c) reads:
"Union" means a trade union listed in schedule.
So that in fact both these schedules were dealt with in clause 2, the interpretation clause. All that is necessary is simply to have deleted from Hansard the additional words that were surplus.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, with reference to your suggestion that any deficiency in the committee's proceedings was corrected by its subsequent report and the subsequent action of the house, may I point out that in fact the official record of the proceedings of the house is Votes and Proceedings, not Hansard. At page 69 Votes and Proceedings reports as follows:
Bill C-45, an act to provide for the continuation of the operation of railways, was considered in committee of the whole, reported with amendments, considered as amended, and ordered for a third reading at the next sitting of the house.
As the hon. member for Skeena himself pointed out, the schedules are part of the bill. Accordingly, and as you pointed out, Mr. Speaker, the house received the committee's report, approved the amendments and ordered the bill read for a third time at the next sitting of the house. That is what is recorded in the official record of the proceedings of this house, Hansard of course being not properly speaking an official record of the proceedings of the house but merely a record of what was said here. The official record therefore confirms what you yourself have said, Mr. Speaker, namely that the bill having been considered by the house-that is to say, the whole bill-any defects in the proceedings in the committee were not only rectified by the house but are officially recorded as having been rectified by the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I agree completely with what has been said by the Minister of Justice. It is not to that point that I wish to address myself at all. I wish to address myself to the question of whether this motion should be entertained at all at this time. Your honour recognized the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson), and the Leader of the Opposition took his seat because Your Honour recognized the hon. member for Skeena on a question of privilege. But on a question of privilege the hon. member is not entitled to move a motion unless that motion is based on a privilege of the house and is not entitled to move one that he could only have moved after he had been

Maintenance of Railway Operation Act recognized as a participant in the debate. While the motion itself may be perfectly in order, the hon. gentleman was not recognized by Your Honour for the purpose of debating the third reading of the bill. It therefore seems to me that his motion could not properly come before the house at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. members for their assistance at this time. As I say, there is a question of privilege with respect to the report of the debates. If the hon. member wished to found a motion on it, I would entertain the motion. It seems to me that this motion does not relate to that question of privilege but is a motion calling on the house to refer the bill back to the committee of the whole for the purpose of considering schedules A and B, and that is a motion which could properly be made on third reading not as a matter of privilege. I think it should not be introduced now as a motion on the only question of privilege which appears to me to be valid having regard to what the hon. member has said. In other words, the motion relating to privilege should relate to the breach of privilege which I have recognized, namely the transcript of Hansard.
Does the hon. member for Skeena wish to say anything further?


Frank Howard: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It seems to me that perhaps you should consider whether or not consent should be given to this procedure, because it seems to me we are then putting the cart before the horse. In fact, if this matter is not dealt with now we shall be considering a bill on third reading. The Leader of the Opposition, who will be speaking to it, and others presumably who will be speaking to it, will be speaking to a bill which in my opinion-even though inadvertently it may appear in this way-is not properly before the house.
In view of that consideration and the comments made by the hon. gentleman, I think perhaps unanimous consent should be given to proceed with this motion and deal with it in committee. I am sure it will take only a few minutes.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member is only raising a point of order, and it is a point of order. However, he is not entitled to raise it in the middle of the speech of the Leader of the Opposition. When his turn comes to speak, if he wishes to put that matter forward I shall, of course, be glad to submit the matter to the house.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On the point of order may I say this, and I shall be brief. I submit that the point made by the hon. gentleman does not arise. As has been pointed out, if there was a deficiency in the committee's proceedings the house chose to rectify that deficiency.


In other words, if the committee chose to report a bill without having in fact considered the schedules, as the chairman of the committee agrees was the case, nevertheless the house received the report and has said in effect, "We are going to overlook the fact that the committee did not consider the schedules in the bill".
It was within the power of the house to do that. The house has received the report and has ordered the bill, including the schedules, for third reading. Therefore, that not only having been done but having been officially recorded, the fact of the matter is that any shortcomings in the committee's proceedings were overlooked by the house and the bill has been accepted as having been dealt with in the committee.


Mr. Speaker:: I am inclined to agree with what the Minister of Justice has said. Perhaps I am not strictly correct in saying that the point of order cannot be disposed of now. I recognized the Leader of the Opposition, but points of order, as hon. members know, are taken at any time. As this is a point of order that affects the validity of our proceedings in debating this bill on third reading, I think it should be disposed of.
In view of the considerations put before the house by the Minister of Justice, as to which I have already indicated my preliminary view on the matter, I propose to give my decision. Has the hon. member for Skeena anything more to say on the point of order?


Frank Howard: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The point of order is whether or not the house is in order in debating third reading. In view of what took place last night the point which was made by the Minister of Justice and which I myself raised is that the house last night accepted the bill as amended, accepted the report of the committee, and moved to approve the amendments. Therefore, if there were irregularities in committee they have been cured by the action of the house itself. The fact that there was not an opportunity to debate the schedules by themselves in committee would, in my opinion, be a good reason for moving the motion in question, but not as a point of order.


Frank Howard: If I may, I should like to say this. Even though perhaps the house inadvertently did something that it did not know it was doing, perhaps I should not make the motion at this time but should do so in the course of events if I may catch your eye.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not intend to try to block or delay passage of this bill at this time by

Maintenance of Railway Operation Act
any procedural move. However, before the vote is taken I intend to set out briefly but I hope clearly the sole but significant difference between the government and the Liberal opposition on this bill. We agree with the government that there should be no railway strike at this time. We have already so stated in the course of debate on second reading of the bill. We agree with the government that it has become necessary to prevent this strike which otherwise would start tomorrow morning. We have already made that statement.
We do not agree with the government that the workers involved in this matter should be compelled by law to continue to work at wages below the standard accepted in comparable occupations where strikes are permitted, which standard has been used in negotiations previously. Our position is that in compelling the men to remain at work, the bill should also compel the companies to pay wages that a conciliation board, with a chairman appointed by the government, found to be fair and reasonable.
We believe therefore, Mr. Speaker, that clause 3 should have been amended to vary the collective agreements in order to bring them into conformity with the recommendations of the Milvain conciliation board. If the government had accepted that change in the bill, which we have already proposed, we of course would have voted for third reading of this bill with the amendment.
This would have assured overwhelming, perhaps even unanimous, parliamentary approval for legislation to prevent a threatened railway strike. However, if the government persists in maintaining the bill as it is, we cannot vote to force men to work for wages judged to be substandard by the Milvain conciliation board set up by the government. Therefore the government and its supporters will have to take exclusive responsibility for this unjust method to prevent a strike, which strike, however, we also believe must be prevented at this time in the public interest.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I recognized the Prime Minister, crossing the floor of the house, if he is interested in speaking.


John George Diefenbaker: It does not matter to me, Mr. Speaker. I had just risen, but if the hon. gentleman wants to proceed it is perfectly all right. I do not want to interfere.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, on this occasion of third reading of this very important bill I would like to say a few words and take a few minutes' time on behalf of our group in this House of Commons.
We recognize very completely the importance and seriousness of the problem which is facing this country and this house, and the difficulties that arise. We recognize- and all hon. members have stated this- the effect that a cessation of work in the transportation industry could have, not only on those directly involved but those who would be indirectly affected as Canadian citizens engaged in other operations in our Canadian economy.
A great deal has been said both pro and con in these last few days on the legislation which is now before us. 1 think the position of our group has been made exceedingly clear. We regret that matters should have come to a position where the introduction of such legislation was deemed necessary by the government. We have pointed out that in our opinion, had there not been delayed action by the government it should have been possible, among responsible government, responsible employers and responsible employees, to work out a satisfactory solution. We feel most strongly-and we have demonstrated this by word and by vote up to this time-that in the introduction of the legislation the government has not taken what we consider a fair approach or an unbiased attitude. We in this group, sir, cannot accept in principle the introduction of legislation which will remove from a segment of the workers of this country an inalienable right ^yaXan ky law and given to most, because of the failure of government, employers and employees to work out a satisfactory solution.
Very briefly, we feel it is wrong. We cannot endorse the removal of a right, in particular in an industry which is very strongly regulated by government, when there is a majority report and when it must be admitted by all fair men upon due consideration that the 110,000 employees affected now have a gap, I believe, of around 29 cents an hour compared with the standard which has been generally accepted; that is, compared with those employed in the durable goods industries.
We feel that on almost every ground of principle affecting the rights of these workers, their positions and their standards, the government is really remiss in the manner in
which the legislation has been introduced_______
or should I say in what is left out of the legislation as far as the employees are concerned.
The government is asking, through the medium of this legislation, for the removal of what should be inalienable rights. As the law is going to be amended at this time, these rights will be removed. These employees, having carried on in a responsible manner now for over a year, are being asked

Maintenance of Railway Operation Act to continue tor another six months with no change in their standards and with no remedial action to close the gap between the standards which have been accepted for many years. In particular, Mr. Speaker, we cannot see how, with the passage of this legislation there will be a different position on May 15 of next year. In other words, we are going to have a continuous period of anxiety for just over six months, and then perhaps we will have to face the identical situation which we are facing at the present time.
We think that is unfortunate. There is nothing in the legislation, and nothing has been said by the government, that can possibly lead us to any conclusion other than that this is merely a policy-wise move, a stall, hoping that something may happen in the next six months. The Prime Minister stated what will most likely occur before May 1; that is, a lifting of the freight rate freeze, which I think undoubtedly must involve the question of whether there will be a continuation of the subsidy as far as freight rates are concerned. That is a situation, sir, which is almost untenable when you look at it today and try to look forward to what the situation will be on May 15. It is these reasons, amplified in the two days' discussion, that we felt had to be mentioned on the motion for third reading of this bill.
But, Mr. Speaker, there is one point that disturbs us greatly and it is this. As the legislation now stands-definitely as the legislation now stands-and considering anything expressed by the Prime Minister or the Minister of Labour, there is nothing to indicate that there will be any differentiation between now and six months from now. This can only lead to what I term a period of anxiety for the employees directly or indirectly affected. We feel that something should be placed in the legislation itself which would indicate that there was a possibility of removing the cause of this anxiety in the next six months, that this should not be left to wishful thinking on the part of the Prime Minister or the Minister of Labour with the probability that we shall be facing a situation on May 15 similar to the one we are facing at the present time. In other words, we feel there should be some provision in the legislation to direct that between now and May 15, when this bill becomes inoperative, there shall be a continuation of negotiations.
We feel that both men and industry must be reasonable. I know that workers are reasonable, because few things are so unpleasant as being out of work. The Canadian economy, as well as the position in which the workers find themselves, demand the removal

of this period of six month's anxiety leading to a likely repetition of the present situation six or seven months from now. Although I personally regret very much the necessity of placing in legislation any provision to insist that responsible men should get together,
I do not feel, because of the importance of this question to the country's economy and to the workers involved, that we can afford to leave the situation up in the air. It is simply not good enough to rely on wishful thinking.
It is because we feel that this question is of major importance that I move, seconded by the hon. member for Skeena:
That Bill No. C-45 be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole house for the purpose of reconsidering clause 3.
May I say in this regard that I should like to have mentioned more fully the purpose I have in mind, but there are certain rules of procedure; some things are in order and others are out of order. I know this is in order. I want the house to understand that the purpose of this amendment on third reading is to get the bill back into committee of the whole on clause 3 in order that the committee might give consideration to whether we should not give a legislative indication to the companies and to the employees that there is not to be a hiatus between now and May 15, and that the parties must get together as responsible people in an effort to work out a collective agreement before the expiry of a bill which is to become an act of parliament.
May I end by saying that we in this group are moving this amendment because we feel it is our responsibility as members of parliament to do so in the interests of the Canadian economy and of the Canadian workers who are directly or indirectly affected.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We have discussed for some hours the question involved in this amendment. We have no quarrel whatever with the point of view put forward by the hon. member who has moved the amendment. Indeed, on more than one accasion in the last two days we have expressed our support for that point of view.
However, we do not wish to take the responsibility for referring this bill back to committee now, with the risk that discussion of the bill in committee might be prolonged for a period of time which would make a strike inevitable. That is the only reason we are unable to support this amendment on third reading.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not intend to repeat the arguments which were made during the discussions which have taken place on this very important bill. I think one of the most interesting phases in connection with these discussions has been the degree to which there has been full and frank consideration of the issues by hon. members in all parts of the house.
The Leader of the Opposition has stated that while he agrees with the principle inherent in the amendment which has been moved, for the reasons he gave he did not himself move a similar amendment, if I correctly interpret his words. This has been one of those occasions when the government, in the interests of the people of Canada as a whole as well as for the preservation of the full and complete conciliation procedures which are on the statute books of this country, had to take action, and take it in the manner in which it has been presented to this house.
In so far as the Leader of the Opposition is concerned, he stated he wanted to set out the significant difference at this time between the government and the opposition. Well, he finds himself in a very difficult position in that regard, because he said "We do not want a rail strike at this time". At the same time he says parliament should assure by legislation the acceptance by both parties of a majority conciliation report in order that the results which all of us are trying to achieve may be attained. The great danger in that position is this. If parliament enacts that the majority report of the conciliation board shall be accepted by the employers and the employees and makes that mandatory, then we will have indeed established for this and future occasions that conciliation board majority reports are binding on the parties. My hon. friends opposite cannot have it both ways.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is misrepresenting the position we have taken on that point, as he did the other day.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member feels that his view is not properly expressed he could wait until the Prime Minister finishes.


John George Diefenbaker: I can understand the feeling of the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, because he has to wiggle on this.
I am trying to point out clearly that my hon. friend cannot have it both ways. If the majority report had recommended something different than it did, would he then have said that parliament should act? If he does, then indeed we have made a step forward in that so far as the railways of this country are
90205-6-294
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act concerned, when conciliation proceedings take place whether the majority report is favourable or unfavourable to labour it must be accepted.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is not the position.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, I know the difficult position of my hon. friends opposite. I realize the situation in which the opposition finds itself. It wants to pick and choose its position. It wants to take the stand, "Oh, of course, in the public interest we do not want a strike," and in order to prevent a strike taking place there shall be acceptance by parliament of the majority report which is not acceptable to the employers or employees. If we agree on that, if parliament is prepared to take that stand, then indeed we will have made a step forward toward the attainment of compulsory arbitration in all cases, for once a board of conciliation majority report is given the parties are bound.
As far as the rates of wages for the nonoperating railway employees are concerned, I have read the report. I would not contend- and I know this will not be accepted by the employers-that the employees are receiving rates of wages in keeping with wage levels in similar industries beyond the railways. I am expressing that viewpoint-


Lester Bowles Pearson: My hon. friend is forcing them to accept those wage rates by law.


John George Diefenbaker: Those words come from the Leader of the Opposition. He will not take the stand that a majority report is binding; not at all. The hon. gentleman just wiggles and squirms on this question, because he realizes that the people of Canada in the public interest demand that the railways shall continue operation. On the part of the government we demand that the conciliation processes shall be maintained, and we contend that compulsory arbitration as imposed in 1950 is inappropriate at this time.
This has been a trying situation and all of us realize that fact. The action taken will be misinterpreted, but the responsibility must be shouldered in the public interest.
It is interesting to note the difficulty of the Leader of the Opposition, because that tribune of the people in Saskatchewan, Mr. Thatcher, the former seatmate, room-mate and friend of the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue), who since has seen the light, gave his opinion last evening according to a Canadian Press dispatch. I read from the press dispatch:
Saskatchewan Liberal leader Ross Thatcher said today he is in complete agreement with the emergency legislative action taken by the federal government to prevent a nation-wide strike of non-operating railway employees.


Hazen Robert Argue: What paper is that?
450	HOUSE OF
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act Mr. Diefenbaker: The Globe and Mail. Mr. Thatcher is among the people and he cannot allow himself the luxury of accepting the position taken by his own national leader.


Hazen Robert Argue: You might have him next.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not care to speculate about those perambulations. I continue:
Mr. Thatcher said the interests of the public at large must be considered and rightly or wrongly it seems that those interests require the railways to keep moving.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: My hon. friend says
"Hear, hear," but I ask my hon. friend if he is prepared to say "Hear, hear" to the next point. The following sentence in this dispatch reads:
Mr. Thatcher criticized Liberal leader Lester B. Pearson for moving an amendment to kill the legislation on the grounds it imposes a compulsory and discriminatory wage freeze on workers involved.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before the hon. member goes further I just want to remind him of the rule on reading from newspapers that reflect on what has been said in the house. So far it has not related to what has been said here and has related to government policy, but it seemed to be leading in that direction.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On that point, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister ought to be allowed to proceed and we will expect to be given the same latitude. We have indicated that we would like to shorten this debate in the public interest, but the Prime Minister apparently wants to keep it going all day.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, surely I am not going to have a form of closure applied by the opposition. They used to apply it when they were over here, but surely they are not going to have it in reverse form in the opposition.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Go ahead; we have all day.


John George Diefenbaker: I simply intended, Mr. Speaker, to recommend to the Leader of the Opposition the reading of this Canadian Press dispatch because Mr. Thatcher is in disagreement with the amendment moved by the hon. gentleman and those associated with him.
I go further. I often hear radio reports quoted in this house. This morning I heard a report quoted over CFRA. The former Liberal prime minister, Mr. St. Laurent, said in Toronto last night, according to this report that "he agrees with Prime Minister Diefenbaker's action in the current rail crisis," 'but he added that "he would not like to be prime minister right now."


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has quoted a former prime minister. If he would be fair or if he knew he would realize that that statement was corrected by a Canadian Press dispatch from Toronto which says-and I wish to refer to it because the Prime Minister brought up this matter in an inaccurate form-


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Lester Bowles Pearson: As usual the Prime Minister was inaccurate.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Leader of the Opposition is interrupting to make a correction. Unless the hon. member who has the floor yields it, the proper time to make any necessary correction is at the termination^ of the speech. The Leader of the Opposition will then have the floor.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Prime Minister wants to persist in his error.


John George Diefenbaker: When it comes to a question of fairness there is one hon. gentleman from whom I will not take any lessons. I am simply referring to what has been said as reported. I can realize the exacerbated feelings of my hon. friends opposite. I am simply pointing out this fact. As far as the Leader of the Opposition is concerned, he finds himself in a position where he has to accept as a bounden mandatory principle that compulsory adherence to a majority report shall be followed in this country. If that is the policy, there are many who advocate that course, that we should have in the national interest legislation of that kind.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Nonsense.


John George Diefenbaker: I have not belonged to that group. In 1950 I took a strong and firm stand-and have throughout the years- against that form of legislation.
It has been said by the hon. member for Vancouver East that there should be a continuation of the conciliation processes provided for in the legislation. At any time an agreement is arrived at, this legislation ceases to be effective. I want to see these people together. We brought them together; we endeavoured to ascertain whether there was any possibility of agreement. I have said, and I repeat, that there was not that attitude on the part of either that would bring about anything in the nature of an agreement, reasonable in its characteristics. The preamble of the bill reads:
Whereas the processes of collective bargaining between the major railway companies and the representatives of their non-operating employees have failed to produce agreement, and the public interest requires that further efforts to react

agreement be resumed at a more favourable time without prejudice to the rights of either party and without interruption of the railway service;
Further on, in paragraph 3, we find the following:
Subject to this act, the term of each existing collective agreement is extended to include the period beginning on the commencement of this act and ending on the day on which a new collective agreement between the parties thereto in amendment or revision thereof comes into effect.
This makes every provision for a continuation of the conciliation proceedings. More than that, I think these people should be brought together at once. We continue the railways in operation. I for one will do everything I can to bring them together and regularly call them together so as to assure that discussions will continue and that justice will be done. So far as unfairness to the employees is concerned, there can be no justification for any truculent attitude being taken toward them.
There is one thing that I must answer, namely the suggestion that we in any way had acted for the benefit of the C.P.R. On the one hand, it was said and repeated that the Canadian Pacific railway wanted a strike to put the men in their places. That has been repeated here on more than one occasion. It must have been asserted with knowledge or it would not have been asserted, although I have no knowledge of that fact. If that is so, this legislation is a most effective answer to those who say there was any relationship between the Canadian Pacific and the government in this regard, because the tragic results which would follow such an attitude shall not and will not be countenanced.
I want to underline and emphasize that once again. The suggestion that that railway company would endeavour to do this to the workers of this country is such an outrageous one that if it has any foundation in fact, we have met it by preserving completely and absolutely the rights of labour and assuring at the same time the operation of the railways.
As far as the Canadian National Railways management are concerned, while the government has no authority over them-it is a separate and independent organization, and any interference in any way would be immediately challenged as improper and unjustifiable-I want to make it perfectly clear that if the management of the railway does things that ought not to be tolerated, that will do injustice to the workers of this country, this government, while scrupulously maintaining independence of that railway, will
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act certainly have the attention of the management brought to any such unfairness or discrimination against any of the workers of that railway. I want that definitely understood.
It has been a trying problem, sir, for all of us. We have tried to discharge our responsibilities. We have recognized that there will be misinterpretation of what we have done; that there will be endeavours to take political advantage of the course of action, as though we were in fact freezing wages to the detriment of the worker. As I said, we will maintain the conciliation processes from now until May 15. Instead of fixing a date away beyond, we fixed it in May so there would be no unjustified prolongation of the problem. We will bring these people together from time to time. Then, as I pointed out before, as soon as the freight rate freeze is lifted we will be in a position to bring about measures such as the hon. member for Assiniboia said were necessary to remove injustices and discriminatory rates, as far as that can be achieved, and the railways will be in a position to proceed in the only way in which expenses can be paid, namely either by grants or subsidies from parliament, in which case it comes out of the people through taxation, or through freight rates, which means that the users must pay additional amounts because of the increased expenses of operation.
We say this, and I repeat; it has been a difficult problem. I think parliament in the action it will take or is taking, provided that this bill is passed, to bring about a period not of inaction but of continued discussion between the parties, is doing the right thing. I believe the voice of reason will be heard; that public opinion has a tremendous influence on the production, the generation and the maintenance of reasonable, good common sense. If not, when we lift the freeze we will give the assurance that those who are workers on the railways, with their unions representing them, will be able to present their case, and that whatever is substituted in the place of the present agreements will be retroactive in fact to January 1, 1960.
There is no prejudice; there is postponement in order to prevent a strike taking place. Instead of taking the other course and bringing in compulsory arbitration, as suggested by the opposition-that in effect is what they say-we took the course we believed to be reasonable, namely the maintenance inviolate of the rights of labour, at the same time maintaining the public interest and welfare of 17,500,000 other Canadians. I think that in the process of time, as this becomes apparent and the rights of both sides become clear in the perspective of the days
452	HOUSE OF
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act ahead, what we have done will turn out to have been the proper and, indeed, the only course, the course of reason and of common sense.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before the hon. member for Essex East speaks, I prevented the Leader of the Opposition from making an explanation which he is at liberty to make now, if he wishes to do so, at the end of the Prime Minister's speech.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister misrepresented again today the position which he said we have taken with regard to the policy adopted to the effect to be given to majority reports of conciliation boards. I wish to make it perfectly clear that we have never taken the position that majority reports of conciliation boards should automatically be made effective. We have taken that position only in respect of action taken by parliament to put people back to work and forbid them from striking.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Leader of the Opposition is explaining what appears to him to have been a misrepresentation of his view. It seems to me it is really a matter of argument, because it is a question of interpretation of the consequences of the stand taken by the Leader of the Opposition rather than a misstatement of fact or a misrepresentation of what has been said.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will not argue the point, of course. I will simply say that the Prime Minister has made a misstatement with regard to our position on this matter, and the record will show that he made a misstatement this morning as he did the other day.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is simply that the Leader of the Opposition was interrupted by yourself when he rose to correct what he alleged was a misstatement with respect to a report of something that had been said outside the house, and now he has been given the privilege of making a second speech on third reading.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is untrue.


Mr. Speaker:: If that is the consequence, it was inadvertent, but the Leader of the Opposition did attempt during the speech of the Prime Minister to make an explanation which he felt should be made and I reminded him that unless the member who had the floor yielded the floor his explanation should be deferred until the end of the speech. I did


not want to do any injustice to the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. member for Essex East.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, it is regrettable that in a matter of this importance our procedures are such that the Leader of the Opposition is not allowed to state again the position of this party in matters which obviously the Prime Minister has not apprehended or does not want clearly to understand. It is also regrettable, I think, that in a matter of such national importance as this particular measure, and when we are in the final stages of the passage of the bill, the head of the government of our country should indulge at such a time in what was so obviously a political statement.


John George Diefenbaker: Not at all.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I say it is regrettable that in a matter involving the nation economically and otherwise, the Prime Minister, instead of giving the nation direction, should have sought to take political advantage of the very difficult situation with which every member of the house has been faced in this matter. He has introduced observations involving personalities outside of parliament, thereby seeking to gain advantage, seeking to give the impression that the Leader of the Opposition does not have behind him the support which the Leader of the Opposition is entitled to receive.
I wish to say to the Prime Minister that from observations that have been made by some hon. members who sit behind him and from statements that have appeared in the press, it is evident that all hon. members in my right hon. friend's party do not share many of the views he has expressed throughout the debate, but that is to be expected. I want to say that the Liberal party in this house, true to its convictions and its principles, stand united to a man behind the Leader of the Opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What about the Liberal party outside the house?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It would be impossible for the house to proceed if everyone attempted to speak at the same time. The hon. member for Essex East has the floor.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I should have thought that in a matter of this importance the Prime Minister of our country would have recognized, just as he has acknowledged was the situation so far as he was concerned, that there were very difficult decisions to make with regard to this matter. No political leader can justify his leadership if he is not

prepared in great moments to take decisions fearlessly in accordance with his honest beliefs and convictions-


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is what the Prime Minister has done.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -the Leader of the Opposition has taken his stand courageously in the face of the same difficulties that attend the right hon. gentleman and other hon. members of this house. Whatever may be the national mood at the moment, if there is a particular mood that can be properly determined, I have no doubt that the position taken by the Leader of the Opposition and the Liberal party in the house with regard to this matter will, by May 15 next, be proven to be the only sound position that could have been taken.
The Prime Minister sought to indicate that a former distinguished prime minister had taken issue with the position which we have taken in the house. The Leader of the Opposition sought to correct that. I think it is well that the full Canadian Press report be put on the record, in view of what I think was a very unfortunate initiative taken by the present Prime Minister and one which was not worthy of the man who holds that office. It was a misstatement of fact, not put forward by the Prime Minister to settle this strike in a statesmanlike way but rather to take advantage of the situation in a cheap, political way.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I hope the hon. member who is speaking will appreciate the significance of what he is saying and reconsider it; because while no exception can be taken to the imputation that political use is being made, I think the combination of "cheap" and "political" is not one that he would want to perpetuate.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult to agree that the words "cheap" and "political" are unparliamentary, but if Your Honour is of this view I have no hesitation in saying that I regard the observations made by the Prime Minister as not being worthy of a man who, in a national crisis, heads the government of the country.
That is what I say. What the Prime Minister might well have affirmed, is to have said that we have had great differences in this matter, that it is a difficult problem, that the government had its responsibilities and the Leader of the Opposition had his responsibilities. He might have said that he was convinced that, notwithstanding these varying views, we had all acted in the national interest as we saw it. However, that is not the course which the Prime Minister took. For that reason I have made these observations with
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act regard to the conduct and the words of the Prime Minister. What the former prime minister said, as reported in the Canadian Press dispatch, is as follows:
Toronto, Dec. 2	(CP). Former Liberal prime
minister Louis St. Laurent said last night he agrees that legislation to prevent tomorrow's scheduled rail strike was necessary.


John Whitney Pickersgill: So do we.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is our position precisely.
He told a young Liberal club at Osgoode hall, however, that he had not seen the bill introduced in parliament by Prime Minister Diefenbaker and so had no views on its terms. He added he would not like to be prime minister right now.
What is wrong with that statement? No one would want to accept responsibility under these circumstances. But I say that when he was prime minister and was dealing with a matter of this sort involving the national interest-and the record is there to prove this statement-he did not make, either at the end of the debate or at any time during the course of the debate, remarks that were not worthy of the man who held the office of prime minister.
The hon. member for Vancouver East I think it was, made some useful observations when he expressed what I am sure is the desire of every hon. member of this house. The Prime Minister expressed a similar view, namely that it is to be hoped that between now and May 15 an effort will be made by all parties concerned to try and bring about some agreement between the parties.
I put on the record yesterday the statement of Mr. Frank Hall. I did so in answer to the statement made by the Prime Minister that the conciliation proceedings had been preserved and had been given guarantee in so far as continuation was concerned. I took issue with that statement of the Prime Minister. In support of the position I took I pointed to the statement made by Mr. Frank Hall yesterday when he said that, because of this measure and because of the attitude of other parties in the negotiations, it was not practical to conceive that in the interval any successful negotiations could be undertaken. That is, of course, a statement to which the Prime Minister has not addressed himself, and which arises out of what Mr. Hall believed to be one of the weaknesses in the measure before us.
It is also regrettable that the Prime Minister should seek, for obvious purposes, to persist in making assertions that are contrary to the facts. Notwithstanding the denial the other day of the interpretation placed on the words of the Leader of the Opposition by the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister said that Liberal

Maintenance of Railway Operation Act policy as stated by the Leader of the Opposition was that we were urging, by the position we took, that all decisions of conciliation boards must necessarily be accepted.
That statement is as far from the fact as any statement could possibly be. What the Leader of the Opposition said was that in this particular situation the basis of settlement should be the majority award. That was not by any means a declaration to the effect that all conciliation board decisions in railway or other cases should automatically be imposed on the parties concerned. Why the Prime Minister makes that statement is difficult to understand, except on the ground that he seeks to gain some political advantage.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Anyone who understands labour-management problems must recognize that as not being possible at this stage in the development of the techniques being used in the conciliation of labour-management disputes. What the Leader of the Opposition said was this. He said that since this was a national crisis, since it involves matters of great national import, since we were taking away from labour one of its inalienable rights-not merely suspending it but taking it away-that action could not be justified unless at the same time we recognized the legitimate claims and demands of labour in the context in which they are made.
We thought those legitimate demands were recognized by the conciliation board in its majority decision when it said that wages providing for an increase of 14 cents should be accorded. In the face of that majority award we felt it was only right that in this unusual situation, where the rights of labour have been violated in the national interest, we should not send men back to work at wage levels below those recognized by the conciliation board itself.
There can be no doubt about the position of the Liberal opposition in this matter. It was stated again this morning by the Leader of the Opposition, who said first of all that we agree with the government that there should be no railway strike at this time; that we agree with the government that it has become necessary to prevent this strike which otherwise would start tomorrow; but that we do not agree with the government that the workers should be compelled by law to continue to work at wages below the standard accepted in comparable occupations where strikes are permitted. That is the position. In a matter of such great importance why the Prime Minister at this particular stage of our proceedings should want to take the attitude he took a few moments ago is difficult to understand if one did not know the

Prime Minister. This is not compulsory arbitration as the Prime Minister continues to say it is.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, yes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Prime Minister says yes, it is compulsory arbitration. As we said yesterday, this is compulsion without arbitration. But if it is compulsory arbitration, I will say this. Because of the decision of the government, if this is compulsory arbitration then it is compulsory arbitration imposed on the workers to continue to receive the wages which they have been receiving and about which they have been complaining, a complaint which the board said was justified. This is compulsory arbitration against the men on the part of the government, if compulsory arbitration is involved.
But it is not that at all. What this bill does is this. It perpetuates a situation; it singles out this particular group of workers, it freezes their wages, when no other group of workers in the country under our law, our practice or any of our decisions, is so treated. That is the situation. What the government is doing is to say that the minority report, that of Mr. Vineberg, shall be the basis of settlement.


John George Diefenbaker: Not at all.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is what the government is doing. The government is saying that the wages shall continue to be at the level at which they were before the decision made by the conciliation board. That is the clear result of this legislation. This legislation confirms the position taken by the company and supported by its spokesman on the conciliation board. That is the clear situation. The Prime Minister says, "We have respected the rights of labour in this legislation". There is no provision whatsoever in this bill that respects the rights of labour.
We asked last night, with regard to the employees who have been dismissed, that some machinery be set up to guarantee that any individual wrongfully dismissed might have an opportunity, without great cost, of having his case determined. That was denied us. Every single request made by the opposition groups that had to do with improving the position of labour under this measure was denied by the government. Therefore one cannot possibly support the statement of the Prime Minister that by this measure the rights of labour are being preserved.
Mr. Speaker, I say to the Prime Minister that the time for this government to show its concern and interest in labour is not in the future, as the Prime Minister mentioned at the end of his statement. The time was when the provisions of this bill were being

formulated. I say to the Prime Minister that labour will not say of him and of this government what it said of the former prime minister after the passage of the bill in 1950. Labour did not like many of the provisions in the bill of 1950, but after the bill had been passed, after the energetic, sincere and industrious efforts of the former prime minister, labour and the people of this country joined in praising and recognizing the statesmanlike attitude taken by that prime minister. That will not be the situation with regard to this bill.
The Prime Minister argues that the rights of labour have not been prejudiced. We went over that yesterday. They have been prejudiced in at least six important instances. The negotiations that the labour organization will have to carry on with the railway companies next September have been made difficult by the terms of this bill. The Prime Minister has not made it easy for them. He has not made it easy for himself, for his government, for the companies or for the country, by the situation he has brought about by postponing this measure until May.
He has given false hopes. He has sought to create the impression that a royal commission will give relief, notwithstanding the statement of the chairman of that royal commission that before it are not involved those matters concerned in this particular labour-management dispute.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is a matter of national importance. We in this party have sought to deal with this question in the light of what our conscience dictated. We have sought to discharge that duty honourably, and we do not deny that others in every quarter in this house have approached this problem in the same manner.
We believe our position was the correct one. Time may indicate that we were wrong, but I do not believe it will. I am sure that because we have adhered to sound, well known principles we will be proven in time to have taken the correct course. I am sure that in time this disposition of the government to postpone important issues will be proven to be wrong.
In any event, whatever attitude we have taken in this house, it ought to be possible for us to argue that we have taken it honourably, that we have taken it with no other consideration in mind than the national interest. I regret that the Prime Minister of this country, the head of our government, has given us one of the most unsatisfactory standards of conduct of statesmanship in this regard that we have ever had in the history of this parliament.
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act (Translation):


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Speaker, I would not wish, by taking up the time of the house, to delay passage of this legislation, essential as it is to the welfare of our whole country.
For almost half an hour now, the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) has been indulging in remarks which I cannot leave unchallenged.
I shall take the liberty of repeating at this time the words of the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent who, only a few hours ago, said that in the present circumstances he did not wish to be this nation's prime minister.
Mr. Speaker, to be prime minister of this nation at this juncture is indeed a difficult task. I am, however, pleased to say, on behalf of my colleagues, and of all hon. members, that never have I been as proud to be a Conservative, nor as proud of my party and of this nation's Prime Minister, as I have been since this threat of a strike first came up, for I have realized that we have, at the head of this country, a man vitally concerned with Canada's interests and the welfare of his fellow citizens, and who proved it by introducing appropriate legislation to prevent a strike which would throw the whole nation in a state of chaos and disorder.
Mr. Speaker, when I hear the hon. member for Essex East who, professing to speak on behalf of the members of his party, accuses the Prime Minister of playing politics in this house, whereas actually all that the Prime Minister is trying to do is to prevent the disaster which this strike would mean, I must say the hon. member is unworthy of the fine traditions of a party that was once great but will soon no longer be so because it is following an abject policy.
If it be true that helping the nation is politicking, then I urge the Prime Minister to keep doing so.


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, the Associate Minister of National Defence and member for Lon-gueuil has just referred to the hon. member for Essex East in terms which are unwarranted.
As a member of the opposition and a member from the province of Quebec, like the Associate Minister of National Defence, I wish to say that the remarks made by the member for Essex East have been worthy of a former minister in a great Liberal government.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what has the minister said in connection with the bill before us? Nothing at all. Has he refuted the substantial arguments advanced by the member for
456	HOUSE OF
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act Essex East? Not a bit. He who disclaims indulging in politics, rose in his seat to say that the Liberal party was once great and soon no longer will be.
May I ask the associate minister, who is not in the habit of taking part in the debates, as would befit his position, kindly to note the statements made today by the hon. member for Essex East, to heed them well, and when next May the results are known of the policy now being evolved, the associate minister will realize that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) was right, that the member for Essex East was right, and that all that is being done at this moment is to put off an issue that will be all the more serious next May.
(Text):


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Speaker, may I say something in reply to what the hon. member has said?


Mr. Speaker:: The associate minister has just spoken. Unless it is a personal explanation involving his statement that he wants to clarify, he has no right to take the floor again.


Walter George Pitman: Mr. Speaker, this group has put forward an amendment-


An hon. Member:: Which group?


Walter George Pitman: -not to delay this legislation. My remarks will be brief and I hope, unemotional. However, at this point I would like to state the differences which exist between this group and the other parties in this house.
We believe, as do the other parties, that there should be no railway strike. We do not believe there should be any compulsion on workers to work at a wage level which has been found unacceptable by all standards and which would be unacceptable to any fair-minded Canadian. We do not believe that workers should be prepared to compromise themselves and compromise their fellow workers by doing so.
On the other hand, we do not believe that we in this house should legislate to the effect that management should pay, either. I think the Minister of Labour and the Prime Minister made a very good point when they suggested that there might be a time in the future when the house would be faced with similar legislation when the unions will have refused to accept a majority report of a conciliation board. On the other hand, I also accept the statement of the Leader of the Opposition


that he does not wish for an arbitrary solution. He believes there should be free play as between workers and management.
However, we believe that when parliament has to legislate in a situation such as this, neither labour nor management should be put at a disadvantage. That is why this group believe that if there is a national emergency the people of this nation would be willing to allow a favourable atmosphere to occur, an atmosphere in which neither management nor labour would be at a disadvantage. Here again, I think the former minister of transport had a good point when he called attention to the fact that this was an unusual situation because freight rates are frozen. By May 15 freight rates will be unfrozen and the royal commission report will have come down. At that time I am sure there will be a favourable atmosphere, because the workers will not be at a disadvantage and neither will management because they are not being obliged, through legislation, to pay higher wages.
I think this is the basis upon which a statesmanlike decision can be achieved. I think this is the basis upon which the citizens of Canada would be prepared to accept a subsidy until May 15 which, as the Prime Minister has pointed out, would amount to very little. On this basis I believe a change of atmosphere could occur immediately, a change which would bring together labour and management, and allow them to continue negotiations and, perhaps more than anything else, find a standard which would be acceptable and reasonable for the nonoperative railway workers, one which would be much higher than that suggested in the majority report of the conciliation board.


Douglas Mason Fisher: There are very few remarks I want to make now on this bill. It is not the practice for one opposition group to challenge another opposition group to explain its position, but there is one thing I do want to note. The prime point made by the Liberal-labour opposition, as I am going to call it, is that they possess a managerial concept which is peculiar and unique. This is the prime point they made in support of how they would handle this situation.
No one likes to be catty or nasty about these points, but I think we deserve an explanation of this managerial asset which the Liberal party has. I have looked around this chamber and I do not think the members of the Liberal party will be insulted if I say I do not see any managerial mystique right here. I can think of a number of names- Mitchell Sharp, Davidson Dunton, Bill Buchanan, Walter Gordon, Bob Fowler and

others-but they are not here, and we do not know whether they are part of this managerial concept, this shadow cabinet, which the Liberals have.
The hon. member for Essex East says, in complete sincerity I am sure, that the key point is that the Liberals would go ahead on 'sound principles'. This, again, is a part of the managerial conception.
What are these sound principles which are so basic and so unique to the Liberal party? I think what we shall have to do is accept, or anticipate, an argument on small "1" liberal principles, not large "L" Liberal party principles, because I am having a very difficult time seeing how this Liberal managerial concept makes any great contribution to this particular situation. I am not going to say the same things about the other points which the Leader of the Opposition brought up, because I think they were worth while, but he did lead off by talking about this managerial mystique nonsense. Of course I am biased, but I just cannot see this managerial ability which the Liberal party apparently supposes itself to possess at the present time. It is nothing but a social nostalgia on the part of the hon. gentleman; memories of C. D. and all that.
I think I can finish before one o'clock. In so far as the royal commission on transportation is concerned and some of the remarks made by the Prime Minister on television- the right hon. gentleman will correct me if I inadvertently misquote him-as I understand it the Prime Minister said on television that the royal commission had to a degree been delayed or held up by illness. I have checked this matter-


Mr. Speaker:: I note what the hon. member said about finishing by one o'clock, and I would remind him now that there is nothing in the bill which relates to what he is discussing at the present time.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Is Your Honour referring to the managerial concept?


Mr. Speaker:: I refrained from making any comment then, but I do now.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The whole basis for this six months' delay until May 15 in the bill is the royal commission hearings. So far, the royal commission has not missed a single hearing that I know about due to illness. There has been illness of members, of course, and I understand that at the present time the chairman is not in as good physical condition as we might hope. I have here the last printed volume of the proceedings open at the 24,000 page mark, which surely indicates how extremely complicated this question is. I wish to underline the fact that this commission, by 90205-6-30|
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act the terms of this legislation, or at any rate by its implications, will be obliged to come up with a report by March 31, although it still has hearings called for January which may run into February.
This illustrates the pressure which is being placed on the royal commission as a result of this legislation, a pressure which is most unusual, especially when we recall that royal commissions have for generations been the butt of jokes founded on the length of time they take to make their reports. Hon. members may recall the legendary royal commission on kissing which, according to A. P. Herbert, was set up in 1874 and has not reported yet. This commission, however, has to get its work done in maybe three months, and by then it will have more than 25,000 pages of evidence. Thus I make the final point that this bill places a most unfair burden on the royal commissioners, people for whom, ordinarily, I have no great sympathy.
One of the points which have been brought to the attention of the royal commission throughout its hearings has been that the railways, in the last couple of years, have been reaping tremendous advantages throughout the years in productivity increases as a result of the introduction of new equipment. There has never been any discussion here as to how that relates to the present situation.
May I call it one o'clock?


John George Diefenbaker: I wonder if the house would be willing to continue. If there are no other speakers to follow the hon. gentleman, perhaps he could conclude and we could have a vote on this.


John Whitney Pickersgill: So far as we are concerned I think we would be willing to take that course.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I want to make a point that the productivity increases have been immense. While it is true that the revenue of the railways has been frozen, the companies have had tremendous possibilities for saving. That is certainly the key to most of the western arguments before the royal commission. Surely this gives the railways the leeway to do something about better wages.
We have heard no argument raised on this particular point, but if I were a railway worker I know I would have in mind the development of central traffic control, the running of two divisions, greater productivity of diesels and new yards, and so on, because all this should put the companies in a better position. To argue from the operating revenues of the railway at this time is not nearly as relevant as to look at the costs.
I think this point should be underlined. The
458	HOUSE OF
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act workers in this case are working for a management that has had a decreasing scale of costs in terms of productivity as a result of innovations. This should be a strong factor in any consideration of wage rates for them.
In conclusion, I reiterate that we are against the bill and support the amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: It is one o'clock, but if the house will unanimously consent to the question being put now we may proceed.


Frank Howard: We are in an unfortunate position. We do not know how long this will go on. The division will consume some time, and I intend to raise another point which may well cause another division. I think we should adjourn until 2.30.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is the house ready for the question?


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, before we take this vote, I should like very briefly to go over the main points of criticism and the main propositions that are being put forward by our group at this time.
Our first position is that this legislation should not have been necessary; that the government might have taken another course that would have solved the problem, and would not have placed parliament in the position of having to deal with legislation that we think is repugnant to the Canadian way of life, is undemocratic and should not be embarked upon by any free parliament except in a very extreme emergent situation, which we think did not need to arise.
We agree with all those who have said that everything possible should be done to avoid a strike; that a strike would bring difficulty perhaps chaos to many communities and industries in this country, and that management, workers and government should together have been able to bring forward a proposition that would have avoided a strike.
Beyond question there is compulsion in this bill. This is what the bill is about; it is to force the railway workers and the companies to maintain and continue operations until May 15. The Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) said that this is not compulsory arbitration. He argues that after May 15 next year the parties will go back to their original position. In this legislation he has failed to give anything to the workers involved. The attitude of the Liberal party is that had there been in this legislation a provision for


compulsory arbitration along the lines of the legislation of 1950, they would have been in support of it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not at all.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is not the
position.


Hazen Robert Argue: The position of the Liberal party is that this kind of legislation with that provision added is something that they could support. We are opposed to this legislation, as we were opposed to the legislation in 1950. We are opposed to compulsion without arbitration; we are opposed to compulsion with arbitration. We feel that the workers have a good case. The Prime Minister has admitted it, the Liberal party in the house has stated it and we have stated it, and yet in this legislation nothing is being done to recognize that principle; and so the workers involved are exceedingly disappointed with what is now taking place.
I have said on a previous occasion that in our judgment the C.P.R. was in a financial position to meet the majority report of the conciliation board. However, it is understandable that the Canadian Pacific railway would dig in its heels and say no when they became aware that the government would bring about this kind of legislation which would remove the pressure that the workers had been able to place on the railways. The government assured the railway and the country that the company would continue operations even without an increase in wages, and therefore the company had nothing to lose.
We have suggested that, as an alternative to the compulsion in the bill presented by the government, as an alternative to the compulsion that the Liberal party is prepared to support, there is and there was another way out, where compulsion would not have been necessary, where the government might have taken action to resolve the problem in a way that would help the workers and the Canadian public. We suggested that a subsidy should be paid from the national treasury and that this subsidy at least from now on until May 15, and perhaps beyond that, would have removed the grievance of the workers and the opposition of the railway companies to signing an agreement. We think this was a reasonable proposition. The government will argue and does argue that a subsidy in this instance is wrong. The Liberal party is not prepared to support this kind of a subsidy. We suggest that a subsidy of this size for this purpose at this time is a much fairer way to deal with this question than the attitude taken by the government to force the men back to work and say that next May 15 our policy is to load the additional wages on to the freight users of this country.

What the Prime Minister has said is that a strike next spring may be possible. He said that the government is removing the right to strike at this time, not the right to strike in the future. The Prime Minister is saying that with the restoration of the rights of free men in this situation an application can then be made to the board of transport commissioners. As I see it, what will happen, what the government intends to happen, is a very large increase in freight rates next spring. It wants to bring about the postponement of the problem until then at which time the burden of the increase will be loaded on the freight service users of the country.
As a matter of fact, an additional part of their policy has become clear, namely that the subsidy now in effect for the purpose of maintaining freight rates as they exist will be withdrawn and the country will face a very large and, I am positive, discriminatory increase in freight rates because it is practically impossible to bring about a complete equality of all freight rates even though, as I have said, I have great confidence in M. A. MacPherson, the chairman of the royal commission.
We do not reject subsidies as part of a national policy. We think it is time for a general transportation policy that will provide parity of treatment to the workers.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I just say to the hon. member in a cautionary way that the question of subsidies has been proposed and disposed of in the course of the proceedings on the bill and it does not now have any part in the bill which is being discussed. Strictly speaking, the matter before the house is the content of the bill. I know that the debate has ranged afield even on third reading but I hope the hon. member will not pursue at any length matters which are not before us.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, your admonition is, I think, fair. However, I think it is perfectly correct to say that the debate on third reading so far has been very wide ranging and reference has been made to many things far removed from the contents of the bill. I was about to say, and on this point I will conclude in a couple of sentences, that we have suggested that there should be a national transportation policy of which subsidies should be an integral part, a national transportation policy which will provide parity for the workers in the transport industry generally, which will provide equality of treatment and where any subsidy will be applied in a fair and equitable manner to the
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act railroads, air lines, truck transport companies and the workers who make their living in all of these various branches of the transportation industry.
I think one of the reasons for the impasse today is the hodgepodge that has developed over the years in our transportation industry. We are suggesting in this amendment that the house should once again give consideration to the proposition that particular provision should be made for the continuation of conciliation procedures in the hope that the railway companies and the workers may yet come to an agreement. I think the amendment before the house is based upon a very desirable objective. We are disappointed that the Liberal opposition has decided to vote against it but nevertheless we think it is a good proposition.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, before the vote is taken I should like to correct a misstatement that the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) made-I do not accuse him of being intentional about this-with respect to the position of the Liberal party. As I heard him say it, he said that this legislation would be acceptable to the Liberal party if it provided for compulsory arbitration. That, of course, is completely wrong.
What the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) said this morning was that this legislation would be acceptable to the Liberal party if it was amended to impose the terms recommended in the majority report of the conciliation board. That is not arbitration but rather a determination by parliament which is a very different thing. We are concerned with an agreement that expired on December 31, 1959 and is only continued in operation by the general law, and under the bill we are determining that that shall be the agreement. We think that if we are going to impose settlement by parliament, and that is what the government is asking us to do, the settlement imposed by parliament should be one that was determined independently to be fair. That is our position.
The government is asking parliament to compel the men to stay at work, and we support that, but the government is also compelling the men to stay at work at wages that the men refuse to regard as fair and reasonable, and we do not support that. We think, as the Leader of the Opposition said, that if you are going to compel the men to stay at work the companies should be compelled to pay between now and next May the amounts determined in the majority award, that there should be no subsidy now but that next May or June or whenever it is-here we differ completely with the C.C.F.-a general review

Maintenance of Railway Operation Act be made after the report of the royal commission, which we do not think should be prejudged and any disability to the railways resulting from this imposition should then be taken into account in the policy determined by parliament. That is the position we take.
We are not suggesting that in this case there should be compulsory arbitration. There is nothing to arbitrate. There are two positions. The companies say that they do not want to pay anything more. The men say that they are satisfied with the majority award. When I said there was nothing to arbitrate I was perhaps wrong. An arbitration would involve the determination of something in between these two positions. That is what an arbitration would do. We are not in favour of arbitration. If parliament is going to compel the men to work, we are in favour of that compulsion being accompanied by compulsion on the companies to pay the wages that the independent chairman appointed by the government determined would be fair and reasonable in the circumstances.


John George Diefenbaker: Before the vote is taken, Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. This morning I referred to a statement by the former prime minister of Canada, Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent. I read from a copy of the Canadian Press dispatch. The Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Essex East, whether intentionally or inadvertently, both left the impression that I had omitted some words from the Canadian Press dispatch and that the press dispatch had said, as I recall the words of the Leader of the Opposition, that Mr. St. Laurent had not even read the bill. So that there will be no mistake as to what the Canadian Press dispatch said, I wish to put it on the record in full as a matter of personal privilege. It reads as follows:
I wanted the record clear so there would be no suggestion that any portion of the dispatch was left out by me.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has read his Canadian Press dispatch. We have read the Canadian Press dispatch that we have received and, paraphrasing it, there were words in that dispatch to the effect that Mr. St. Laurent had nothing to say about the bill because he had not read it. I am informed that the first Canadian Press dispatch-and perhaps it is the one which the Prime Minister read-was superseded by another dispatch correcting the earlier one.


John George Diefenbaker: I had anticipated that answer. This is the last one.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That matter can be cleared up by getting in touch with the Canadian Press. But on the question of privilege may I say this. The Prime Minister this morning -and I think Hansard will show it- did not refer to a Canadian Press dispatch.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, yes.


Lester Bowles Pearson: He referred to the broadcast over CFRA. Now he reads a Canadian Press dispatch.


John George Diefenbaker: Read this afternoon's Journal.


An hon. Member:: Pretty cheap.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Further misrepresentation.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. The question, is now on the main motion.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I want to spend just a moment or two on this question of the two schedules A and B-


Albert DeBurgo McPhillips: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My point of order is this, that the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), having seconded the amendment, has thus
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act availed himself of the right to speak on the main motion and cannot be heard at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the hon. member give me the citation. I know there is a suggestion that this is the rule, but it has not been enforced.


Albert DeBurgo McPhillips: I have not the citation before me now, but I am quite satisfied that is the rule; and it has been enforced in this chamber on many occasions.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I happen to recall it being enforced once last session.


Mr. Speaker:: I would like to be sure of this, because I know there is a suggestion that seconding a motion does count as speaking, whether or not a member rises in his place. To my recollection it has been applied to prevent the moving of another amendment. But if a member has been named as a seconder and has not availed himself of the opportunity of speaking, my recollection is that we have not enforced the rule that that must be counted as having spoken. In the absence of clear authority as to our practice here, I would not like to deprive the hon. member of an opportunity of speaking.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I can only say, Mr. Speaker, that I know the question was examined at the last session. There is a citation on the point. I cannot lay my hand on it at the moment, but I know this citation was applied last year. I was personally concerned in the result. The application of this citation resulted in the house being spared one speech to which it would otherwise have had to submit.


Mr. Speaker:: Before I hear the hon. member for Skeena, I think, if I am not mistaken, that the point raised there was whether the hon. minister who moved the third reading could defer his speech by saying nothing until his reply at the end of the debate. Was that not the situation?


Frank Howard: Perhaps I did not indicate this too clearly when I spoke earlier, but I do not understand how the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) could raise a point of order while I was already started on one. This question was discussed with the clerk of the house yesterday, and I found I had to take it up in a formal way-


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member rises to speak on a point of order the question does not arise, and I will hear him.


Frank Howard: The point is that this bill is not properly before us.

Division


Edmund Davie Fulton: That was disposed of this morning.


Frank Howard: I know the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) has a tendency to dispose of a number of things, but he has not disposed of this because he was not in the Speaker's chair.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The Speaker disposed of it.


Frank Howard: I point out to the Minister of Justice that I declined to proceed at that stage. My point of order is that the bill is not properly before us because schedules A and B were not considered in committee and, in fact, the committee reported incorrectly what had occurred when the report was made last evening. It is true the house accepted this report, and the argument can be made that by accepting it-


Mr. Speaker:: If I may interrupt the hon. member, that is the point of order which he raised this morning and I disposed of that point of order as a preliminary to founding a debate on third reading. The hon. member indicated then that our proceedings would not be regular on third reading if his point of order were well taken, so I had to dispose of it.
What was deferred was not consideration of the point of order, but his motion, the independent motion which he could have moved on third reading as an amendment inde-pendly of any question of order. Thus, if what the hon. member has said is the entire substance of his point of order I must disagree with him and say it has been disposed of.


Frank Howard: It is not the entire substance. The entire substance is that two wrongs do not make a right. If this house was wrong in the first instance in accepting the report, I submit that two wrongs do not make a right-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is repeating his argument, but it is quite clear in my mind that the action of the house in accepting the report of the committee, accepting the amendment to the bill and ordering the bill for third reading was an independent action and is not dependent for its validity on the proceedings which took place in committee. Therefore the house was quite in order in proceeding to read the bill for the third time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker-


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there is a matter I should like to bring before the house at this time if the hon. member will allow me. The bill now goes to the other place where it will be deliberated upon. I am wondering whether at this stage the house might give consideration to agreeing to sit after six o'clock in the event that by that time the other place has not dealt with the bill in all the stages necessary to permit royal assent this evening.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I think that is a reasonable request from the Prime Minister and we will be glad to agree to it.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: In view of all the circumstances this group agrees with the proposal.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the suggestion that the house continue to sit beyond six o'clock or that it rise at six in the normal way and be reconvened by the sounding of the bell?


Some hon. Members:: Reconvene at the sounding of the bell.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it unanimously agreed that the adjournment take place at six o'clock and that the house may be reconvened at the sounding of the bells if and when this matter has been disposed of in the other place?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
may's 16th edition
Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, may I take one moment on a question of privilege. I have that reference which Your Honour requested earlier. It is in May's 16th edition at page 449.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I trust that the hon. member will keep it before him for the occasion when it is needed again. I think it is hardly a matter of privilege now.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I simply wished to indicate that the reference is there.


Mr. Speaker:: It is hardly a matter of privilege to instruct the Speaker needlessly.
Questions of Privilege



MR. BENIDICKSON    REFERENCE TO SPEECH OF MINISTER OF LABOUR

William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which I think affects all hon. members of the house and which will certainly prove to affect the privileges of many outside the house.
Your Honour will appreciate our unusual difficulty today in that we sat until about two o'clock this morning and that was followed by an early morning sitting today. In consequence of this I was not able to look at my own Hansard until a few moments ago. I do not have the privileges of many others in the house who concurrent with the sittings of the house are supplied with blue sheets from Hansard.
I refer Your Honour to page 398 of Hansard of December 1 where the remarks of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) appear. I was aware at that time that I would likely shortly follow the minister who was concluding the debate on second reading and in consequence thereof I made very close notes of some of the pertinent remarks he was making. I made careful notes and I still have those notes in my hand. I find that in the first paragraph of his remarks yesterday he referred to "the best possible way" which I have here in quotation marks. In the second paragraph of his speech on page 398 in the left hand column I find to my surprise that he is reported to have said in that paragraph:
The purpose of this bill is to extend the present agreements to May 15 and to give the opportunity for collective bargaining-
At that point for the purposes of reply, as I indicated, I made notes. I distinctly heard the minister say that there would be given the opportunity after May 15 to strike. There is nothing in the text today that has reference to the words "opportunity after May 15 to strike". To establish that was elementary to my remarks during the course of the debate.
If Your Honour will look at the next page 400, in the right hand column, you will find that this subject also interested the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin). The hon. member for Essex East was questioning the minister as to the rights of the workers after May 15. In the right hand column on that page the hon. member for Essex East is reported as having said:
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?
I intervened at that point and said:
The minister has already said he will give them the opportunity to strike on May 15.

Questions of Privilege
I know that some ministers who, as I say, are supplied with blue sheets from Hansard and do not have to go to the debates office on the third floor as some of the rest of us do, occasionally have the assistance of their staff-their secretaries or executive assistants-in the revision of their Hansard text. I should like the minister to indicate to the house whether he personally made any elimination of the phrase I read from my notes or if not whether he would inquire and ascertain if any member of his staff made a correction in the Hansard text differing from the note I have outlined?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I immediately say I personally made no correction.


William Moore Benidickson: Would the minister make inquiries and ascertain whether any member of his staff made an alteration of that kind?



MR. MARTINEAU    REFERENCE TO SPEECH OF THE HON. MEMBER FOR ESSEX EAST

Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I should also like to raise a question of privilege affecting the privileges of this house and also relating to Hansard. I refer Your Honour to page 374 of yesterday's Hansard where the hon. member for Essex East is reported to have said:
No one knows better than the hon. gentleman the meaning of what I have said.
I remember distinctly the exact words which the hon. member used, as do many other hon. members of the house including my deskmate the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell), and the words he used were the following: "No one knows better than I the meaning of what I have said." Therefore, I should like to ask the hon. member for Essex East whether he or anyone in his behalf changed that wording.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister have just now conferred on this matter. To relieve their blood pressure, may I say I made the correction.



MR. PEARSON    REFERENCE TO STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER

Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, now that we are in the mood for questions of privilege, I should like to refer to one that was raised a few moments ago by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) when he challenged the accuracy and the validity of an intervention made by myself in regard to a statement which he attributed to the former prime minister, Mr. [Mr. Benidickson.)
St. Laurent, basing his own statement on a CFRA broadcast this morning. On that occasion I read a Canadian Press dispatch which contradicted the accuracy of that which the Prime Minister put forward, and the Prime Minister has brought this matter up again this afternoon to confirm that he was correct.
I have made some inquiries since the Prime Minister's intervention, and I have the original story of the Canadian Press here. The Canadian Press dispatch was first filed at six o'clock this morning. There was another story filed at 9.24 a.m., correcting the earlier Canadian Press dispatch because of an inaccuracy, and I have that here also. The 9.24 a.m. Canadian Press dispatch, which is the accurate dispatch, says that the first five lines of the 6 a.m. dispatch should be eliminated. Therefore, it is made clear that Mr. St, Laurent was not endorsing the legislation, as quoted from the Canadian Press dispatch, which is confirmed by the Canadian Press in its second dispatch, which the Prime Minister did not use.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Has it been published?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, it has been published.


John George Diefenbaker: The last statement I quoted was from the Ottawa Journal of this afternoon. It was in addition to the one I quoted this morning, which came from radio station CFRA. The last one I quoted was from this afternoon's Ottawa Journal.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is still wrong.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is quite right. The original error appeared in the Ottawa Journal, and it has since been corrected by the Canadian Press.


Mr. Speaker:: Each hon. member appears to have his own press dispatch.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We have the right one.


Mr. Speaker:: It may be a matter of privilege when Hansard is changed; I am afraid it is beyond the control of this house when the Canadian Press changes its copy.



VOCATIONAL TRAINING


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, November 25, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Starr-Mr. Flynn in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to authorize the Minister of Labour to enter into agreements with provincial governments for the encouragement of technical and vocational training and to authorize the making of contributions by Canada toward the cost of programs of technical and vocational training undertaken under provincial

authority, including contributions toward the cost of capital expenditures on training facilities connected with such programs; to authorize the Minister of Labour to undertake programs of technical and vocational training for specified categories of persons; to provide for the establishment and operation of an advisory council and the appointment of its members and staff and to define its duties; and to provide for other related and incidental matters.
(Translation):
Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, a week ago I had to interrupt my remarks at the sounding of the six o'clock bell announcing the adjournment of the house. At that time I was saying that since the beginning of the session the government has suggested amendments to some acts that were already in our statutes, but without saying so forthright, leading us to believe that entirely new bills were being introduced.
As a matter of fact, in the resolution under consideration, there is only one thing different from the act of 1952 and the amendments of 1954, and that is the establishment of an advisory council, and nothing else. Now, we urge the government to consult with the provinces with a view to ensuring a more adequate training to those who are about to start on their own, and those who are already on the labour market and must change jobs when they are not completely ready to do so, especially day labourers. But the department should have entered into negotiations with the province before introducing this legislation. Because we know that education at all levels, comes under provincial jurisdiction. Now, suppose we pass the bill that will follow the resolution under discussion, what will happen if the provinces, not having been consulted, say no for some reason or other? We would have passed a totally ineffective bill.
With regard to the field of education, I wonder if French-Canadian members from the province of Quebec would like to make their opinion known to us, because we all know how they objected to the intervention of the federal government in this field. They have done so repeatedly since 1953, or since the Liberal government decided to assist universities. How can they agree to vote for such legislation today?
I probably could have asked the Secretary of State (Mr. Dorion) if he would care to make again the speeches he used to make before he accepted the joint responsibility of the cabinet, but I would not dare. I should like, however, that some Quebec member
Vocational Training
state his stand and that of his colleagues on this resolution. As for us, our mind is at rest. The Liberals have accepted and recognized that the federal government had the right to interfere in the field of education, in so far as the provinces agreed, and we shall pursue that course.
The present project is a long range one and we intend to endorse it. We recognize that its purpose is to prepare, in a rather distant future, the young generation so that it might play its part within society. But what is being done at the present time? Has the Department of Labour found a way to settle the present economic emergency, when thousands of workers seek employment and thousands of unemployed are unable to withdraw unemployment insurance benefits because they lack the required number of stamps?
Are we able to find, in this resolution, anything which might relieve the immediate plight? Even though I studied every resolution on the order paper, I found nothing which could remedy the present plight of our society.
We are all in favour of long term assistance projects, but we maintain that the government has the responsibility of trying to settle the immediate problem of those who are suffering from unemployment in spite of what the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) had promised, of those who do not have enough bread on their table or enough money to pay their rent and who have to ask the municipalities for help through direct relief.
At this time, the government is following the policy it has adopted in the past, which means that it is passing on its responsibility to the municipalities. Long term legislation can be proposed similar to that which we now have for consideration and which will take one, two or even three years to give results, but in the meantime the municipalities have to bear the heavy burden of unemployment, which is not due to the municipalities but to the carelessness of this administration which did not find the necessary markets for our production surpluses, with the result that we are overstocked with products of all kinds. Manufacturers are forced to idleness at least a few days a week, due to the fact that they cannot sell their surplus production.
That is what the federal government should have done, besides bringing down legislation such as the one now before us and which we support. But it should also have attended to the immediate situation. If it had followed our suggestions a year or two ago, when we warned the government that there was danger

Vocational Training
ahead and we submitted at least 25 suggestions for new legislation; if it had heeded the suggestions made by the opposition we would probably not be in such a predicament at this time. Unfortunately, the minister claimed at the time that the problem was just temporary. He was listening to advice from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) who was satisfied that the recession was over and that we were on our way to prosperity.
Well, Mr. Chairman, we find today that the advice of the Minister of Finance was based on nothing but his own intuition and that we are now faced with a much more serious situation. If the government has decided to offer effective legislation, I submit that that legislation should be amended in order to be of greater assistance to the younger generation.
I would also ask the government to try and find means to help the needy at this time.
It should not be forgotten, Mr. Chairman, that communism does not thrive on people's prosperity, but on their distress. If these hard times were to continue, people of good will will be seen throwing overboard old principles that they used to hold dear and give themselves to the highest bidder.
The government has some responsibilities, and it should find the ways and means to relieve the present want while getting ready to give assistance to those who tomorrow will have to change jobs.
In view of these facts and the present needs and in the light of this bill, I would ask all members, and especially the Conservative members, to abstain from anything that might delay their own bill so that it can be put into force as soon as possible in order that we may bring forward as soon as possible, bills meant to cope immediately with this unemployment situation which is affecting our population. Thus shall we contribute to the greatest happiness of all, and the Liberal party will readily support this resolution.
(Text):


Charles Alexander (Sandy) Best: Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to rise in support of this most important long range measure. I have listened with interest, as I am sure others have, to the hon. member for Hull. We have no difficulty whatsoever, of course, in hearing him. His voice carries very well. However, I did have difficulty in understanding just what he said and what relation it had to the present measure. He discussed many other subjects.

I feel that the measure now before us could have tremendously beneficial effects on unemployment, on industrial manpower and on productivity in Canada in the near future and, indeed, over the long range years ahead. I can think of few measures more vital and more contributory to advancement within our country. There are a number of important problems facing us today and with the changes in technology in our present world and the ever-narrowing horizons of our world today, trained manpower and skilled people are of paramount importance to our country.
When one studies the figures one notices that in the ranks of the unemployed today there are people who in many instances are not specifically trained in a particular skill so as to be able to fill certain positions. In his speech, as found in Hansard of November 25, pages 231 and 232, the Minister of Labour remarked in the ranks of the unemployed the unskilled are approximately three times as numerous as unemployed workers who have specific training or skills. I think this is indicative of the problem before us and the government is taking steps to bring about increased assistance in this regard.
We realize that education in general comes within the sphere of provincial action but in collaboration with the provinces I am sure that the government can advance at present and even more so in the future, the important cause of technical education in our country. Many people have come to Canada in the last 15 years, as a matter of fact somewhere in the neighbourhood of two million, I believe, and we have tried in most instances to bring to Canada those with specific skills who could contribute something to agricultural and industrial production and other important projects within our country. We sometimes see, and this is the unhappy thing, that it is our native born Canadians who are unemployed and who, because of lack of specific training and knowlege to enable them to be fitted into our increasingly complex industrial situation, sometimes cannot avail themselves of the jobs that are open and waiting.
The minister pointed out in his speech, to which I referred earlier, that while there may be numbers of unemployed there are jobs without job-takers in various areas because of a lack of people in the particular area who are specifically trained. I think one of our problems in this regard is perhaps a psychological one that our country will have to face in the present circumstances and in future years. I refer to the recognition of the

dignity and importance of technical training for our people. We are conscious of the tremendous increase in high school and university education and in the need for plant and other facilities, and more teachers and professors, but we must also realize that with the increasing raising of standards in university education and the increasing volume of enrolment not all of our children can make the best and wisest use of that sort of training. In other words, technical training at some level of secondary education in the high schools and, indeed, at the age level of university education, may be a much wiser course for many young people who are coming of age, as it were, to follow.
The minister has pointed out the interesting fact that in the next five years, I presume up to 1965, more than half a million young Canadians will enter the labour market. This very large number of young people coming forward for education and training must in my opinion have in front of them an increased scope for learning and acquiring the skills which are so highly necessary in this day and age. It is because of this that I feel that a long range attack on the sort of technological unemployment that we see in Canada today must be made through constructive measures of this sort.
In a field such as the construction industry and in home building which our government has aided so much in the last three years, we know that as the rise and fall of home building-the flow as it were in this industry -goes, so does a considerable amount of employment or unemployment in various areas. That result is natural. But sometimes these people are unable through lack of skills, when home building has caught up in certain areas, as it has to some extent at least, to fit into other jobs through lack of specific technical training.
I should like to comment on some other remarks made by the minister in this direction. He mentioned the fact that there are large numbers of men and women unemployed for lack of essential skills. He has mentioned and I have quoted the fact that as to the untrained jobless, as it were, the ranks of the unemployed are swelled by these people to a much larger extent. I think we should be truly troubled by these figures. I thought it of great interest to note on page 233 of Hansard the minister's figures indicating that some 5 per cent of all young people enrolled in our secondary schools are taking a technical course program and that of post-high school technical students in Canada-as I presume this figure means- some 8,000 are enrolled in straight technical schools or programs apart from our high
Vocational Training
schools. These figures are really low. They are fantastically low in a country like Canada, a country such as we have here with a small ribbon-like population stretched over a great area, and which must depend now and in the future on our competitive ability to do things better and in a more productive fashion in order to compete with other markets and with other countries around the world which have a longer tradition in technical training and a much larger labour pool.
This measure, of course, ties in as well with the most interesting mention and presentation of a productivity council for Canada, for technical training is closely allied to increased productivity and greater efficiency of industry, agriculture and production of all sorts within our country. I am sure this productivity council will want to work closely in the future with any system or systems of technical education on a municipal, provincial or federal level. These are some of the things which we are examining today.
We have brought to Canada people from many other lands. The minister has pointed out in the past that these countries, of course, have certain differences in programs. They are older countries with longer traditions and perhaps smaller areas and a growth that has been more stable over a longer period of years but not so dynamic as is ours. These countries have the institutions and the facilities with which to train their young people and indeed to train their unemployed for the minister has mentioned that as well as the young people themselves, we must put into effect some scheme or some program by means of which to train and, as it were, almost to rehabilitate for increased usefulness in society some of those who at the present time do not have jobs and positions. The over-all effect of this program I am certain will be of the utmost importance in the years ahead.
As Canada grows and as our population enlarges and as the course of technical progress increases, not decreases-for I am sure it is increasing-this problem of unemployment, this problem of workers fitting into specific positions will enlarge. Our young people and our people of all ages must, if possible, have more basic technical training in order to enable them to have a flexibility to shift from one job to another. On the job training, while useful and while most important, in many instances must be backed by a basic training in a variety of technical fields that can be applied to a variety and wide spectrum of jobs. As technical progress continues I am sure that the sort of move proposed here today will be of most fundamental importance in solving our unemployment problem in Canada and indeed in the

Vocational Training
positive sense aiding in increasing the productivity, the usefulness and the happiness throughout the whole of our land.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I rise on behalf of this group to express our support for the purpose and principle of this resolution. However, in doing that, may I say that we are looking forward to seeing the details of the bill in order to make certain that the legislation is comprehensive enough to meet a great and growing need with respect to the technical education of our young people in this country.
I want to place before the committee a few of my opinions with respect to this resolution. I would not for a moment attempt to compete with the dynamic, expansive, impulsive and propulsive hon. member for Hull. However, I am going to utilize my meagre talents in this field in order to give the committee my opinion with respect to this measure.
It is an important measure having regard to the fact that what we do in this field will have a great effect upon the future of hundreds of thousands of young Canadians. There are great possibilities for the development of human character and human happiness and for the promotion of human usefulness in the proper application of the legislation suggested by this resolution. As mentioned by the hon. member who spoke previously, there is a phenomenon that is being noticed more and more across the country, namely the growing percentage of unskilled workers in Canada who are unable to obtain employment. I notice it in my own district, and I am sure it is very general indeed. Also being noticed is the increasing number of boys and girls leaving school who do not go beyond grade eight. When that happens I say there is something wrong with our school curriculums when children are not attracted and inspired in the first instance to continue on with their senior education. Then in other instances there is not the native ability or the desire to follow an academic form of education.
When I say that, may I say that I have had some experience with schools, having been chairman of a school board for a good many years and having had to work with teachers on problems related to the administration of schools. It is a fact that increasing numbers of young people are leaving school on arriving at grade eight or less and are not going on to senior education. If we make ample allowance for those who are not naturally inclined or have not the capacity to go on with academic education, there is something wrong when that situation continues to get worse and worse. We have the largest investment, the best equipment and the best 
brained teachers we have ever had in Canadian history so far as schools are concerned, on the lower level particularly, as compared to the little red school houses of from 25 years to 50 years ago-well do I remember them- when children walked three miles to school through three feet of snow and were happy to do so. Now they must be taken there in a bus, and we build a gymnasium in the school in order to give them some exercise so their physical condition will be maintained.
However, I mention this because I am very interested in this question. I see so much of the need for training in my own district. I know of young people whose lives are actually being wasted because they lack the training and the opportunity to attain the skills that are necessary in our technological society.
We need electricians; we need men in the construction industry; we need plumbers; we need bricklayers. It would surprise one to find how difficult it is to obtain first-class tradesmen in the rural areas of Canada. It is difficult to obtain a first-class bricklayer, for example, to build1 a chimney or a wall, or things of that sort. It is also difficult to get plumbers in the smaller communities, because tradesmen are not inclined to go to these smaller communities to obtain a living.
There are some opportunities for tradesmen who want to build up small businesses in many of the smaller communities of this country. I say this from my own experience in the southeastern portion of British Columbia. Also, there is a great opportunity for the training of technicians in the forest industry, in highway construction and other types of construction projects being undertaken throughout this country.
In my opinion we are wasting human resources in two ways. First of all we are wasting human resources because they are untrained technically or as tradesmen to do the things that require to be done to satisfactorily perform the services required in connection with the types of employment I have mentioned. Second, we are wasting human resources in this way. I have had some experience with construction; I have had charge of building a good many miles of highways, and bridges through mountains and in rocky country, through a great deal of rock where thousands of yards of rock or earth had to be moved, and with very primitive equipment compared to nowadays. We are wasting human resources in this respect, because I repeatedly see engineers being^ used to perform a job that a good technician or tradesman could properly perform.
Why do you require a man with an engineering degree to run levels along a right



I960

[Stage Direction]
of way to ascertain whether the cut should be three feet, or the fill five feet, and so on? Why do you require an engineer to carry out timber cruising of a certain type, or volume measurement of timber? Why do you require an engineer for the construction of secondary roads in connection with the logging industry, and the laying of foundations for ordinary, smaller-sized buildings?
I have found at the present time that on numerous occasions the services of an engineer have to be obtained because there was no one on the job with the skill to perform these rudimentary technical services.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question? I am immensely interested in what the hon. member has said. On the face of it, it seems a paradox that you can obtain fully trained engineers where you cannot obtain a carpenter or plumber. That is what I understood the hon. member to say. How does that come about? Can the hon. member offer any explanation for this situation?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: No; I must say it is a very hard thing to explain. I am not saying there is a surplus of trained engineers and personnel; I am saying that I have known a great many instances where a man with engineering degrees has had to go some hundreds of miles to perform work such as I have mentioned in connection with these types of projects; that is, to perform some rather elementary service in connection with these projects, when a well-trained technician or tradesman could have performed the service.
There were plenty of men on the job who could run bulldozers or earth-moving equipment, who could push wheel barrows and handle picks, shovels, air-drills and that sort of thing, but there was not, in a gang of 100 or more workmen, a man who could take an ordinary level and transmit his readings to paper and lay out, say, a simple cut and fill program along an easy grade.
I mention that because I think there has been a waste of human resources in the unnecessary use of highly trained people, particular in the industries I have mentioned. That is why I think there is a tremendous opportunity for comprehensive legislation that meets the need in this connection and does something to fill this gap between the unskilled and university trained.
The minister was quite correct when he said that European countries have long recognized the formal paths necessary to acquire occupational skills. That is known from European history and the history of the development of technical and trade schools in Great Britain. We have been very laggard in this respect, as indicated by the number
Vocational Training
of persons attending technical schools at the present time. If I heard the minister correctly, the figure is 8,000 students attending technical schools at the present time in a country like this where we have a need for hundreds of thousands of technically trained men and tradesmen.
There is a very narrow margin, shall I say, between a technician and a first-class tradesman in many instances. I was also glad to hear that the government intends to continue research into this problem, because it is a serious question.
There are others who are spending some time studying this question. I was very glad to hear recently that the Canadian welfare council, just from the point of view of the welfare of human beings, is undertaking a very careful study of our manpower needs and the need for technical training, and intends to make representations to the committee of the other place. Also I saw in a press dispatch of November 30 that an interesting representation was made to the committee of the other place by the columnist Mr. F. T. Denton of Toronto. This was an analysis of employment and unemployment in Canada during the past ten years. He said in that report:
Young persons, the unskilled and the less educated are providing Canada with its hard core of unemployment. And if the current trend continues, one million new jobs will be needed in the next five years to absorb the flow of new workers and cut existing unemployment levels to half.
These are pretty startling figures when we are dealing with a problem like this, and I am very pleased to see that there is a growing interest and concern with this question.
The minister mentioned that this system of technical and trade schools was much more advanced in European countries, which is quite correct. I sent to the library for a few books and pamphlets on this question, and I have here a pamphlet issued by the central office of information, reference division, entitled Technological Education in Britain. It is rather interesting. It indicates the possibilities for us. We are only starting in this field in Canada.
I note here that technical education and training first commenced in Great Britain about 1824, as a result of a similar situation to that which is happening in Canada at the present time, but on a much minor scale there. The system progressed very slowly indeed; the tempo of technical education did not really accelerate until the latter part of the Victorian era.
However, to indicate the opportunities which are set out in this pamphlet, there is

Vocational Training
the national college of horology and instrument technology, the national foundry college-a college for foundry workers-the national college for heating, ventilating, refrigeration and fan engineering, the national college of rubber technology, the national leathersellers' college, the national college of food technology, the Scottish woollen technical college, and many others. I just mention those to illustrate the possibilities there are for the development of technical schools to provide training in the skills so badly needed in this country.
I am interested in this problem because first of all it is a Canadian problem. It is a widespread and urgent Canadian problem. I am also very interested in the problem because it is of serious concern to my constituents. Because it is a growing problem, school boards in our province have been urging the provincial government to take advantage of the grants that can be obtained from the federal government under the present vocational training act.
We have had vocational training in schools for years. In my opinion, while it is very satisfactory for, shall I say, the elementary teaching of certain trades and abilities and the acquisition of manual skills, and so on, you cannot train technical personnel and tradesmen along with high school students. Success will require a separate school system entirely where young people who have left high school can enter to be trained as technicians or tradesmen.
That is where the whole scheme has to be well planned by the provinces. I understand that under this legislation the initiative will have to come from the provinces. I hope they respond to this legislation and that it will not be a hit-or-miss affair on their part. Surely, our government in British Columbia, with its knowledge of the population and industrial development in the province together with its projection as to the development which can be expected for some years in the future, can plan a system of technical and trade schools to meet the needs of the young people who require training. I trust it will exercise its initiative and co-operate with the federal government in making the legislation envisaged by this resolution a success. This is important to my constituents.
In many cases people who are desirous of attending training schools or technical schools have been denied that opportunity because of the distances which they would have to travel or, often, because of the cost. These schools will have to be fairly close to the persons they are intended to serve and I suggest that in addition to schools to serve
[Mr. Herridge.l
Vancouver island and the main coastal area we shall need establishments to serve southeastern and central British Columbia.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Did the hon. gentleman mean, when he spoke earlier of technical training as distinct from university training, that the technical training must be clearly and absolutely technical, that the students must devote all their time to technical instruction?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The hon. gentleman must realize that I am a simple backwoodsman with no pretence to higher educational achievement. I speak from experience rather than as one who has had a great deal of academic education or who holds academic degrees. However, I think there is a time when students have to decide whether they are going on to higher academic achievement or whether to leave high school and confine their activities to technical or trade school training. My point was that I do not think it is possible to combine satisfactorily trade training and technical training with the rest of the curriculum inside high schools. While I am interested in teachers in high school teaching vocational training, manual skills, to the higher grade pupils, that is a separate function.
Now I have given a complete outline of my ideas in this respect. All hon. members may not agree with me, but I speak from some experience and knowledge of the problem. Let me say again, in conclusion, that I trust the present legislation is comprehensive enough to meet an increasing need and I sincerely hope the provinces concerned will respond to this opportunity.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I think this is a well worth-while measure. Any measure which encourages technical and vocational training is certainly worth supporting, and this ties in nicely with all the other good measures referred to in the speech from the throne. I, too, would like to see this bill brought in as soon as possible, but before that time I should like to suggest a few thoughts which I hope may be reflected in the measure when it is enacted.
With automation advancing at a very fast pace in this highly mechanized North American continent, I think there is a great need for increased technical and vocational training. I am in agreement with the hon. member for Kootenay West that technical and vocational training should be on a higher level than the standard at which it is taught in high schools. I think a person graduating from a vocational or technical school should be able to come out with a degree which will qualify him as a person who has real ability in the field he has chosen to take up.

The province of Alberta from which I come is fast developing into a manufacturing province. Its population is growing rapidly and it is now, I think, the fourth largest province in Canada as far as population is concerned. Because of the success of the oil and gas industry in that province, manufacturing has come to play a prominent part in its development.
Along with the hon. member for Kootenay West, I believe there is a growing need for trained workers. A figure which is not often talked about shows that three out of four jobs becoming available today require a person with a higher education or skill in some trade. This is particularly evident in the province of Alberta as well as in Canada in general. In some of the older countries, particularly in Europe, greater stress is perhaps placed upon sending a person out into the world with a skill or trade of some kind at his disposal. For centuries people grew up in the older countries of the world and, instead of just continuing in school, branched out in the field or skill in which they were trained so as to better equip themselves to compete. Certainly, there are any number of trades which a person can take up-plumbing, electric wiring or electronics, for example. Then, under vocational training, there is a need for butchers and other such trades.
I was interested to hear the hon. member for Kootenay West say there was a great need in some of the rural areas for plumbers and electricians. Men could easily earn a living by going out into some of these rural areas and, possibly, many will be ready to do so after the schools have been set up. I know that in my own constituency, which is largely a rural constituency, there is always a need for plumbers or electricians, whose skills seem to be in high demand. Even in the field of agriculture, with which I am closely connected, there is a growing need for persons with some degree of skill and, in some instances, a high degree of skill. Many advances have been made in the past few years and now we find a large number of farms highly dieselized and highly mechanized, so much so that a farmer has to be a jack of all trades and know a lot about a great number of things if he is to succeed.
In Alberta we have several schools of agriculture, and I graduated from one of them, but I have always thought they could go on and teach highly technical skills in those schools rather than deal in the generalities which some of the subjects cover. They should perhaps give greater training in motor mechanics. Dieselization on the farms has increased the need for this training. Hydraulics today play an important part on the farm. Many farmers find that they require
Vocational Training
some knowledge of the subject in order to fit their equipment with hydraulic appliances and measures that will make farming easier and more economical for them.
Together with more stress on motor mechanics greater emphasis should be placed on meat preparation, butchering and other courses relating to animal husbandry. I was pleased to note that the veterinary college in Ontario has an extensive course relating to various types of meat. Certainly this training would better equip a person who was going into butchering or even someone who planned to engage in raising livestock. This too has become highly competitive and highly technical with the implementation of hormones into the feeding rations of livestock. If more extensive teaching were done in relation to these subjects students leaving agricultural colleges or vocational schools would be better equipped to get along in their respective fields.
With the introduction of these grants some hon. members feared that the federal government was invading the domain of provinces in the field of education. I am sure that most hon. gentlemen realize that the grants will be made available on a shared basis with the provinces by request. As an hon. member from Alberta I hope that my home province will be able to take advantage of these grants thereby better preparing the young people to compete and enjoy life in the years ahead.


Walter George Pitman: Mr. Chairman, as a new member I hesitate to inflict myself on the committee twice in one day but I did want to congratulate the Minister of Labour on bringing this resolution before the committee and to express my earnest hope that it will be introduced as legislation in the very near future.
I rise on this question because I am particularly interested in the area of education. Until only four or five weeks ago I was taking part in education on a full-time scale in another place. Possibly some hon. members would prefer it if I were still doing so.
If this measure is to come up to the expectations of the people of Canada and merit the congratulations of those who sit in this corner of the chamber I think it must fulfil four very important requirements. It must be a dynamic and all-inclusive attempt to meet the needs of every community in these two areas, the training of the unemployed and the training of our young people to meet the demands of this new technological age.

Vocational Training
Second, this proposed legislation surely must be completely adaptable to every community in this nation so that every community will be able to apply to a provincial legislature and take advantage of this measure.
Third, I hope this will be a first step toward a whole new concept of the responsibility of the federal government in the education and training of our youth.
Finally, I hope this will be a part of a new approach to our whole economy for if this proposed legislation is to be effective it must relate itself to a planned, integrated economy.
Unfortunately in the past the whole program of training the unemployed has been most inadequate. Reference has already been made to the Vocational Training Co-Ordination Act passed in 1952 and amended in 1954. As originally envisaged the act was to enable the minister to undertake projects to provide vocational training to fit unemployed persons for gainful employment. In 1954 it was amended to include a provision designed to fit persons for employment for any purpose in the national interest within the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada and approved by the governor in council.
I am not blaming the federal government for the inadequate situation that has obtained in this respect. As I understand it, in many cases the provinces did not even take advantage of the grants that were available. However, across Canada between April, 1958 and March, 1959 there were only 3,568 people trained. I think there were more unemployed in my own constituency last winter than were trained under this program in the whole of Canada. Federal assistance applied for by the provinces in this respect amounted to only $510,479.99.
In a country in which unemployment is a very serious problem surely that is not the scale on which this problem must be met. In Ontario, between April, 1958 and March 31, 1959 there were 94 men and 32 women who were re-trained. I suggest that this problem will not be solved on that scale. The report of the director of Canadian vocational training indicated that the number asking for assistance was not as large as expected. And yet what was the need?
A pamphlet put out by the Department of Labour on the training of skilled manpower admitted that training facilities in Canada were failing to keep pace with the requirement for manpower and that we were importing skilled labour from the United Kingdom and Europe. A winter research program was undertaken to discover the level of ability and training in several areas. It was found, for example, in relation to tool and

diemakers that only 8.5 per cent of Canadian tradesmen in this field had received secondary education in appropriate technical training whereas 46 per cent of non-Canadian tool and diemakers had received adequate training in this trade. That is a commentary upon vocational training throughout this nation as it takes place in the provinces.
If this program is to have a sufficient impact to be of any use in the twentieth century it must be undertaken on a scale that will make everything we have done before look absolutely ridiculous. It is significant that in my own riding of Peterborough we have a general union of unemployed workers. I hope this union will not grow very much stronger but if the situation worsens it may well become the largest union in the riding.
These men have done more than whine about their situation. They are in a serious plight. While perhaps they are not dropping in the streets they are nevertheless suffering mentally and spiritually. Rather than whine about their plight they have taken positive steps through every level of government to provide this kind of training for their members through the hard winter. It is only through re-training that the unemployed will solve their problems when they feel that once again they can make a useful contribution to the community where they live. It is not a matter of accepting a dole. They do not want unemployment insurance. What they want is to return, so to speak, to Canadian society in a useful, vital capacity. I hope this resolution will help these people.
It is important that this program be adaptable to each community. Technical institutions cannot be built in some communities which are too small to support them. I hope this resolution will provide grants whereby these areas may perhaps use the money to provide for their unemployed transportation to some other centre where there is a technical institution that can provide the type of training these people need. I hope it will provide grants not just for buildings but for areas which have buildings which may be used. I suggest vocational schools which might be used from four o'clock in the afternoon until seven or eight o'clock at night. I hope it may possibly provide money for teaching and also for the maintenance of equipment in a great many areas where people could be trained adequately and on the basis of what is possible in the community in which those unemployed people live. It is possible that there will be need to provide assistance to men so that they can take those courses and not mean a hardship to their wives and families when they are actually taking part

in the course. I hope that the legislation will be not only dynamic and all-inclusive, but that it will also be adaptable.
I hope it will provide a new motivation for vocational training. I think that unfortunately we in Canada have never come to acquire the kind of feeling which people in European countries and the United Kingdom have for their crafts. I think we need to motivate people in the direction of vocational training, and instil in them a pride in vocational training. Too often vocational training has become a kind of second rate education. It has been suggested that a vocational school is a dumping ground for the less gifted. I think this has brought vocational training into disrepute in many communities of this nation. I hope that through this legislation vocational training will reach new heights of acceptability by the people of the provinces of this country.
I think we desperately need technicians. We must forget the idea that a technician is a second grade engineer, or an engineer that did not make good. As the hon. member suggested, too often we have people with engineering degrees doing jobs which could be done by technicians. This is an area where the Soviet union has completely surpassed us in education. This is an area where we must catch up. Particularly I hope that this is going to be a step toward a whole new concept as to what the federal government must do through grants, not to control all education but without endangering the autonomy of the provinces to provide assistance to education and training on a scale that will allow every person in this country to attain the height of achievement of which he is capable.
It has been suggested by the dominion bureau of statistics that over the next number of years we will need ten major universities in this country, not all centred in the larger communities but some also in smaller communities. I think one of the unfortunate aspects is that our university education is centred in the large metropolitan areas. In an area like my own, Peterborough, we have people who are desperately trying to set up a junior college. They need help.
This is also a whole new step toward the opening up of a whole new vista of federal assistance and motivation in the area of education because if we wish to make our educational system as good as it must be in the latter part of the twentieth century we need not only technicians and craftsmen but also economists, historians, philosophers and theologians. We need these as well. Let us not provide technicians and discover that the whole meaning of our western civilization has
Vocational Training
disappeared because we forgot that vocational training was only a part of our educational process.
Finally, it must be integrated somehow into a planned economy, and here again I hope, as the hon. member suggested, that the productivity council will come into play.
I wish the hon. member for Bow River were in his seat because I should like to answer the questions he asked a few nights ago when he inquired about the position of the new party in relation to socialism and free enterprise. I would suggest that we have stopped fighting the issue of socialism with a capital "S" and free enterprise with capitals "F" and "E". I am sure the hon. member realizes we live in a mixed economy and that the new party believes that the public sector as well as the private sector has rights, duties and responsibilities.
I was a little bit surprised at his method of attack by reading the words of leaders in this house some 30 years ago. I do not think there is any form of argument that is more historically suspect and academically unacceptable than wrenching from context words uttered 30 years ago.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Would the hon. member permit a question. Is the new party or the hon. member socialistic?


Walter George Pitman: It depends on what the hon. member means by socialism. Remember what Oscar Wilde said, that the only real reason for socialism is to preserve the individual. If that is the hon. member's meaning of socialism I would be very pleased to accept it.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: My definition of socialism does not agree with the hon. member's. I am an individualist but not a socialist.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I thought the hon. member was a Conservative.


Walter George Pitman: One of the unfortunate aspects of this-I hate to bring this up at this time, but the record must be corrected-is that the hon. member for Bow River referred back to the old red herring. I thought that the image of Joseph McCarthy was taking shape right in this very chamber. However, let us be Canadians. Probably we will agree that both the public and private sectors have their meaning and responsibilities, and let us leave it there.
I suggest, however, at this particular season and on this particular resolution we must have a tremendous amount of research as to exactly who we are going to train. Let us not begin the training of machinists and then find that we do not need them. Until we have some kind of planning in our economy, until we know where we are going, until we come up with sufficient research into

Vocational Training
this problem, I have great fear that we may spend a lot of money, that we may create a lot of activity and not really solve the problem of unemployment in the future. Therefore, I hope that this resolution will have a great effect upon the young people of this nation, and especially upon those who are unemployed at this time. I suggest that this is a first step. I offer to the Minister of Labour my congratulations but also, I hope, a challenge.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: We have just heard a new definition of socialism. I thought when listening to the hon. member that what he gave us really sounded just like a schoolteacher's definition. However, now that we have this new party definition we can have both free enterprise and socialism together. Unfortunately, this is not true. This is just the socialist's way of gaining power, and then the rest of the restrictions of individual freedom have to come into play, because this is the only way the socialists can operate a planned economy, by having complete stat-ism, and it does not really matter very much whether you call it socialism, communism, or anything else. It means a complete lack of individual freedom and, as such, no longer do we have a free world or a free country.
I suggest to the hon. member that this measure is brought forward not as a part of a planned economy but as a plan on the part of a dynamic government to provide opportunity for all Canadians. So far as I am concerned, there are a few points I should like to touch on briefly. They have been touched on by a previous speaker, but I should like to bring to your attention, sir, the question of decentralization of the schools.
In my area in Alberta particularly, we are concerned and have been concerned not about the importation of European skilled workers but of United States skilled workers in the oil and gas and the pipe line industries. We are now on the verge of terrific expansion in our area with regard to natural gas and the processing plants and extraction plants that go along with it. Very recently I visited one in the Pembina field at the town of Drayton Valley and talked to the young people there who are running these plants. All of them were studying by correspondence and were receiving on the job training under supervision. This was one of the first plants in operation in Alberta and we have several others. We have another one in the Jumping Pound field in southern Alberta and construction is just going to start on another one in the Windfall field in my constituency. There will be a series of these gas extraction and processing plants throughout Alberta.
We are concerned about these plants being manned by United States technicians because

we do not have trained personnel in Canada. I should like to put it on the record that I hope the province of Alberta will take advantage of this program to establish immediately a technical school devoted to the oil and gas industry. In that regard I suggest to them that the town of Drayton Valley would be an ideal location for such a school as it offers all the on the job training required and is centrally located among the major gas and oil fields in the province.
I wish to put another point on the record with regard to the question of decentralization and I should like to quote from the report of the Cameron royal commission on education in the province of Alberta. In this regard they came to this conclusion:
That the scope of educational offerings at public expense in the public school system be broadened to include appropriate courses in many vocational areas.
They went on to suggest that this should be done by a program that would promote and develop community colleges specializing in the particular line which had to do with the raw materials or natural resources of the area. This is why I bring up the question of the oil and gas industry and a technical school in the town of Drayton Valley which is in the centre of the largest oil field in North America.
I wish to refer to one or two other aspects of vocational training and I should like to deal first with forestry. The provincial government recently established a school of forestry at Hinton which so far is under the direction of the department of lands and forests of the province. However, I hope they will see fit to convert it into an educational institution devoted to producing technicians for the forest industry, an institution which would serve northwestern Alberta and part of British Columbia as well.
There is another matter in which I have been interested for a great number of years as a result of my experience many years ago when I served on a town council. From what I can observe there is a great need right across Canada for trained municipal, town and city officials, employees with some training in municipal, provincial and federal law and with some elementary training in bookkeeping. I suggest to the authorities that this might be a field for the establishment of a technical school devoted to the training of municipal officials. In my view it would be a real step forward from the point of view of providing jobs and also providing improved and more efficient administration of our municipalities, towns and cities.
There is one other question I want to raise and it is one I have brought up before in the house on numerous occasions. It has to

do with veterinary medicine. We in western Canada are still hopefully waiting for a school of veterinary medicine. I suggest that perhaps the province could tie in with such a school a program of technical training to produce the technicians required in veterinary medicine and all other aspects of animal husbandry.
Although I realize this may be a provincial responsibility, I believe that if we are going to remain free we have to do more than just provide a technical education for our people, and in this regard I should like to quote from the Cameron commission minority report:
A school that furnishes only a narrow, vocational, workaday training to children of humble parentage is effectually denying the innate dignity of man, a doctrine which asserts that every individual, whatever his trade or his income, is entitled to share in the high, humane tradition of the liberal arts and sciences.
This latter is I think an effective answer to the speech of the hon. member for Peterborough. Most of what he had to say was good until he started to talk about a planned economy and the area in which he would have the government take control. The fallacy of the thinking of the socialists or the new party, if their new program is one of half free enterprise and half socialism, is that these things cannot work together any more than they can take one section of the public, as they are trying to do by taking the labouring class, and make a political party out of them for the purposes, I suspect, of the people who are directing the labour unions rather than for the good of the ordinary working man.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the Minister of Labour for having introduced this resolution on technical and vocational training. I am particularly interested to learn from the resolution the broad scope and intention of the government. The resolution seeks to authorize the Minister of Labour to enter into agreements with provincial governments for the encouragement of technical and vocational training and to authorize the making of contributions by Canada toward the cost of the training programs undertaken under provincial authority, including contributions toward the cost of capital expenditures on training facilities connected with such programs.
First of all, I think the important point is that this work is going to be carried on in co-operation with the provinces under agreements with them. Each province will be approached and the plans will be worked out. Undoubtedly the plans may vary to a certain extent from province to province. I shall be extremely interested along with the
Vocational Training
people of southwestern Alberta, whom I represent, in the agreement which is to be worked out with the province of Alberta.
I also note from the text of the resolution that technical and vocational training are to be undertaken under provincial authority.
It is well for us to note that all training which is undertaken will be under the authority of the province which has jurisdiction over education.
The resolution goes on to state that the purpose is to authorize the Minister of Labour to undertake programs of technical and vocational training for specified categories of persons, to provide for the establishment and operation of an advisory council and the appointment of the members and staff and to define its duties, and to provide for other related and incidental matters. The point of great importance there is that technical and vocational training programs are to be undertaken for specified categories and that raises a question in my mind as to what categories will receive vocational and technical training.
All who have spoken on this resolution seem to be agreed that know-how is necessary. They did not use exactly that term but I do so. I believe that any person wishing to make his way in this world must first of all prepare himself with some specialized know-how by means of which to handle a particular job. Whether it is a matter of working with his hands or of working with his brain he must be trained and he must have the skill with which to handle the work he is undertaking.
To come to the vocational end, may I say this. It has been mentioned by others that we should have more people who are able to do such jobs as carpentering-or at least have more training in that field-people able to read blueprints, to do plumbing work, bricklaying, electrical work, stonecutting, blacksmithing and electric welding, etc. Whether you call these people technicians or tradesmen is immaterial for my purposes. It is not necessary for me to distinguish between them, although there is a slight difference. What I am saying is that training for these various trades is work that would be handled in a technical and vocational training school.
The great need for training in these fields requires no extra words on my part or on the part of anyone else. One only needs to try to hire somebody to do any of these specialized jobs in order to find that those available are not as plentiful as they might be.
There is another point that I should like to make and it is on the matter of who should receive this technical and vocational training. I hope the resolution which refers to

Vocational Training
specified categories of persons will include young farmers and young city dwellers. There should be some provision for night classes for students of all ages. Above all, I think these training institutions should provide for technical and vocational training to Indians. There is on Indian reserves a small group of students who could be sent to these technical schools. They might not consist of any more than 5 per cent of the total enrollment at a school but they would benefit greatly from technical and vocational training.
I was on the Eden Valley Indian reserve last fall and the need for vocational training among these Indians was forcibly brought to my attention. If they were even able to take a hammer and saw, go out and cut down a few trees and shape them into homes, it would be of great assistance. It is a rather simple operation. It was performed even by our forefathers in pioneer days but it seems as though it has not been one of those skills which the Indian has acquired. If he were given this vocational training he would be able to provide for himself, not only a decent home but would be able to raise his standard of living.
I have given considerable thought to the question of technical and vocational training schools. Some two years ago I tried my best to get the provincial government of Alberta to start one of those schools at Claresholm and to take advantage of the splendid facilities of the R.C.A.F. field which is at that centre. I should like to say that some consideration was given to the suggestion. Under this resolution and federal program financial assistance is to be given by the federal government and an arrangement is to be worked out with the province of Alberta and I suggest that every consideration be given to the R.C.A.F. station at Claresholm as a suitable site for a new technical and vocational training school.
In closing I want to say again that this is far-reaching legislation and should benefit all classes in our society. Above all, I want to compliment the Minister of Labour once more on bringing in this resolution which is designed to assist in encouraging technical and vocational training throughout all of Canada.


Michael Starr: At this time I should like to put forward a suggestion for the consideration of members of the committee. I want to say at once that it is only a suggestion. There is no intention of any curtailment of discussion on this resolution or at least on this measure. On second reading, for anyone who wishes to take part in the discussion and debate on this particular measure, an opportunity will 
be afforded. Would hon. members of the committee consider passing the resolution today in order to give us the opportunity to discuss second reading of this measure on Tuesday?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Jacques Flynn: Shall the resolution carry?


Frank Howard: So far as the request or suggestion of the minister is concerned, may I say that it has certain merits. However, it has always been our understanding that one of the principles underlying the resolution stage was that it afforded an opportunity for the suggestion of ideas that might be incorporated in the bill when it finally comes along. We all know that debate on the second reading of a bill is confined to the provisions contained in it. For that reason I think we should perhaps call it five o'clock.


Jacques Flynn: Order. It being five o'clock, in order to permit the house to proceed to the consideration of public and private bills it is my duty, pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15, to rise and report progress on this resolution and to request leave to consider it again later this day or at the next sitting of the house, as the case may be.
Progress reported.


Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of public and private bills, the former having precedence pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15.



CANADA FAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES ACT


Frank Howard: the second reading of Bill No. C-9, to amend the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act (crown bound).
He said: Mr. Speaker, my remarks on the introduction of this particular bill will be quite few, because the contents of it are rather short and need no extensive introduction. I think the proposed principle is clear and well established. Also, we had a debate lasting an hour on a bill of a similar nature during the last session.
Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I should say this. The Canada Fair Employment Practices Act which came into force in the summer of 1953-in July, I believe it was-contains the provision, in brief form, that an employer shall not discriminate against employees or potential employees in so far as race, national origin, colour or religion is concerned. It also provides that a trade union shall not

discriminate against potential or present members, nor shall it expel members on the ground or for the reason of race, national origin, colour or religion. The act also sets out certain procedures for the enforcement of its provisions and certain penalties if the act is contravened. Those parts are not germane to this particular bill but are only by way of an aside in this introduction.
We know it is not possible to legislate for a state of mind. Yet it is good to have on the statute books something of this nature that is an anti-discrimination statute, that protects individuals from discrimination because of race, colour, national origin, and so on. It tends to promote the cessation or the lessening of any acts of discrimination that may be based upon those factors that I mentioned earlier.
Perhaps I may read very briefly from section 3 of the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act-which this bill seeks to amend- in order that hon. members should understand how this act applies now. Section 3 reads:
This act applies to and in respect of employment upon or in connection with any work, undertaking or business that is within the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada, including, but not so as to restrict the generality of the foregoing-
Then it sets out a number of things to which it applies. Section 3 (m) is the relevant passage to which I wish to refer, namely: the employment by any corporation established to perform any function or duty on behalf of the government of Canada of employees.
This means that Canadian National Railways, T.C.A., the atomic energy commission, Polymer and the like are covered by this particular act and shall not engage in any of the practices that the present act prohibits.
The purpose of the bill before us is to extend the application of the provisions of the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act to the crown and to the employees of the crown; or, in effect, Her Majesty in right of Canada and the servants and agents of Her Majesty in right of Canada.
One of the principles behind proposing this bill, from our point of view, is that employees in the public service of Canada should be treated substantially the same as employees in private industry in Canada. By that I do not wish to imply that they should be treated as they have been within the last few days by this parliament because of the bill with which we have just dealt. But in general terms they should come into the same set of legislative provisions and regulations in so far as employee-employer relationships are concerned.
I am quite sure, and there is no shadow of a doubt in my mind-and I am sure there
Vocational Training
is no shadow of a doubt in the mind of anyone in this house-that the intent of the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act is followed by the civil service commission in its function of employing people. I am also quite sure that no discrimination exists on these bases whatsoever.
We had some discussion last session. A number of hon. members participated in the debate and raised a number of questions. Perhaps I might briefly deal with those questions at this time. One question raised was whether there might be an inconsistency in applying the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act to the provisions of the Civil Service Act or the regulations made thereunder.
Last year I undertook to check by telephone-and again this year I undertook to check by telephone-with the civil service commission to ascertain whether there existed in the Civil Service Act or in any of the regulations pursuant to it any reference to non-discrimination. I was told that there was no such reference in the act or regulations at the moment. I inquired further and was told that in 1942 there appeared on one of the old employment questionnaires to be completed by potential employees a reference to the colour of the individual, but that this did not now exist.
I was unable to determine just when the transitional point took place, when the reference to colour was eliminated from the questionnaires. I was told that it had existed in 1942 but does not exist at the moment and has not for some time.
I expect this year, if last session's activities are to be followed through, we will be having committees and we will have presented, I presume, a revised civil service bill. I assume that at the behest of the government it will be referred to a special committee of the house. Perhaps it would be appropriate this year for this particular bill now before us to receive endorsation and second reading, because I am certain that every hon. member supports the basic principle behind it. I think the bill should receive second reading at this stage and be referred to this special committee in order that the committee can study the Civil Service Act and the proposed changes thereto. The committee will be able to intermesh, if it so desires, or interweave the principle of this bill into the structure of that act, by either reporting this bill in a favourable light or by intermeshing it into the provisions of the Civil Service Act.
In that way parliament will decide that the act which applies to all other employees in Canada under our national jurisdiction

Vocational Training
shall also apply to the crown in its employment policies. I say again that this is in no way implying that such discrimination exists at the moment, or that such discrimination has existed before. To my knowledge no such discrimination has existed until today except, as I am told, by the reference to colour on the civil service questionnaire.
Whether this actually constitutes discrimination or not is another matter. I think that perhaps those few words will suffice. I am looking forward to perhaps a more pleasant discussion on this particular bill than we have had in the past few days. Also, perhaps there will be less opportunity to resort to questions of privilege on this bill than there was on the bill with which we have just dealt.


Ernest James Broome: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) has pointed out, there will be a special committee, we understand, set up to review the Civil Service Act. I think the hon. member or one of his colleagues should certainly be a member of that committee. At that time this rather pertinent point can be taken up with the committee in the right way. At the present time this bill seems to me to be legislation for the sake of legislation. I wonder at the assiduity of the hon. member for Skeena and the amount of work he can get through, because of a total of some 40 private bills no less than nine are standing in his name. He says this is a small bill which does not mean much-


Frank Howard: Oh, no.


Ernest James Broome: That is rather a short bill which really is not going to change anything as things are today, because the civil service commission, according to his own words, does not practice discrimination in any form in the selection or treatment of its employees. In fact, the hon. member for Skeena underlined this last session, because when introducing his bill he said, as reported on page 1271 of Hansard for February 19, 1960:
The bill which is before the house at the moment is very short. It merely seeks to make the present Canada Fair Employment Practices Act applicable to Her Majesty, her servants, and agents of Her Majesty, or, in effect, applicable to the civil service and to employees in the government service. This, of course, does not suggest that with regard to the employment of civil servants there exists at the present time any such discrimination because of the factors that I set out earlier. In fact, I think I can say without any contradiction or any qualification that no such discrimination enters into the employment of candidates for the civil service.
That is a very straightforward statement and, I believe, a true statement. An equally true statement, which the hon. member for Skeena has just made, is that it is not possible to legislate for a state of mind. It may

be that in practice he and his colleagues do not always follow that axiom, but it is nevertheless true that you cannot legislate into being characteristics which will eliminate intolerance and discrimination. In order to solve this problem we must look to education rather than to laws. I believe that while in Canada today we are not free from discrimination we are freer than many other countries and that we are becoming increasingly alive to the fact that intolerance and discrimination are not worthy of a nation such as this. I believe the people of this country are going along that road, but they are travelling in spurts, and there is, as I say, still a measure of intolerance in sections of the country and in groups.
If the hon. member for Skeena was not too happy about the previous bill which we have been discussing he should have been happy about the bill of rights, the preamble to which states as follows:
The parliament of Canada, affirming that the Canadian nation is founded upon principles that acknowledge the supremacy of God, the dignity and worth of the human person and the position of the family in a society of free men and free institutions:
Affirming also that men and institutions remain free only when freedom is founded upon respect for moral and spiritual values and the rule of law;
Certainly intolerance and discrimination are not the spiritual values referred to here. Part I of the Bill of Rights reads as follows:
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,
I do not intend to read them all, but I will read the first one:
(a)	the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law;
I submit that "liberty" must include the right of employment. Liberty must include the right to make a livelihood without discrimination based on race, religion, national origin, colour or sex.
The hon. member said he had been checking over the various speeches which were made last year when a similar bill was considered, but I note he failed to cover the point raised by the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. Spencer) who brought out the conflict between this measure and the actual set-up of the civil service commission in that the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act is administered by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) and the civil service of Canada is administered by a civil service commission which is responsible to parliament and to parliament alone. The hon. member for Essex

West, who is I believe a lawyer, went into the details of this conflict, and I will go as far as to read what I suggest to be the conclusion which he reached. I am quoting from page 1274 of Hansard for February 19:
In. other words, the Minister of Labour would then be directing the civil service commission to do something it had not done or undo something it had done which in his opinion of the inquiry commission amounted to discrimination.
The hon. member was referring to the fact that the Minister of Labour under this measure could set up an industrial inquiry commission to hear complaints, and I suggest this would certainly bring two branches of government administration into conflict.
Another point which might be considered is whether veterans' preference is not discrimination to some extent. Yet it has been the instruction of this parliament that there should be a preference shown to veterans in connection with civil service commission hiring. There may be restrictions, and there are restrictions in certain fields where security is the prime consideration. Is this discrimination? Evidently the hon. member does not believe that this sort of thing is discrimination, because he categorically stated that there is no discrimination in the civil service.


Frank Howard: On account of the grounds set out in the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act, with regard to colour, racial origin, sex and so on.


Ernest James Broome: That is the point. The point is that at present there is no discrimination and therefore there is no purpose behind this bill. But there is a point in getting written into the act which controls the civil service commission something along these lines, because the thought behind this bill is something with which no hon. member can disagree. The elimination of intolerance and discrimination is something which we all want to see, but I do not think this is the way to do it. I believe the way to do it Is through the Civil Service Act itself as well as through the growth and development of the Canadian people, and the people of the world through a constantly increasing level of education. It is in the schools where we want to wipe out intolerance and discrimination. We want to start there. As the hon. member said you cannot legislate a person into a state of mind.
I believe the hon. member is to be commended for bringing forward this bill. I think, however, there is a lot more meat in some of the other bills that stand in his name in relation to which action could be taken.
Because of the portion of the bill of rights which I read I believe there is no necessity for this bill in this form as an amendment to the Canada Fair Employment Practices
Vocational Training
Act. What the hon. member seeks to do through this bill could be discussed when the committee is set up and we consider the Civil Service Act.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, would my hon. friend permit a question before he completes his remarks? Do I understand the hon. member to say that the bill of rights applies to Her Majesty the Queen in the right of Canada? Is that what my hon. friend is saying?


Ernest James Broome: I am saying that the bill
of rights applies to all legislation which has been passed by this parliament in the past and which will be passed in the future. All legislation must be weighed against the bill of rights to see if an act infringes on any of the fundamental freedoms mentioned therein. If an act so infringes then under the terms of the bill of rights that section of that act would have to be amended.


Frank Howard: Would my hon. friend permit another question. Is the hon. gentleman not aware that an act does not relate to the crown or her heirs and assigns unless it is so specified in the act and that this is not contained in the bill of rights?


Ernest James Broome: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that my hon. friend and I are not in the position of two blind men battling back and forth. The hon. member for Skeena is not a lawyer nor am I. All I can do is accept his word with reservations.


Frank Howard: I find it a great help not to be a lawyer and I am sure my hon. friend does too.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this discussion this afternoon on Bill No. C-9, my first reaction in examining the bill is that the explanation takes up a greater portion of the printed material than does the actual wording of the bill. I believe I should put on the record the explanatory notes which read as follows:
The purpose of this bill is to prevent discrimination by the government of Canada against its employees or applicants for employment in the public service.
The act presently applies as follows:
3. This act applies to and in respect of employment upon or in connection with any work, undertaking or business that is within the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada, including, but not so as to restrict the generality of the foregoing.
(a)	works, undertakings or business operated or carried on for or in connection with navigation and shipping, whether inland or maritime, including the operation of ships and transportation by ship anywhere in Canada:
(b)	railways, canals, telegraphs and other works and undertakings connecting a province with any other or others of the provinces, or extending beyond the limits of a province;

Vocational Training
(c)	lines of steam and other ships connecting a province with any other or others of the provinces or extending beyond the limits of a province;
(d)	ferries between any province and any other province or between any province and any country other than Canada;
(e)	aerodromes, aircraft and lines of air transportation;
(f)	radio broadcasting stations;
(g)	banks and banking;
(h)	such works or undertakings as, although wholly situate within a province, are before or after their execution declared by the parliament of Canada to be for the general advantage of Canada or for the advantage of two or more of the provinces; and
(i)	any work, undertaking or business outside the exclusive legislative authority of the legislature of any province; and to and in respect of
(j)	employers engaged in any such work, undertaking or business;
(k)	employees or other persons employed or seeking employment upon or in connection with any such work, undertaking or business;
(l)	trade unions composed of such employees; and
(m)	the employment by any corporation established to perform any function or duty on behalf of the government of Canada of employees.
If I understand correctly the purpose of this bill it is to extend to those engaged in the civil service of Canada the benefits that are presently enjoyed by people in other walks of life. It is also my understanding that the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act now encompasses the employees of crown corporations but not the employees of the civil service.
This bill appears to anticipate something that will be coming before parliament in the not too distant future. Reference was made by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Broome) to the forthcoming revision of the Civil Service Act. It might be said that the passage of this bill would not in any way change what might take place at a later time in regard to that act that will be considered at a later date but I submit there is a difference-and it may be a shade of a difference-between the ordinary employees in Canada and those employed by the government of this country. That fact is borne out by some of the provisions now contained in the Civil Service Act.
I refer first of all to the preference to veterans, an association of ideas which I believe Canadians in all parts of the country want to see maintained because of the unequalled contribution that has been made to the preservation of the freedom of Canada by those who have served in the Canadian armed forces, a freedom extending not only to these individuals themselves but to Canadians in all walks of life.
Coupled with that premise, of course, is the other premise relating to those provisions incorporated into the Civil Service Act having to do with the problem of security. The problem of ideological warfare-if you want

to call it that-the clash of ideas from one end of the globe to the other certainly makes every one of us here in the House of Commons and I believe everyone in Canada stop to think when he considers some of the positions that must be held by the people in the employ of the government of this country. It may be said that this is discrimination but I think Canadians in general will agree that it is one of the things necessary for the preservation of our way of life and of the sovereignty of this nation.
I notice that this bill was brought forward last year and discussed' in January and February. No doubt hon. members are familiar with the discussion that took place at that particular time. As I read to you, sir, the provisions that this bill would provide I could not help but ask myself the question: Are any of those provisions already provided for Canadians by virtue of the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act and the provisions that were brought forward last year in the bill of rights, that bill which more than any other was so long overdue in this parliament.
When people talk of discrimination they mention, of course, discrimination in so far as race, colour and religion are concerned. Sometimes there are other forms of discrimination as well. Generally speaking, Canada is free from these types of discrimination. In fact, it would be difficult to put your finger in a substantive way on any particular case at any particular time. There have been times in the past, of course, particularly during wartime, when acts of parliament and decisions of the government have made necessary in the ordinary deliberations of parliament the passing of certain statutes which seemed to have caused a certain measure of discrimination; but, generally speaking, in most instances, those acts were passed for the preservation of freedom in this country, and as such were accepted by Canadian citizens in good faith.
Because of the fact that Canada is reasonably free from this type of discrimination, because of the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act as it stands today, because of the bill of rights, because of the examination of the Civil Service Act, which will be brought forward later on in this session, I cannot help but feel that this bill serves no useful purpose at this particular time in our deliberations and for that reason, I thought that I should voice those expressions of opinion so that other hon. members might judge for themselves as well.


John Ferguson Browne: Mr. Speaker, with the statement that is contained in the explanatory notes of this bill to the effect that the purpose of this bill is

to prevent discrimination by the government of Canada against its employees or applicants for employment in the public service, I think everyone would agree. Of course, if any case was brought forward to substantiate the claim that there was any such discrimination I am sure we would want to take immediate action to prevent it. However, in this particular case the mover of the bill has stated that to his knowledge there is no such discrimination. Of course, that relieves us of the necessity of taking immediate action.
In view of the fact that the civil service is not generally covered in the same legislation as the rest of our labour force and has not been throughout the years, it is obviously a matter that needs a good deal of consideration. The Civil Service Act, of course, has been set up to deal with employees in the public service, and I think it has been generally conceded throughout the years that public servants have responsibilities and conditions different from those of other employees in the country. Many things have been put in the Civil Service Act to protect those employees, and there are certain advantages that they have enjoyed throughout the years that other employees have not had. Therefore, I do not think we can just accept the statement that everybody should be brought under the same legislation.
As has already been pointed out in connection with this bill, if it were passed it would bring the civil servants under the control of two different bodies. It would have the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) responsible for part of their activities and the civil service commission responsible for another part.
As I have already pointed out, with the study being made of the whole position of the civil service I think it would be unwise to make such a change at this time. I think in the Civil Service Act there are ample safeguards at the present time to prevent discrimination in the civil service. In chapter 48 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, section 19, the following appears:
Except where otherwise expressly provided, all appointments to the civil service shall be upon competitive examination under and pursuant to this act, and shall be during pleasure; but no appointment, whether permanent or temporary, shall be made to a local position within a province, and no employee shall be transferred from a position in a province to a local position in the same or in another province, whether permanent or temporary, until and unless the candidate or employee has qualified, by examination,-
Then, in section 25 we find:
(1) Competitive examinations shall be held by the commission to establish lists of persons eligible for appointment.
90205-6-31J
Vocational Training
(2) Such examinations may be written or oral or in the form of a demonstration of skill or any combination of these, and they shall be of a character fairly to test and determine the relative fitness and ability of candidates actually to perform the duties of the class to which they seek to be appointed, and any investigation of training and experience and any test of technical knowledge, manual skill, or physical fitness that, in the judgment of the commission, serves to this end may be employed.
In that way the examinations are open to everyone, and that in itself provides an adequate guarantee that everybody is going to have a fair opportunity of employment in the civil service. However, as has been pointed out, there are some advantages given for employment in the civil service by way of war veterans' preference. I would not be surprised to see proposed the suggestion that there should be other preference given. My own feeling is that perhaps we should specify that a preference should be given to Canadian citizens. I do not think that that would be an unwarranted preference, and yet under the terms of this proposed amendment it may well be that the power to have people given that preference may be taken out of our hands.
The bill of rights has already been referred to on several occasions, and that is another guarantee that there is going to be fairness in the application of the act. However, I have another reason for believing that the civil service should not some within the scope of the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act, because I believe there are other amendments that need to be made to that act and that perhaps the civil service should not necessarily come within the scope of those kinds of amendments.
For this reason I believe it would be very unwise to proceed with this amendment at this time. I should like to be able to deal with some of the other amendments that I feel should be made to the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act but I fear, Mr. Speaker, that you would rule me out of order at this time so I shall save them for another occasion.


Frank Howard: Would the hon. member permit a question before he resumes his seat?


John Ferguson Browne: Yes.


Frank Howard: The hon. member !made reference to the bill of rights having application and I wonder whether he is aware that section 16 of the Interpretation Act makes this provision:
No provision or enactment in any act affects in any manner whatsoever the rights of Her Majesty, her heirs or successors, unless it is expressly stated therein that Her Majesty is bound thereby.

Vocational Training
Is he aware that such a provision is not contained in the bill of rights and therefore it does not apply to the civil service or to Her Majesty?


John Ferguson Browne: I think the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Broome) already indicated that if an interpretation of a legal point was required you should consult a lawyer and not another member of the house.


Frank Howard: Oh, oh.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see the hon. member joining with myself with respect to interruptions. He is very touchy about interruptions in remarks he makes in the house and I should like to remind him that he should take the same attitude with regard to interrupting others. I think that some of the remarks he makes from time to time during debates go a little too far and perhaps the rules of the house are too lenient in allowing such remarks.


Frank Howard: Are you referring to me?


Malcolm MacInnis: Reference has been made to the bill of rights. I should like to point out that discrimination is completely guarded against under the bill of rights because in section 2 it is provided that every law of Canada shall, unless it is expressly declared by an act of the parliament of Canada that it shall operate notwithstanding the Canadian bill of rights, shall be so construed and applied as not to abrogate, etc., any rights or freedoms. Since the Civil Service Act comes under this jurisdiction this offers complete protection against discrimination on the ground of race, colour, creed or nationality.
The bill before us is an act to amend the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act and its chief purpose is to extend the act to bind Her Majesty in right of Canada and servants and agents of Her Majesty in right of Canada. At the present time crown corporations come within the ambit of the act. Section 3 of the act reads as follows:
This act applies to and in respect of employment upon or in connection with any work, undertaking or business that is within the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada, including, but not so as to restrict the generality of the foregoing.. .
(m) the employment by any corporation established to perform any function or duty on behalf of the government of Canada of employees.
That makes the act apply only to employees of Her Majesty in right of Canada.
The civil service commission has always followed a policy of non-discrimination and has never knowingly transgressed the principles laid down in the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act so far as race, colour or religion are concerned. Any differences in

treatment or application which can be attributed to race or origin have been imposed by the requirements of the provisions of the Civil Service Act. The civil service commission has revised its application forms from time to time to delete or modify questions of a nature incompatible with the provisions of the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act as applied to employees in private industry. This was done because of the close, informal working relations between the Department of Labour and the civil service commission with regard to the application of the principles of the act.
The Civil Service Act gives certain preferences to war veterans and residents of a locality in filling jobs in a particular area and also with respect to the admission to examination of British subjects with at least five years residence in Canada. From time to time, however, as the need arises the commission departs from the operation of the relevant section with respect to a position where it is necessary to admit to examination people who do not qualify in these respects.
The provisions of section 4 of the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act have to do with discrimination on the ground of race, colour or religion, and while it may be contended that in the case of British subjects there is special provision, the effect of the amendment would be to give the Minister of Labour authority to deal with complaints concerning discrimination in employment which in all other respects are subject to the Civil Service Act and the administration of the civil service commission. In view of this situation there could not conceivably be any conflict in the exercise of this authority.
The status given by the bill to the Minister of Labour and to the industrial inquiry commission appointed under the act would be repugnant to the Civil Service Commission reporting as it does solely to parliament and not being under the supervision or direction of any minister of the crown. As outlined, the policies and practices of the commission in protecting a person seeking employment or who is already employed in the public service from discrimination on the basis of national origin, colour, creed or religion, are based upon the application of the principles employed in the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act, the Civil Service Act or otherwise.
I know that from time to time the commission has revised its application forms to delete or modify questions of a nature considered incompatible with the provisions of the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act as applied to employers in private industry. I understand that there are provisions in

the Civil Service Act or the regulations made thereunder that are applicable to appointments to the civil service in relation to residence, security, or citizenship which might be inconsistent with the literal application of the amendment to the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act proposed in the bill.
In view of the considerations referred to it might be deemed preferable that the purpose of the bill should be given effect to under the Civil Service Act rather than under the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act. This consideration is particularly pertinent at this time when legislation for the enactment of a new Civil Service Act is projected for the present session of parliament.


Orville H. Phillips: Mr. Speaker, it is very easy to be sympathetic to the principle of the bill but I lost a certain amount of sympathy for the bill when the hon. member who introduced it stated that there was no discrimination in the government service and he did not intend to imply that there was. In fact, as recorded in Hansard last year when he introduced a similar bill he made an almost identical speech and in it he emphasized that he knew of no case of discrimination. I think that the bill would have had a great deal more emphasis if he had been able to show cause for its introduction.
I do not mean to imply that discrimination does not exist anywhere in Canada. Periodically we read of extremely unfortunate situations. These may or may not be valid cases of discrimination. However, I am quite sure that the hon. member will not find discrimination either in the civil service or in the crown corporations.
The civil service commission established by law, clearing any government department and reporting directly to parliament rather than through a minister, go to great effort in order to avoid discrimination. They have certain preferences, however. I am sure that all hon. members have received complaints with regard to those preferences. I know that periodically I get complaints from people in the 20-25 age bracket who say that they lost out in a civil service competition owing to the veterans' preference. I think perhaps they have a certain justification for their complaints in that they say they were not old enough to enlist in any of the services during wartime and get the benefits of the Civil Service Act with regard to overseas preference. On the other hand, I do not think the average Canadian considers this to be discrimination and I think he would want the veterans' preference maintained. A number of people have approached me and wanted to know why the preference could not be
Business of the House
extended to those with handicaps. In small towns in Canada it is quite difficult to obtain employment for a handicapped person. They feel that they should have a certain preference under the Civil Service Act.
The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Broome) mentioned security. I am sure all hon. members realize that security clearance is necessary in certain classifications. Perhaps under this act that requirement could be misconstrued to be discrimination.
I was rather intrigued by several of the explanatory notes, namely sections 3 (a) and 3 (b). Section 3 (b) reads as follows-



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Ottawa, December 2, 1960
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Patrick Kerwin, Chief Justice of Canada, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 2nd December, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
Esmond Butler
Secretary to the Governor General
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Right Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An act to amend the National Housing Act, 1954.
An act to provide for the continuation of the operation of railways.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, would the house leader indicate the business for next week. I think he indicated that Monday would be private members' day, but a further projection into next week would be helpful.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, Monday will be private members' day. On Tuesday we will continue with the resolution in the name

Business of the House
of the Minister of Labour dealing with technical and vocational training, followed by the resolution in the name of the Minister of Trade and Commerce dealing with a national productivity council.
If these two resolutions are completed- and there is a little uncertainty here; it is subject to change-I suggest we may go ahead with the setting up of certain special committees which are listed on the order paper.
We would take them in this order: the select committee on the rules and procedure of the house, the joint committee on Indian affairs, the committee dealing with research
and related matters, and the committee on broadcasting. That is Tuesday. Any uncompleted business would carry over to Wednesday. That is perhaps as far as I can go at the moment.


William Moore Benidickson: Are we likely to have the supplementary budget this coming week?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Perhaps on Monday night I will be able to give a more complete preview of the week's work.


[Stage Direction]
It being ten minutes past six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Question

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

Mr. Chevrier: 1.	How did the question relating to racial origin read in the 1951 census and what was the list of racial origins which might be given in the reply?
2.	Was there a test made in June of 1959 for the 1961 census and used in the cities of Joliette, Galt and other cities, and if so, what was the question relating to racial origin and what was the list of racial origins which might be given in reply to that question?
3.	How will the question relating to racial origin read in the 1961 census and what is the list of racial origins which may be given in reply?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister
of Trade and Commerce):
1.	"Origin" any origin reported by the respondent was accepted.
2.	A trial census was carried out in June of 1959 in the cities of Joliette, Quebec and Galt, Ontario. "What is (your) "origin" in the male line?" Any origin reported by the respondent was accepted.
3.	"What is (your) origin on the father's side?" Any origin reported by the respondent will be accepted.

Monday. December 5, 1960