1960-11-30

SIR WINSTON CHURCHILL


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: As all hon. members know, today is the birthday anniversary of the world's most revered statesman and the most distinguished member of Canada's privy council, Right Hon. Sir Winston Churchill, already immortal in his lifetime. He is the leader whose indomitable courage, wisdom and peerless oratory made invincible the legions of freedom during world war II.
I therefore move, seconded by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson):
That this house extend to the Right Hon. Sir Winston Churchill, K.G., congratulations and best wishes on this, his 86th birthday.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to have been asked to second this motion of congratulations and affectionate good wishes to a man whom we all revere and who, on his 86th birthday, is facing and overcoming a temporary disability in the same way he has faced everything else in a career which is unmatched, as the Prime Minister has said, in our time, namely with courage and cheerful assurance.
Sir Winston is indeed a man for the ages, resolute in the face of danger, indomitable in crisis, far seeing and wise in triumph. So on behalf of our party, Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to join the Prime Minister in congratulations to this most distinguished member of Her Majesty's privy council for Canada.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, in the words they have used in proposing and seconding this motion the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have not only spoken for all members of parliament but for all Canadians and indeed for all free men throughout the world.
Sir Winston Churchill has been called the greatest of all Englishmen. Certainly he stands above all others in having pointed out the dangers that were facing the world in the 1930's and having himself in no small degree been instrumental in bringing the free world through those dark days to victory.
We join with the others in sending him from this parliament our warmest congratulations and the assurance of our great admiration and respect.


Mr. Speaker:: May I declare the motion unanimously carried?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Grant Campbell (Slormont):: Mr. Speaker, this is also the anniversary of Scotland's patron saint. Whether we like it or not, and whether it is for better or for worse, Canada is what the French and the Scots have made it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Grant Campbell: Therefore to all of Scottish descent and to all who wish they were of that descent, may I extend best wishes on this occasion.



INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK ACT


Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy River) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-46, to amend the Industrial Development Bank Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house that the hon. member shall have leave to introduce said bill?


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


William Moore Benidickson: The bill is similar in form to the bill introduced by me last year. It proposes to expand the terms of the industrial development bank in essence to provide loans under that statute to the retail trade and to those engaged in the tourist industry and catering to the public in hotels, and so on.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



STARRED QUESTIONS


Mr. Chevrier: 1.	Did the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario apply to the national energy hoard for permission to export power to the United States at

Starred Questions
Cornwall, Ontario, and other points along the international border? If so, to whom was the power sought to be exported?
2.	What was the reason for this application?
3.	Did the city of Cornwall intervene to object to this application? If so, for what reasons?
4.	Did the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario refuse to sell power to Stormont Electric Light and Power Company Limited and St. Lawrence Power Company Limited, two power companies with head offices in the city of Cornwall, both doing business in the area? If so, for what reason?
5.	Did the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario when applying for permission to develop power at the Long Sault, state through the government of Canada to the international joint commission and/or the federal power commission that the Long Sault was the last available source of power in Southern Ontario, and in view of the increasing demand necessitating additional sources for the supply of electrical power in Ontario there was urgent need for immediate action to meet the power requirements of that province?
6.	Did the national energy board make a ruling upon this application?


Mr. E. L. Morris (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to part (a) of question 1 is yes. With regard to part (b) I would refer the hon. member to the application filed on motion for production of papers, No. 9, Votes and Proceedings No. 3, page 26, of November 21, copies of which were sent to him yesterday.
The answer to question 2 is, the National Energy Board Act states that no person shall export power except under the authority of and in accordance with a licence issued under part VI of the act.
The answer to part (a) of question 3 is yes. The answer to part (b) is as follows: See intervention filed on motion for production of papers, No. 9, Votes and Proceedings No. 3, page 26, of November 21.
The answer to part (a) of question 4 is: The national energy board has no information respecting Stormont Electric Light and Power Company Limited. The answer to part (b) is as follows: With regard to St. Lawrence Power Company, the only information in possession of the national energy board is that contained in the transcript of evidence filed on motion for production of papers, No. 9, Votes and Proceedings No. 3, page 26, of November 21 at pages 185 to 198, 260 to 274 and 297 to 308.
The answer to question 5 is, the national energy board has no information on this subject.
The answer to question 6 is no.



LIGHTKEEPER, MADELEINE LIGHTHOUSE, GASPE COUNTY

[Stage Direction]
Qustion No. 11-Mr. Chevrier:
1.	Was Mr. Josephat Ste-Croix lightkeeper or assistant lightkeeper at the Madeleine lighthouse, Gaspe county, prior to November 1, 1960?

2.	If so, how long had he been employed in such capacity?
3.	Was he dismissed from his employ? If so, for what reason?
Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to part 1 is yes, he was employed by the principal lightkeeper Mr. Remi Ferguson as his personal employee, assistant lightkeeper.
The answer to part 2 is that he was employed in such capacity from April 15, 1957, to October 31, 1960.
As to part 3, the answer is no. In accordance with departmental policy of progressively providing classified positions to take care of the appointment of lightkeeper assistants as public servants, the civil service commission advertised an open public competition for lightkeeper 1, junior lightkeeper, for Madeleine. The top ranking candidate, a war veteran with disability preference, was declared the successful candidate by the civil service commission and assumed duty on November 1, 1960. While the commission qualified Mr. Ste-Croix in the competition, he did not rank sufficiently high to be offered appointment at this time, and as there was no authority for the retention of his services he was released upon the appointment of the top ranking candidate.



CHIGNECTO CANAL


Mr. Coates: 1.	Is the Minister of Public Works presently negotiating with the government of the province of New Brunswick on the proposed study of the Chignecto canal?
2.	If so. is the minister in a position to report on the progress of these negotiations?
3.	When will a report on this study be available?


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the following is the answer to the first question: yes, in respect of the nomination of two government engineers from the province of New Brunswick to work with federal engineers on a review of information presently available on the Chignecto canal. This preliminary study is necessary to determine what further investigations are necessary.
The answer to the second part of the question is that on September 15, 1960 and October 12, 1960 I communicated with the premier of New Brunswick regarding the names of the two government engineers, but there has been no reply to my last letter.
The answer to part 3 is that it is not possible at this time to state when a report on the study will be available.



POLITICAL ACTIVITY DIRECTIVE TO MAIL CONTRACTORS

Mr. Herridge: 1.	Has a circular been issued to all mail contractors in Canada warning them to refrain from participation in political activity, both federal and provincial?
2.	If so: (a) what information did this directive contain? (b) what was the reason for this limitation of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of mail contractors, who are not civil servants and who, in many cases, are rendering only parttime service to the Post Office Department?
3.	Has the same warning been issued to casual and part-time employees engaged for the Christmas or other rush seasons?
4.	Has any similar circular been Issued to mail contractors in the past?


Hon. W. M. Hamillon (Postmaster General):: The answer to this question is as follows:
1.	Standing instructions were issued in 1957 and are renewed before every federal or provincial election.
2.	(a) Mail contractors are to refrain from participation in political activity, both federal and provincial, while actually performing mail service work. The document was tabled on July 15, 1960.
(b) The implications of this so-called question are completely false and untrue. Section 39 of standing orders clearly indicates that such a question is out of order, and does not permit an appropriate answer.
3.	General instructions have been issued on this subject and they apply to part-time and casual employees. The application of these instructions is in accord with section 55 of the Civil Service Act, which forbids persons employed in the civil service from engaging in partisan work in connection with any election for the House of Commons, the legislature of a province, or the council of the Yukon Territory or the Northwest Territories. It has not been considered necessary to bring them directly to the attention of casuals because they are employed for short periods.
4.	No.



REDUCTION IN VETERANS SMALL HOLDING REQUIREMENT

Mr. Herridge: 1.	What representations, if any, from organizations and individuals have been received by the government since June, 1957, urging the reduction of the acreage requirement under the small holding section of the Veterans' Land Act to a half acre?
2.	What consideration has been given to this serious and urgent problem to many veterans in Canada?
3.	What decision, if any, has been reached by the government to date?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: If the hon. member will accept from me later a list of the organizations and individuals who have written about this
Starred Questions
matter, I could proceed to answer parts 2 and 3 of the question. The hon. member introduced this as an addition following his question of last week, and it has resulted in the necessity of searching the files for correspondence.
I can answer question No. 2 by saying that very careful consideration is being given to this problem, and I have been making inquiries since hearing from the hon. member with regard to this matter.
The answer to the third part of the question is that no decision has been reached to date.



MAPLE SYRUP PURCHASES FOR ARMED FORCES

Mr. Roberge: 1.	Has the federal government purchased maple syrup for the use of the Canadian forces, (a) in the current year; (b) in 1961?
2.	If so, what quantity was bought for each year?
3.	Were public tenders invited, and what were the specifications as to quality?
4.	If so, on what dates and through what publicity media?
5.	If not by publicity media, by what means were possible sellers contacted?
6.	What are the names and addresses of those who submitted tenders and the respective amounts of their tenders?
7.	From whom was the syrup purchased in each case?
8.	Was it produced by farmers, producers' co-operatives or by manufacturers?
9.	In each case, is the syrup in question pure or is it manufactured from other ingredients than maple sap?
10.	If this maple syrup is not made from maple sap, what proportion of maple sap does it contain?


Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (Minister of Defence Production):: As the answer to this question is lengthy, I wonder if the house would have any objection to it being printed in Hansard?


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the answer be taken as read and printed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
IEditor's note: The answer referred to above is as follows:']
1.	(a) Yes. (b) Yes.
2.	1959-60, 13,705 gallons avoirdupois. 196061, 16,623 gallons avoirdupois.
3.	(a) Yes. (b)	1959-60-1960-61-CGSB
specification 32-GP-207 dated December 31, 1949. 1959-60-Canada light grade. 1960-61- Canada medium grade.
4.	1959-60, April 24, 1959, Invitation to tender. 1960-61, May 16, 1960, Invitation to tender.
5.	(See para 4).
6.
1959-60 Requirement
Firm and total amount.
United Maple Products Ltd., Granby, P.Q., $500.00 (partial quotation).

Starred Questions
Sirop Pur de Beauce Enrg., St. Victor, Co. Beauce, P.Q., $71,824.90 (partial quotation).
Confederated Foods of Canada Ltd., Delta, Ontario, $67,757.00 (partial quotation).
Peter Devine Limited, 41 York Street, Ottawa, Ontario, $2,082.52 (partial quotation).
1960-61 Requirement
Peter Devine Limited, 41 York Street, Ottawa, Ontario, $684.00 (partial quotation).
The J. W. Windsor Co. Ltd., 407 McGill St., Montreal, P.Q., $23,456.02 (partial quotation).
Sutton Maple Products Ltd., Sutton, P.Q., $24,012.60 (partial quotation).
Confederated Foods of Canada Ltd., Delta, Ontario, $101,429.35.
Les Producteurs de Sucre D'Erable de Quebec, 59 Begin St., Levis, P.Q., $65,537.42, (partial quotation).
Sirop Pur de Beauce Enrg., St. Victor, Co. Beauce, P.Q., $34,758.41 (partial quotation).
7.	1959-60, Confederated Foods of Canada Ltd., United Maple Products Limited. 1960-61, Les Producteurs de Sucre D'Erable de Quebec. Confederated Foods of Canada Ltd. Sutton Maple Products Limited.
8.	Co-operatives and producers.
9.	Pure.
10.	(See para 9).



REPORT ON SALMON INDUSTRY

Mr. Winch: 1.	Within the past five years did Doctor Sol Sinclair make a study into certain, aspects of the salmon fishing industry?
2.	If so, was that report filed with the Department of Fisheries?
3.	Will a copy be filed with the House of Commons?


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):: The answer to the first part of the question is yes. The answer to the second part of the question is yes.
The answer to the third part is that it is not the usual practice to file reports of this kind with the House of Commons. The report is now being studied by the Department of Fisheries.


Mr. Winch:: For five years?



FLEET MANUFACTURING CO.  DEFENCE CONTRACTS

Miss LaMarsh: 1.	Has the Minister of Defence Production received any representations from Mr. Keith Lougheed regarding defence contracts for the Fleet Manufacturing Company at Fort Erie?
2.	If so, on what date and1 in what form?


Donat Raymond: In reply to part 1 of this question, the answer is yes.
In reply to part 2, there was a telephone conversation on October 13, and on October 18 a personal conversation jointly with Mr. 
Lougheed, mayor of Fort Erie, members of the chamber of commerce and the town council and the president of the Fleet Manufacturing Company.



TRAVELLING EXPENSES, C.N.R. PRESIDENT

Mr. Speakman: 1.	What were the travelling expenses of the president of the Canadian National Railways, including hotel accommodation, meals and other incidentals, during each of the years, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959 and to date in 1960?
2.	What is the annual cost of maintenance of the private railway car reserved for the use of the president of the Canadian National Railways, including wages of staff?


Léon Balcer: As to the first part of the question, the management of Canadian National Railways advise that under the Canadian National Railways Act the direction and control of the affairs of the company are vested in its board of directors. The properly certified out of pocket expenses incurred by the president while engaged in and upon the affairs of the company are examined and passed upon each month by the board of directors, and are subject to regular audit procedures. This is normal and accepted business practice, and the management consider the travelling expenses of officers to be a matter concerning the internal affairs of the company.
With respect to the second part of the question, the management state that the president makes use of a business car of travel purposes across the system. Normal expenses incurred in the maintenance of business cars are part of the general expenses of maintenance of equipment and as such are not specifically segregated. The wage rate of the car attendants is on the basis of the schedules for that type of position.



UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE


Mr. Tardif: What was the amount paid by the federal government to each of the provinces under the Unemployment Assistance Act from January 1 to September 30, in each of the years, 1957 1958, 1959 and 1960?


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minisler of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, as there is a considerable amount of statistical information to gather in relation to this question, I wonder if the hon. member would allow it to stand.
Question stands.



PORTUGAL COVE-BELL ISLAND FERRY, NFLD.   LANDING FACILITIES

Mr. Tucker: 1.	Has an interdepartmental committee been set up to study temporary landing facilities for the ferry between Portugal Cove and Bell island, Newfoundland?

2.	If so, has the committee made any recommendations and to what effect?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, the answer to parts 1 and 2 is that no interdepartmental committee as such has been established, but the chairman of the Canadian Maritime Commission and engineers of the Department of Public Works are investigating the terminal situation at Bell island and Portugal Cove with a view to determining what requirements are necessary to facilitate and safeguard the operation of the new ferry. A report has not yet been submitted.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


RAND REPORT


Mr. Marlin (Essex East): 1.	Has the government received representations from any groups or organizations connected with the coal industry, objecting to the recommendations of the Rand report?
2.	If so, from what groups have representations been received?
3.	What specific objections have been raised?
4.	What has been the nature of the government's reply to any such representations?



N.H.A.-LOANS ON OLDER HOUSES

[Stage Direction]
Question No. 8
Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: 1.	Has the government received representations from any group, urging that the National Housing Act be amended to provide insured loans for the purchase and renovation of older dwellings on a basis similar to that provided for new residential construction?
2.	If so, from whom have such representations been received?
3.	Has the government taken any steps to provide for such loans?



N.H.A.-DISCRIMINATION CLAUSE

Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl): 1.	Has the government received representations from any group or organization, requesting the federal government to include a ''no discrimination" clause in all National Housing Act transactions and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation loans, to prevent discrimination against persons because of race, colour or creed?
2.	If so, from whom have such representations been received?
3.	Has the government taken any steps to guard against such discrimination?
4.	If so, what steps have been taken?



CABINET MINISTERS' TRAVELLING EXPENSES

Mr. Pugh: What were the travelling expenses of all cabinet ministers during each of the years 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958 and 1959?



GERMAN REFUGEES IN CANADA

Mr. Cardin: 1. How many German refugees persecuted by the national socialist regime of Germany, because of their nationality, now reside in Canada?
Orders for Returns
2. What specific steps has the government taken to inform these refugees that, owing to an agreement recently reached between the federal republic of Germany and the United Nations high commissioner for refugees, indemnification can now be obtained for injury to body or health and that medical attention for those who still need it is available?



TRIPS ABROAD ON GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

Mr. Cardin: 1.	What are the names of the ministers of the crown, members of parliament, members of the public service and other Canadian citizens who have been sent outside Canada on government business since June 6, 1957?
2.	What was the purpose of each absence?
3.	What was the cost of these absences in (a) travelling expenses; (b) living expenses; (c) hospitality?



KREBIOZEN

Mr. Argue: 1.	Is the drug krebiozen, which is used in the treatment of cancer, manufactured in Canada?
2.	Is this drug imported from the United States?
3.	If so, does it carry duty, and at what rate?
4.	Has the duty been changed at any time since January 1, 1960, and if so, what were the changes made?



CABINET MEMBERS' TRAVELLING EXPENSES

Mr. Howard: 1.	Did any members of the cabinet incur any travelling expenses between September 1, 1960 and October 31, 1960, inclusive?
2. If so, for each member of cabinet, what was, for each day, the amount of expenses incurred, the point or place travelled to, and the purpose of the visit?



INDIAN DAY SCHOOLS


Mr. Howard: For each Indian day school in the Indian agencies of Babine, Burns Lake, Terrace, Bella Coola, Skeena River and Queen Charlotte, what was, as of November 1, 1960 (a) the number of students in each grade; (b) the number of teachers; (c) the number of pupils per teacher; (d) the number of classrooms in use by designation as to use?



SARNIA INDIAN RESERVE


Mr. Murphy: What payments have been made in respect of (a) principal; (b) interest, under the sale agreement with Dimensional Investments Limited covering a portion of the Sarnia Indian reserve?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 11-Mr. Chevrier:
For a copy of the bilateral air agreement signed by Canada and the United States on June 4, 1949 together with the exchange of notes dated November, 1955, and the exchange of notes dated April, 1959, and any other letters, documents or correspondence relating to air rights and privileges between the two countries.
[Stage Direction]
Motions for Papers
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs I would ask that this motion be allowed to stand.
Motion stands.
NAVAL DIRECTIVE NS 7370-1 SY (a)
Motion No. 12-Mr. Robichaud:
For a copy of directive, NS 7370-1 SY (A), signed in Ottawa by the naval secretary, on the 27th May, 1960, regarding purchase of provisions for ships visiting or refitting in Lunenburg, Nova Scotia.


Mr. Egan Chambers (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, this is correspondence between officials within the department and as such has always been considered privileged. However, the hon. member has seen the directive in question and I understand is prepared to withdraw the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreeable that this
motion be withdrawn?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



KITWANGA INDIAN RESERVE-B.C. HIGHWAY 16

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 15-Mr. Howard:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, and other documents exchanged between the federal government or any agency or department thereof and any other government or person, since January 1, 1958, dealing with that part of the British Columbia government's highway 16 that runs through the Kitwanga Indian reserve.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 16-Mr. Howard:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents, except those containing opinions from counsel on legal questions which were submitted to them by the Department of Justice, exchanged between the federal government, or any agency or department thereof and any other person, company or organization, since January 1, 1957, relating to the prosecution of Canadian Breweries Limited, for alleged infractions of the Combines Investigation Act.
Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, may I say that we are prepared to accept this motion subject to certain reservations which have been previously developed on the basis of recognized principles and which can be broadly stated as follows. First, correspondence of a private and confidential nature should not be produced since the public interest demands that confidentiality be preserved in order that there may always be the opportunity to obtain a full and frank expression of opinion which would be lost if subsequent disclosure in public were to be

the rule; second, correspondence and documents having to do with the preparation and actual conduct of the case should not be produced.
Subject to those reservations, however, we are prepared to accept the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations expressed by the minister is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 18-Mr. McWilliam:
For a copy of all payrolls In connection with the removal of the government wharf at Maitland, Hants county, Nova Scotia?
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he has any comment to make on a reported statement by the chairman of the foreign relations committee of the United States Senate to the effect that he, Senator Fulbright, does not think that the Americans need to yield exclusive control over nuclear warheads and that Canada would be satisfied with an agreement on prior consultation before any firings take place.
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, I have seen that report and I simply say that the position of Canada is completely unchanged. We have made it perfectly clear that when and if nuclear weapons are required we shall not accept them unless we have joint control, and there has been no suggestion at any time of any watering down or diminution of that stand.



OTTAWA CONFERENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce with regard to the trade conference now taking place. Can the minister inform the house whether the trade commissioners will have discussions with members and officials of the Canadian wheat board to see how exports of Canadian grain can be facilitated and increased?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, immediately after I opened the trade conference this morning the next speaker on the agenda was the Minister of Agriculture, who dealt very extensively with the sale of agricultural products throughout the world and the need for selling our wheat in all foreign countries. I feel sure the hon. member will be glad to hear that.


Hazen Robert Argue: Can I take it from the minister's answer that the trade commissioners will be used in the future in the same way as they have been in the past to promote the sale of Canadian grain, even though that particular commodity is outside the minister's jurisdiction?


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there will be no diminution in the efforts of Canadian trade commissioners to sell our wheat and all other Canadian agricultural products.


Mr. G. J. Mcllrailh (Oiiawa West):: should like to ask a supplementary question arising out of the minister's answer to the first question put to him. Am I to understand from his answer and the reference in it to other agricultural products that the trade commissioner service is now taking instruction or direction from the Minister of Agriculture in the sale of agricultural products?


George Harris Hees: No, Mr. Speaker. In this government we all work together as colleagues and co-operate with each other. I and my department have spent considerable time with the Minister of Agriculture and the officials of his department in working out a very harmonious arrangement whereby we give them every possible assistance in selling all their products in every part of the world.



RESTRICTIONS ON STRATEGIC EXPORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres gave me notice of a supplementary question with reference to restrictions on strategic exports to communist countries. His question was:
Do these restrictions apply equally to our export to Cuba?
The answer is no.



ELECTRONIC TUBES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. A. Lambert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, November 24, the hon. member for Lincoln directed a question to the Minister of National Revenue
Inquiries of the Ministry concerning some potential Japanese imports of radio tubes. The answer is that electronic tubes of Japanese origin transshipped at San Francisco, Seattle, or any other port in the United States would, on importation into Canada, be valued for customs duty purposes at the fair market value in effect at that place at the time of transshipment to Canada. This would make the value for duty higher than the Japanese price by at least the amount of the United States custom duty, even if such duty were not paid.
If the selling price to the importer in Canada were the Japanese price, special duty would be applicable. There would be no difficulty in dealing with such transshipments since receiving type electronic tubes must, on importation, be marked to show the country of manufacture.


Mr. John Smith (Lincoln):: I should like to thank the minister for getting this information. Certainly a procedure is provided whereby Japanese imports can get around their own, self-imposed legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


John Smith: Will the minister make further inquiry into this back-door entry of electronic tubes and other products into Canada and take steps to control or stop it if possible?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: As far as is known this is only a suggested procedure. If there are occasions upon which this subterfuge is used and they are drawn to the attention of the Department of National Revenue, certainly the department will look into them.



HUMAN RIGHTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. M. T. McDonald (Hamilton South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Public Works whether the government has taken any further steps to guard against discrimination by reason of race, colour or creed in National Housing Act transactions.


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for Hamilton South for giving me notice of this question. From time to time concern has been expressed on both sides of the house on the subject of racial discrimination. It is regrettable that in a few isolated cases discriminatory practices have been reported. This is a matter of deep concern to the government. With a view to preventing discrimination on racial or religious grounds from being practised in the

Inquiries of the Ministry provision of housing accommodation under the National Housing Act, the government has amended the national housing loan regulations.
These amendments provide for a review by an independent arbitrator of any allegations of discrimination. The amendments further provide that any merchant builder or rental entrepreneur found guilty of practising discrimination on the grounds of race, colour, religion or origin will be debarred from obtaining further loans under the National Housing Act for a period of three years. To ensure that this penalty is apparent to all National Housing Act borrowers, a clause to this effect will be inserted in every National Housing Act mortgage.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: I should like to ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister of Public Works kindly advise the house when these amendments to the regulations were made, and does the minister not recall that he was urged to do this last session and promised to do so?


Mr. Starr:: You are always too far behind.


David James Walker: I recall many things, Mr. Speaker. The regulations were completed a short time ago.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavista-Twillin-gate):: I should like to ask the Minister of Public Works whether a circular has been issued by the department to all public works contractors in Canada warning them to refrain from participation in political activity, both federally and provincially.


David James Walker: May I ask the hon. member if he would put his question on the order paper.



MAIL CONTRACTORS-ALLEGED PROHIBITION AGAINST POLITICAL ACTIVITY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the rather frosty answer I got from the Postmaster General to my starred question respecting the denial of human rights and fundamental freedoms, I should like to ask the Postmaster General this question. Does he not consider it to be a denial of human rights and fundamental freedoms of the mail contractors-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Kootenay West may have an opportunity to pursue that matter when there is a debate but

he recognizes, as I think all hon. members do, that we cannot debate matters at this time. If opinions are inserted into questions and thus give rise to an exchange of this kind it will only mean that questions will have to be scrutinized more closely before they go on the order paper.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: May I ask a supplementary question that is strictly in order. Is the Postmaster General aware that directives have been issued by his department that deny the right to rural mail carriers employed only two hours a day to take part in federal or provincial elections in their spare time?


William McLean Hamilton: I am aware of no such thing, Mr. Speaker.



TRANSPORTATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. J. W. Fane (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask permission to bring to your attention and to the attention of the house the tragedy that occurred yesterday as the result of a collision between a train and school bus at the town of Lamont in my constituency. Sixteen school children lost their lives and 25 more were injured, ten of whom are in critical condition in Lamont hospital. I am sure the house would wish me to convey its sympathy to the bereaved families. At this time I should also like to ask the Minister of Transport whether an investigation of this tragedy is being made by his department.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, this most tragic accident is under investigation at the present time by an official of the board of transport commissioners. I am also in a position to say that a full public inquiry will be held at Edmonton in due course.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister on behalf of constituents of mine who are supporters of all parties in this house, the members of the Columbia conservation fraternity. Has the Prime Minister received telegrams and other communications from the city of Revelstoke, chambers of commerce and other organizations in the

Kootenays urging deferment of final consideration of any treaty with respect to development of the Columbia until these organizations have had an opportunity to present a brief to him in person in support of their contention that some aspects of the proposed treaty will have serious and prejudicial effects upon the economy of Canada and British Columbia, and will destroy vital Canadian and British Columbia equities? Is the Prime Minister prepared to accede to this request on the part of a large group of organizations and other people in the Kootenays?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I will have to check in my office for the purpose of ascertaining what representations, if any, have been made. Having done that, I will give an answer to the hon. member.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. J. Broome (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue which his parliamentary secretary may take as notice in the minister's absence. Will the minister inform the house in detail as to the possible effect on the retail prices of United Kingdom and European cars of the proposed modification in the discounts allowed in calculating fair value for duty? Will the minister consider withholding any action on this proposed change until the report of the royal commission investigating the automotive industry is received?



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lucien Cardin (Richelieu-Vercheres):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. Is it the intention of the Prime Minister to accept a suggestion reportedly made on behalf of the state department in Washington, to the effect that the United States would be willing to explore any concrete proposals the Prime Minister might have for reducing tension between the communist countries and the western powers?


John George Diefenbaker: There has been no communication to the government from the state department in Washington.
Guarantee of Loans to Small Businesses IMMIGRATION


PERMISSION FOR WEST INDIES STUDENTS TO TRAVEL IN CANADA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Yesterday the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate asked me a question with reference to the movement of West Indies students studying in Canadian universities, and I find that the reply which I gave to him was correct. I might add, though, that after having read the newspaper article which he sent to me I made further inquiries and found that the person who was allegedly quoted in the newspaper had since denied making any such remarks. Other West Indies students at the universities have been reported in subsequent newspaper articles as saying that they did not agree with him.
For that reason I should like to reiterate that there are no special rules applicable to West Indies students which are not applicable to all students from all countries. There is no curtailment of their movements while in Canada when they are travelling for social reasons.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to thank the minister.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether he is now in a position to reply to the question I asked yesterday, which he took as notice, referring to a telegram wherein a charge was made that the Canadian National was spitefully and unnecessarily laying off men.


Léon Balcer: I have not received a reply as yet, but as soon as I have it I will communicate it to the house.


Hazen Robert Argue: After the debate.


FINANCE
Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance) moved: the third reading of Bill No. C-40, respecting loans to proprietors of small business enterprises for the improvement and modernization of equipment and premises.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I have just one or two comments to make before the bill receives third reading. We have

Guarantee of Loans to Small Businesses been extremely interested in listening to the debate at the resolution and other stages of this bill and look back upon some of those statements made by government backbenchers wherein they expressed ideas and suggestions as to provisions which should have been contained in the bill in order to make it more effective. Like those government backbenchers, we regret that those measures were not contained therein.
We find that there are three or four basic failures in the bill itself which perhaps could be reiterated at this time. One is that it is unnecessarily restrictive in that it confines the type of loans to those for only certain purposes, namely modernization of store facilities or small business facilities, and does not extend the provisions to a person who may wish to enter a business or to purchase a business himself. That is a failure in connection with the bill.
We feel there is also a failure in connection with the bill in that it gives the banks a monopoly position with regard to loans under the bill and does not, as does other legislation, take into account the fact that there are other lending institutions such as credit unions, caisses populaires and other co-operative societies which could very well function under the provisions of the bill.
It is restrictive in another way. Here I disagree with the opinion given to the minister by the Department of Justice, but that is a matter of opinion. It is restrictive in that it does not allow co-operative associations to have the privilege of functioning under the bill by becoming borrowers if they desire to borrow. The open-end interest rate is in effect a sell-out of the interests of the people concerned.


Mr. Macdonnell:: Does the hon. member really want to ask us to consider his legal opinion as against the legal opinion of the Department of Justice? That is what he seems to be saying. I hope he is not saying that.


Frank Howard: Certainly not. In reply may I say that mine is not a legal opinion, for one thing. I just say that my opinion is contrary to what the Department of Justice said. I iisagree with them. I have known the department to be fallible previously. A case in point is the recent prosecution of Canadian Breweries Limited, wherein the Department of Justice thought they had an iron-clad case but when they arrived before the court they found they were incorrect. All I am saying is that the Department of Justice have been wrong previously and that I disagree with their interpretation in this instance.
In any event, if they are correct, surely it is not unreasonable to ask that those specific words be included in the bill in order to


guarantee that co-operative associations may have the opportunity of borrowing under the act if they so desire rather than not mention them at all and merely rely upon the opinion of the minister which he said he received from the Department of Justice.
The other failure is with respect to the interest rate, which I say is unnecessarily open-ended and should not be that way. Some of these things we felt could be put in an amendment at this stage. Others would perhaps be ruled out of order. Because they are not included in the amendment which I intend to move, it does not mean that they are any less important. All it means is that we feel they would be ruled out of order if we put them in.
I refer to a provision to allow a person to enter a business or to purchase a new business under the act. This would be out of order, and consequently we do not want to put it in the amendment. However, we feel that the house should be given the opportunity of expressing its views with respect to these highly important matters, pinpointing them particularly. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters):
That this bill be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole for the purpose of clarifying clause 2 with respect to credit unions, caisses populaires, and co-operative associations.


Mr. Speaker:: Does anyone wish to say anything about this amendment before I put it before the house?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief on this matter because this subject was discussed in committee of the whole until I thought it was threadbare.
The purpose of the amendment is to deny third reading to this important bill which many small businesses in Canada are awaiting with hope, and refer the bill back to committee of the whole for the alleged purpose of clarifying clause 2 of the bill. Clause 2 of the bill is perfectly clear in its terms. It requires no clarification. The amendment proposed by the hon. member would certainly not have the effect of clarifying clause 2 of the bill.
Mr. Speaker, regardless of the difference which the hon. member proposes to set up in preferring his opinion against that of the Department of Justice, it is amply clear that co-operative associations are included within the benefits of the bill. That is perfectly clear. The reasons credit unions and caisses populaires are not suitable for inclusion as lending institutions under this bill have been discussed at very great length and are upon the record. These are provincial institutions

in no way subject to federal jurisdiction. For the reasons that were discussed in committee of the whole it is necessary that the lending institutions under this bill should be such as are subject to federal jurisdiction and under federal supervision.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: If I may
take just one moment of the time of the house, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say this in so far as this amendment is concerned. It was those of us who sit in the official opposition who raised the subject matter for the first time.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is not right.


Lionel Chevrier: It is right.


Hazen Robert Argue: You moved the motion for the first time.


Lionel Chevrier: It was the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Bourget) who raised it, and both he and I moved amendments in connection with the matter. For that reason, and so there may be no misunderstanding about the matter, we propose to support this amendment.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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

(Translation):


Mr. Jean-Paul Racine (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few brief remarks following an answer given to me last night by the minister to the effect that rural telephone companies were not included among the service businesses mentioned in this bill.
I know that many of those companies will be disappointed at not being included under the terms of this bill. We know that the Canadian association of independent telephone companies represents some 650 independent telephone companies in Quebec and Ontario which serve over 280,000 subscribers. In a brief dated March 23, 1959, they have already asked the minister to be included under the Industrial Development Bank Act. Such action has not yet been taken, I believe. It would have been a good opportunity for the minister to appreciate the problems with which those companies are faced. Being small companies, they cannot make use of public funds for their development.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) has already answered a brief of those companies, I think, telling them that their requests would be considered at this session. I hope this will be done in the near future.
It was my intention to introduce an amendment, but I shall not do so on account of the very important legislation to be considered this afternoon. I hope the minister will give further consideration to this matter and, if he deems it advisable, suggest an amendment in the other place.
(Text):


MAINTENANCE OF RAILWAY OPERATION ACT
Michael Starr: the second reading of Bill No. C-45, to provide for the continuation of the operation of railways.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the house will share the general regret that all efforts to achieve an agreement by compromise toward the settlement of the present railway dispute have been unsuccessful. I can say in all sincerity that every possible effort was put forward by the government to bring the parties to agreement. The measure which is now before the house represents in the opinion of the government the only possible action that can be taken at this time to avert a calamity of nation-wide proportions. That is what a cessation of railway operations at this time would mean, Mr. Speaker.
At this point I would refer to the words of the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, then prime minister, when dealing with a similar situation in this house in 1950. Mr. St. Laurent spoke against the background of a railway strike which had been in progress for nine days. That strike he described as a national emergency. If continued over a lengthy period of time, he told the house then, it would bring the economy of the nation to a complete standstill. This legislation, Mr. Speaker, is being brought forward in order to prevent a repetition of a similar national emergency.
In 1950 the emergency was allowed to happen. In 1960, it will not be allowed to happen. The first effect of a strike, at this time would be to throw out of work some 170,000 railway employees. This figure would be doubled by the resulting unemployment of those who depend upon the railways as a means of economic subsistence. In 1950, as an example, in addition to the railway workers unemployed as a result of the strike some 70,000 workers in other industries were laid off and in 1960 the figure would be substantially higher. The direct and indirect consequences which would flow from a strike at this time would be disastrous in their magnitude.
I am sure that this fact is apparent to anyone familiar with the importance of railway operations in our economic life. The action we are recommending to parliament today
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act has the effect of simply postponing a decision on these matters until May 15. The reasons favouring this parliamentary postponement are paramount in their importance. There is, first of all, the primary consideration of the public interest. This must rank first and foremost in the thinking of any responsible administration.
There is also the interest of the railway employees themselves. As a matter of interest in this connection it is worthy of note that if the recommendations of the conciliation board were implemented at the present time they would mean a gain of about $2.80 per week in the pay envelope of the average non-operating employee over the period from now, December 1 to May 15. This would mean about $61 per employee. Assuming an average earning of $70 per week, the whole gain would be completely wiped out in a strike of only one week's duration. The total loss to all workers involved would, of course, deal a substantial blow to the economy.
There is also the consideration that in view of certain events now in progress and which will not have reached their culmination until sometime in March, the goal of a reasonable and equitable settlement at this time was rendered most difficult of achievement. I refer, of course, to the recommendations of the royal commission on transportation which we expect to have at that time. As the Prime Minister mentioned, the commission will bring down its recommendations dealing with the freight rate structure, at which time the freeze on freight rates will be lifted. It is not too much to expect that negotiations following this action would take place in a more favourable atmosphere than that which prevails at the present time.
In this connection the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) spoke as follows on Monday, as recorded at page 240 of Hansard for November 28, 1960:
I said that any acceptance of this request for a postponement was made on the basis that we did not intend to give a subsidy from the people of Canada, for in doing so we would simply be placing on the people of Canada as a whole a responsibility which at this time did not rest upon the people as a whole. I said that when the freeze was lifted on the increase of freight rates, which was imposed at about the time of the setting up of the royal commission, the union and the companies would be in a position to bargain again and. I repeat, without prejudice to the right of the union, on any request to go back to January 1, 1960.
That statement by the Prime Minister is clear and self-explanatory. It emphasizes, for one thing, that this government is not taking sides in this dispute. This government holds no brief for either side. The only brief which this, or any responsible government can hold is a brief for the public interest. The Prime
346	HOUSE OF
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act Minister has already emphasized that no interference is contemplated with the rights of either party. What is, in fact, contemplated in this legislation is the maintenance of the status quo until such time as negotiations can be resumed with a more favourable chance of success as a result of unfreezing the freight rate structure. The strongest possible guarantees are provided that this shall be without prejudice to the rights of either side, as this is spelled out in the bill.
Now, Mr. Speaker, with your permission I should like to briefly review some of the events leading up to the introduction of this bill. On November 5, 1959 the associated nonoperating unions served notice, signed by Mr. Frank Hall, chairman of the negotiating committee, on the railway companies of the desire to revise and supplement the existing agreements which were to expire on December 31, 1959. The unions demanded a 7 per cent increase plus 12J cents per hour effective January 1, 1960; the provisions of existing agreements relating to pay for statutory holidays be extended to apply to extra gang employees covered by brotherhood of maintenance of way agreement No. 13; 15 working days with pay holidays after 10 years' service and 20 working days holidays after 20 years' service; duration of agreement January 1, 1960 to December 31, 1961.
As a result of discussions between the railways and the unions the proposal applying to extra gang employees was withdrawn by the union. On February 2, 1960 Mr. Frank Hall wrote to the Minister of Labour asking for the appointment of a conciliation board and at the same time advised the minister that the railways, during their discussions with the unions, presented the following proposal: For services performed in connection with the payroll deduction of union dues and to pay for administrative services connected therewith the company shall retain each month the sum of 10 cents per deduction. On January 22, 1960 the unions advised the companies that direct negotiations were terminated.
On January 27, 1960 the companies wrote to the unions, acknowledging their letter of January 22 and stating their position. The companies forwarded a copy of their letter to the unions to the Minister of Labour on January 29. On February 8, 1960, the parties were advised that the minister was giving consideration to the request for the appointment of a conciliation board by the unions.
On February 18, 1960 the minister established a conciliation board. On February 24, 1960 the railways wrote to the Prime Minister stating their position in so far as this dispute was concerned. On March 31, 1960 the Minister of Labour appointed Hon.


Mr. Justice J. V. Milvain of Calgary, Alberta, as chairman and third member of the conciliation board. Messrs. Philip F. Vineberg and David Lewis, who had been appointed members of the board on recommendation of the employers and employees respectively, had failed to recommend the name of a person willing and ready to act as chairman. On April 22, 1960 the board met with the parties in Montreal and hearings continued from May 9 to July 8 where the parties presented their cases to the board.
On August 10, 1960 the majority report of the conciliation board signed by its chairman and Mr. David Lewis, the employees' nominee, was submitted to the minister. On August 22, 1960 the minority report signed by Mr. Vineberg, the employers' nominee, was submitted to the minister. As a matter of interest to the members of the house I will put on record the recommendations of these reports.
The majority report recommended a two-year contract effective January 1, 1960 with a 2 cent per hour increase effective as of that date; a further 5 cents per hour increase effective September 1, 1960 and an additional increase of 4 per cent of the wages obtaining immediately prior to January 1, 1960 to be effective May 1, 1961, a total of approximately 14 cents per hour increase. The majority report also recommended four weeks or 20 working days vacation after 25 years of service and recommended that the railways' request for a charge of 10 cents per checkoff be refused. The minority report recommended no increase and concurred with the majority conclusion reached on the other two issues of vacation pay and checkoff.
On September 1, 1960 Mr. Frank Hall, chairman of the negotiating committee, advised the minister that the majority recommendations were acceptable to the unions. This information was forwarded to the companies. On September 14, 1960, the companies advised the minister that the recommendations contained in the majority were not acceptable to the railways. This information was forwarded to the unions. On September 20, 1960 the unions advised the minister that in light of the railways' failure to accept the recommendations of the conciliation board they would submit the matter to the employees for an expression of their desire, or otherwise, to withdraw their service. On November 15, 1960 Mr. Frank Hall announced that the union membership had overwhelmingly voted for a withdrawal from service and announced that the employees would withdraw from service effective 8 a.m., December 3, 1960.

Since the announcement of the strike vote a number of meetings have taken place between members of the government- between my colleagues and myself and the railways and the unions and between the Prime Minister along with my colleagues- and both parties to the dispute. The Prime Minister has reported to the house on these discussions. In his final report yesterday the Prime Minister said that the discussions had ended in stalemate and that every avenue of approach to bring about a settlement had failed. That situation left it up to the government and to this parliament.
A suggestion was made by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier), I believe, that the government should simply have implemented the recommendations of the majority report of the conciliation board. This procedure, of course, would have amounted to nothing more or less than compulsory arbitration.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Michael Starr: It would have amounted to nothing more or less than compulsory arbitration, and' I repeat that statement.


Lionel Chevrier: Your repeating it will not strengthen the argument.


Michael Starr: 
Lester Bowles Pearson: You have done that already.


Michael Starr: In choosing the present course the government is acting in a manner calculated to preserve the interests of both parties consistent with a due regard for the interests of all Canadians.
There was, of course, another course the government could have followed. The government could have let the strike go on. This was the course followed in 1950.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was not.


Michael Starr: This course, above all, did not commend itself to the present government. The disastrous nature of the consequences of such action have already been pointed out. In 1950, when the strike had been in progress for nine days, Right Hon. Mr. St. Laurent asked parliament to deal with a "national emergency." We are taking action now so that another national emergency shall not happen. In 1950 Right Hon. Mr. St. Laurent went on to say:
-even in times of profound international tranquillity-
A disruption of railway service would be the occasion of a: very serious disturbance.
And that:
a prolonged tie-up would wreck this country.
Mr. Speaker, this is what we are moving to avoid; this is what we must not have. The present bill will prevent such a situation while at the same time leaving both parties in full freedom to resume negotiations without prejudice. This is by far the most reasonable and workable method of dealing with a difficult and potentially disastrous situation.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in rising to oppose this bill-because that is what we on this side propose to do, with full regard to the 

seriousness of the situation and to the matters dealt with in the bill-I must first express my surprise that in a matter of this importance, which justifies in that regard all the words that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) has used about its importance, this bill was not introduced-as has been the case in similar situations in the past-by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) himself; and I say that without any disrespect, of course, to the Minister of Labour. However, no doubt the Prime Minister will have occasion during this debate to express the views of the head of the government, and naturally we expect to receive those views in the House of Commons.
In view of certain apparent misunderstandings that may have been created I would like at the beginning to say a word about the procedure that has been followed and the attitude of the opposition to that procedure. When the Prime Minister mentioned yesterday the desirability of facilitating and expediting in any reasonable way consideration of this legislation, we on this side responded at once and indicated that we would do our best to meet the wishes-the reasonable wishes-of the government in that regard. Indeed, I said this, and I quote from page 311 of Hansard:
We-
That is, the official opposition:
-will do everything that we can on this side to facilitate and expedite consideration of this legislation.
Again, without saying anything further, and of course without committing ourselves in any way on the stand to be taken in regard to the legislation, we will do our best to facilitate parliamentary discussion of it.
The stand that we are taking on this legislation was indicated in the statement made by my hon. friend the member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) on Monday last. Like the Minister of Labour, we on this side regret, of course, that negotiations between the railways and the unions have broken down and that the intervention of the government-an intervention which in our view was too late-was unsuccessful.
Indeed, on that point, Mr. Speaker, on November 15, when it became clear that there was a break-down between the unions and the railways, the Minister of Labour said, as reported in the press, in answer to a question that he planned no immediate action in the dispute. In his statement the minister gave us his version of the events leading up to this situation, the effect of this legislation on that situation, and indeed to support the government case he went back to the situation in 1950.

I do not propose to deal with that situation, but in view of the fact that the minister has mentioned it we on this side will put on the record during this debate exactly what happened in 1950, and, indeed, the difference between the action taken then and the action that is now proposed. This action is being taken in consequence of a break-down in negotiations. As the Prime Minister said, as reported on page 292 of Hansard of November 29:
I may say that if as a result, it becomes clearly apparent-
As it is, unfortunately.
-that there is no hope of agreement, the government will then take it that the possibility of a continuance of the collective bargaining process must regretfully be regarded as ended.
The collective bargaining process, according to the Prime Minister, has ended, so the government has introduced legislation to deal with the situation. In introducing this legislation the Minister of Labour had a good deal to say about the inadvisability of compulsory action by the government or compulsory implementation of a majority report of the conciliation board. What we are faced with in this legislation is compulsory action, compulsory implementation of a minority report. But before we on this side talk about the immediate past and, because the minister brought it up, the past of a couple of years ago, particularly in respect of a labour dispute in British Columbia which I can assure the hon. gentleman we have not forgotten, I want to say at once what the Liberal party would have done had we had the responsibility of dealing with this particular situation in the particular circumstances with which we are confronted today.
In the first place, I think we would have been more successful than the government has been in settling this dispute through discussion and agreement.


An hon. Member:: Remember 1950.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I remember 1950 very well. I point out, because Mr. St. Laurent has been mentioned more than once in connection with that dispute by the Minister of Labour, that the press reported in these words on what Mr. St. Laurent did at that time.


An hon. Member:: The Winnipeg Free Press'!


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, this was the Montreal Star carrying a Canadian Press report which should commend itself to the hon. gentleman:
Adroit handling of the strike situation by Prime Minister St. Laurent won words of praise from different labour leaders.
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act
The handling of this situation by the present government does not seem to have won any words of praise so far from labour leaders.


An hon. Member:: What date is that?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The date is August 31, 1950 and this account is from the Montreal Star. The report goes on:
"We appreciate the action fully; everyone should be satisfied" said Percy Bengough, president of the Trades and Labour Congress. Pat Conroy, secretary treasurer of the C.C.L., voiced the opinion that the Prime Minister had been "extremely fair all through the piece".
If, however, we had not been successful in our intervention in settling this dispute by negotiation or agreement, what would we have done in that situation after negotiations between the two parties had broken down? I shall be happy to put on the record what we would have done. First, we would have introduced legislation which would have made this strike unnecessary, because we agree with the Minister of Labour that it is impossible to contemplate the unhappy consequences of a railway strike at this time. Second, we would have based that legislation on the report of the conciliation board, because we do not believe that parliament should compel men to continue to work for wages which are lower than the conciliation board found to be fair and reasonable after a full and careful inquiry under the independent chairmanship of a superior court judge appointed by the government for this purpose. Third, we would not provide for any subsidy at this time, because we believe the railways to be in a position to pay the increased wages for the period until the royal commission on transportation makes its report-the Prime Minister has said that that will be by the end of March-and until the government is then in a position to review the whole problem of railway finances in the light of the actions which have been taken. That is how the Liberal opposition would have prevented this strike and in doing so have given justice to the employees without, in our view, prejudicing the position of the railways.
Another difference between our proposal and the government's bill is that under this bill, until May 15 next at the very earliest, the government is forcing the employees of the railways to do without an increase in wages which the conciliation board found they were entitled to receive and in respect of which provision had been made for the increase to be met in stages. The Minister of Labour has put the details on the record. We, on the other hand, would have required the railways to pay the wages which have
350	HOUSE OF
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act been found by the board to be fair and reasonable and we would have taken that factor into account in the general review of the problem of railway finances shortly to be made.
The Prime Minister has already told the house that the total cost of the recommended increases to both railways until June, 1961-I think he said the beginning of June-would be $13,033,000. Since the Canadian Pacific Railway's share of the cost would represent about 40 per cent of this sum, that railway company would have had to pay a little more than $5 million. Instead of taking this course, the government preferred a course which deprives employees at this time and for an indefinite period of the amount to which the government's own conciliation board said they were entitled. Our position, then, is that the C.P.R. would pay $5 million more in wages as recommended by the board. That would be taken into account-and I repeat this because it is important-when the general review is made, as it must be made, in 1961 when the royal commission reports, and we are told the report will be made in March.
This bill prevents carrying collective bargaining-about which we have heard so much and on the principle of which I take it everyone in this house is in agreement-to its logical conclusion after a final break-down of negotiations. We must not forget that the strike is a part of our industrial labour relations system. Although it is not a part which we would like to see brought into effect it is a part of collective bargaining to be used only when everything else breaks down. We hope the time will come when it will not be required at all.
The bill prevents that so we must ask ourselves why. Presumably the answer, as I believe was brought out by the Minister of Labour in his statement, is because the railways are deemed an essential service the interruption of which would have undesirable national consequences and they are not considered to be an ordinary business operation as I think has been pretty well established over the years. In passing, therefore, from collective bargaining, as we are doing in this bill, to the prevention of a strike by legislation by imposing a compulsory settlement- though perhaps it will be only a temporary one, it is a compulsory settlement-the government is asking parliament to take the responsibility for the scale of wages and the conditions of work of these workers. Whatever the justification may be in doing this, and we will no doubt be arguing that during the course of this discussion, the government in so doing is depriving certain Canadian 

citizens of the right to strike, a right which is conferred on them by the ordinary laws of this land.
The Liberal position is that where the scales of pay and the conditions of work are determined by parliament and by government the standard should be the scales of pay and conditions of work of employees in comparable circumstances. That is precisely the standard, as I understand it, that has been used by this particular conciliation board after a long, careful and, as I believe, objective and expert investigation into this matter, and in applying that standard as they did they were following what I think may be called a jurisprudence laid down by Mr. Justice Kellock in an earlier dispute and used consistently over the last ten years.
During that time, however, it has always been possible to settle periodic differences in this field by negotiation and conciliation. To ignore the report of a conciliation board and to introduce compulsory legislation of the kind before us is to weaken and discredit the whole conciliation procedure. And yet, once this procedure has been discredited in the circumstances which are facing us now, there will be no standard left to determine what are fair and reasonable wages either by direct negotiation or by voluntary conciliation. This will certainly result in less encouragement and less support for responsible and reasonable union leadership. It may even be an encouragement for irresponsible union leadership which would certainly not be in the public interest.
In these circumstances I have just mentioned, if that attitude were adopted all labour disputes would become merely a test of strength leading inexorably either to economic chaos or compulsion by government. We believe that these dangerous alternatives- and they would be dangerous to our economic and indeed to our political democracy-can be avoided by upholding conciliation procedures and by imposing in this case a settlement on the basis of the report of the conciliation board where we have every reason to believe a responsible recommendation was made.
Therefore, so there will be no misunderstanding or mistake about the attitude of the Liberal opposition, I wish to move, seconded by the hon. member for Laurier the following amendment:
This house declines to proceed with the second reading of a bill the provisions of which establish a compulsory and discriminatory wage freeze for railway employees contrary to the recommendation for a wage increase made by a board of conciliation appointed under the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Unless some hon. member wishes to raise any point about the proposed

amendment, I shall now place it before the house. It is moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) seconded by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) as amendment to the motion for second reading that:
This house declines to proceed with the second reading of a bill the provisions of which establish a compulsory and discriminatory wage freeze for railway employees contrary to the recommendation for a wage increase made by a board of conciliation appointed under the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act.
Is the house ready for the question?


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, the C.C.F. and New Party caucus opposes the principle of the bill. In substance, we view the railway industry as a regulated one-indeed, a severely regulated one-regulated by the federal jurisdiction. We feel that this puts an onus on the government and the nation which have supported such regulation. This onus demands recognition that an industry regulated as a consequence of national policy must have a conception of a standard-a fair standard- for determining wage levels.
We have heard and hear so much about the normal process of industrial relations. How can we have a normal process-that is a free fight to a decision between labour and management-when severe limits are placed on the income of the industry set by law and regulation? Further, the genesis of such limitations relates to a national view that railways have a unique public responsibility. After all, the agreement of us all that a strike would be harmful to the nation is another way of saying that this is a unique industry, a vital one, which cannot stand isolated from the national interest.
This being so, a careful scrutiny of and respect for the conciliation process in industrial relations is imperative. This legislation, we feel, destroys the conciliation process; the long months of careful preparation by both sides, the documentation, the hearings, the argument, and at the end, nullity.
It is a commonplace that no one wants a strike. It seems to me that only a person with a shadowy death impulse could wish one here. The only ones I have heard advocate a strike seem to be the Toronto Globe and Mail, the Canadian trucking association and Mr. Crump, the president of the Canadian Pacific Railway. I have not heard Mr. Crump advocate it but I have been told on good authority that he was quite prepared for a three or four months' strike.
We should all realize that our view that we do not want a strike does not mean that there has been anything phony or unconstitutional or wrong about the strike that has 90205-6-23
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act been called. We in this party are convinced that the workers involved do not like the idea of a strike and that they supported a strike in the vote that was taken not with enthusiasm but grimly to convince management and the third interested party, the nation, that they feel fiercely that their case must be considered, and their case, of course, now is the Milvain report. They think it is a just report and represents the minimum that they should accept. We agree.
I have been very close to railroading and railroaders since my childhood. My father was a grievance man on the Canadian National Railways and most of my male relatives are railroaders. There are four divisional points in my constituency, 700 miles of main line track and about 500 miles of branch line track. I cannot escape taking a very close interest in the railway situation. I have talked with very many railroaders and most of them have expressed concern, particularly the people on our own government railroad, about the state of the railways and the morale of the workers. To me the strike vote and the whole situation we are faced with today is to quite an extent the result of the revolutionary changes that are taking place on the railways and the feeling of fear and insecurity that has gripped so many of the employees.
If you want a few illustrations of that fear go to the divisional points. Go to a place like Redditt where the tracks are being ripped up or a place like Nakina where only a few weeks ago there was on the horizon the movement right out of town of 50 families. We know that a lot of dislocation has to be accepted and the railroaders are willing to accept it but they want preparation. They want information; they want security; they want decent treatment; they want understanding; and they are not getting these things at the present time.
For that reason I should like to plead with all hon. members, regardless of how they are going to vote on the bill, to have sympathy and understanding for the railway workers. They are not a group of highly paid malcontents. 1 know this about them, that their morale is low, that insecurity is very rife among them and that they do not really know where they are going in terms of their jobs and their future. Despite this insecurity these people have been willing to vote for a strike. There is nothing phony about the vote at all. I am convinced that it is genuine. I know that in any group in the country such as the railroaders there will be objectors but I am convinced that there was overwhelming support for a strike. These people feel that they merit completely the recommendation that has been accepted by their leaders.
352	HOUSE OF
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act
This being the case, we have to go along with their argument. This does not mean that we feel that the railways are vicious employers or mean employers or dirty employers but it does mean that we have had the conciliation process and a majority report has come forth which did not represent what the unions had asked for originally. As a matter of fact, the leaders of the unions have had to deal with a certain amount of insurrection. I know that in my area I have talked to many railroaders who were fed up with their union leaders for accepting the majority report because they felt that it fell short of the standard that they should have.
If the majority report were implemented there would be no question of the railway workers having a bonanza. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) has pointed out just how minor the increases really are, especially over the short term period. Yet we are to have this long delay. When the minister was reading figures to support his argument I thought it was so obvious that they supported the other argument, that this was a fairly easy sum to meet, that the concessions were not large, and I wondered why he went to these lengths. I am not doubting his sincerity when I say that.
The recommendations of the Milvain report have a relationship to a standard and this is what we have to have in an industry that is so closely regulated. When income is limited by regulations you have to have a standard of some kind or toss out the regulations and we have had no indication that the regulations are going to be tossed out.
I should like to point out that the whole government case and premise is based upon what is going to come from the royal commission on transportation, that is, that it is going to open up the case if no agreement is reached in the interim period. With regard to the interim period, I wonder whether the government has considered the possibilities of the kind of guerrilla warfare that could develop in this period. It might develop on the union side where there is bitterness or it might develop on the company side. Certainly there is a great deal of bitterness in communities in my riding where the C.N.R. has carried out lay-offs already which the railway workers feel went far beyond any preparation for a strike.
We have the point made by the minister in connection with one of the clauses in the bill that it is going to guarantee that the people laid off will be taken back. Immediately the question arises, how are you ever going to police such a provision? I cannot see how it can possibly be effective.
So far as the royal commission on transportation is concerned, I had the pleasure


of being in the audience at the preliminary hearing and I remember the discussion that took place when Mr. McTague was setting up the terms of reference. It was decided there and then to stay away from labour and labour problems and that they were not really germane to what the commission was going to do. I do know that the last commission on transportation back in 1950 did not steer away from labour problems and the whole wage question and yet the present commission did.
I should like to refer to the terms of reference of the commission as found in the report of the hearing held in Ottawa on December 4, 1959. It is set out therein that certain gentlemen are-
-appointed commissioners under part I of the Inquiries Act to inquire into and1 report upon the problems relating to railway transportation in Canada and the causes thereof, and to recommend solutions thereto, and in particular, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, the commission shall consider and report upon:
(a)	inequities in the freight rate structure'-
Then I come to what is perhaps the key requirement of the transportation commission which is most bothersome in relation to what the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) feels the commission may come up with.
(b)	the obligations and limitations imposed upon railways by law for reasons of public policy, and what can and should be done to ensure a more equitable distribution of any burden which may be found to result therefrom.
I would take it that this particular clause opens up the whole field' of transportation in Canada when it refers to the obligations and limitations imposed upon the railways by law for reasons of public policy. It seems to me that one of the limitations of public policy in this whole railway issue as to wages is that you have not got the usual industrial situation, that there is this limitation, and yet the members of the commission, I suppose acting upon instructions that we do not know about, decided not to go into the railway wage question. In other words, it is just incidental and yet the Prime Minister seems to be sure that out of the report of the royal commission will come recommendations and an analysis that will enable the government to handle the wage part of the question.
It seems to me that when the commission got under way and decided not to go into the wage question and the whole idea of a standard for railway workers in wage terms it turned its back upon that particular clause, and it seems to me that it left the Prime Minister's argument out on a limb to a considerable degree.
It is apparent that the government feels that it has acted' in perfect sincerity. I think some members of the government feel that

they have an issue in this particular bill and that the moves they have made are going to make them more popular in the country. I do not say that with regard to those who have introduced the legislation but I think that is the view in mind. I know that we can be expected to take one side in this particular issue, the side of the workers, and by doing so perhaps it can be said that we are taking risks because of the fact that the majority of the people in the country, according to the way some people interpret the situation, do not feel that this would have been a justified strike or was even a justified strike vote.
Well, in so far as these views may be concerned, the argument put forward by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) that this, in effect, is the government coming down on the side of railway management in this particular matter holds true here. It seems to me that for the government to declare that it cannot consider a subsidy, that it has no alternative but to do this to intercept a national emergency, is being quite unrealistic in a fair sense. What it is doing is putting this government in behind Mr. Crump and Mr. Gordon.
I have been lectured, as most members of the railway committee of this house have been, by Mr. Gordon during his appearances before that committee. During the debate in 1950 the leader of the C.C.F. party at that time, Mr. Coldwell, suggested that Mr. Gordon had outlived his usefulness in the Canadian National. Mr. Gordon has survived for another decade. I do not know how much longer he will last, but I do know that the railway workers, not only on the Canadian National but on the Canadian Pacific as well, are convinced that Mr. Gordon is really leading the fight against them in a definite attempt to shake down their agreements and put them in a much less favourable position than they are now. I hope the Prime Minister and the government as a whole are considering the position of Mr. Gordon in relation to this railway. It certainly seems to be a point that he had lost the confidence of the people, according to Mr. Coldwell in 1950 and I think there must have been some substance to that argument. It would seem to me the case is much more so today.
The point brought up by the Leader of the Opposition with regard to the encouragement this gives to any irresponsible leadership might be personalized a bit by giving an example. I would cite the international teamsters union which has been carrying on what might be called raids upon certain railway employees in unions that are involved in this particular dispute. Now, you must face the facts of life within union organizations.
90205-6-23J
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act I know union leaders have to do so all the time. I refer to the fact that the membership wants you to produce something for them, to do something for them to indicate that you have been successful in presenting their claims according to what they feel is right. Here you have a situation where for six or seven months the irresponsible elements among these people were trying to move in on some of these unions-I will not go into whether or not they have the right-but they are certainly going to have a happy hunting ground because of the fact that the union leaders who are involved in this dispute have been compromised to this extent. Their whole case, their whole position, has been wiped out.
We hear a lot of nasty things about union leaders these days, but I do not feel that any group of responsible men, such as these men have proved themselves to be in their attitude toward this whole business, should be put in that invidious position where other union leaders in competition with them can come in and say, look at the way the government has pushed your men around.
The government has decided there shall be no subsidy. This means that if you accept the idea of a standard, the durable goods standard or even the old manufacturing industry standard weighted as to sex or even the Woods-Gordon standard that the railways brought in, these workers merit an increase now and have since the start of the agreement period. I have noticed during the two years we have questioned Mr. Gordon on this point during his appearances before the committee that he indicated he felt there had to be some kind of standard. We have countless examples that the durable goods standard seems to be the most sensible one.
Even according to the statistics that have been given to us, even by the Woods-Gordon standard of the railways, the workers at this time would have been entitled to an increase of 16 cents an hour. It seems to me the government is suggesting that standards are out for railway workers, that the standard of the future will be something that must be developed after the royal commission has reported. It seems to me that the problem of a standard is always with us, and this is why I think the main government move should have been to come out for a standard.
I think the railway workers would have been prepared to accept a reasonable one.
Everyone who has looked into the question, whether it has been Judge Kellock or Eric Taylor or the other people who have examined the question over the years, has tended to come down to a standard that relates to the durable goods industry. If you accept what seems to be more and more the argument
354	HOUSE OF
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act of Mr. Crump that the employees should accept a wage standard or have their wage level related to the vagaries of the financial position of the railways, as that goes up or down, it seems to me you break wide open the whole industry which has had a reputation for being an excellent one and one of the basic ones in Canada. It does not seem to me we can accept the position Mr. Crump wants, that is that wages on the railways be related directly to the upcurrents and downcurrents of the Canadian economy.
The Leader of the Opposition made the point that he feels the Canadian Pacific Railway is in a position to afford the pay increases. The leader of the C.C.F. made that point the other day in the house. We feel that the Prime Minister, in his refusal to consider a subsidy, in his refusal to consider a direction that these payments be delayed at least until May 15, is being much less than fair to the workers.
The whole question of a subsidy and the position that the Minister of Labour took is something ironical. This parliament, ever since I arrived here three years ago, has done nothing but hand out subsidies in various directions. I believe I have voted for every one of them. I am not going to pinpoint any of them, but anyone from the mari-times, anyone from the west or any other part of Canada is aware of the fact that there are subsidies which are in the public interest. Here are railway employees whose situation is affected by the freezing of freight rates in the public interest. What is so terrible, what is so awful about a subsidy in this particular case? It certainly seems to me that right within the railway structure at the present time we have a whole host of subsidies.
As the Prime Minister is aware, we have the bridge subsidy in my area which subsidizes the railways for the high cost of the particular bridge section around lake Superior. There was a subsidy put through during the last session and the session before as a result of the last crisis in order to keep the lid on freight rate increases granted by the board of transport commissioners. These are all subsidies. They are subsidies that are going to the Canadian Pacific Railway. Where is the great precedent? Does not the bridge subsidy go to the Canadian Pacific Railway?
This argument in particular, historically, it seems to me is a nonsensical one. Ever since the Canadian Pacific Railway got under way it has been subsidized. There was a subsidy of $45 million and 25 million acres of the best western land granted to the Canadian Pacific on its inception. It has been getting subsidies ever since. It got a magnificent one early in the depression when


it last got into trouble. To argue that if you subsidize now it sets a precedent in connection with private enterprise is to miss the point that the Canadian Pacific, in that sense, is not a private enterprise.
I was interested in the submissions put forward by the unions before the board of conciliation. They quoted from a number of authorities who have looked closely into the question, and one of them is Mr. Justice Sloan who, in 1954, arbitrated the fringe benefit dispute. He gave much attention, according to this submission, to that question. He was quoted in this way:
The railways, including the Canadian Pacific, are thus not a truly private enterprise in any realistic sense. They have, and will continue to play, a most vital part in the development of our national economy. They are integrated with every form of our national life. The freight rate structure, as I have said, is in a state of distortion.
And he goes on. Here is a man who looked into the matter closely. He has a wide and sound reputation. His recommendations were considered and, I understand, implemented. He makes the point that the railways, including the Canadian Pacific Railway, are not truly private enterprises in any realistic sense. The employees of the Canadian Pacific Railway and of the Canadian National Railways are not employees in any truly private enterprise sense, whatever you may say about the standard process of industrial relations.
These are employees who are severely limited by regulations and by the carrying out of a national policy. We can only conclude that they are going to pay the subsidy; the workers are going to pay the subsidy at least for another six months. Because of that point we feel it is our responsibility as the parliament and the government of Canada that over the years has developed this national policy, not the responsibility of the workers, to subsidize an indecisive government.
Right Hon, J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister): On this occasion, Mr. Speaker, I intend merely to deal with one or more generalities that have arisen. In particular I intend to contend, although for the moment not raising the point finally, that the amendment proposed by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) is in effect not an amendment but is simply an enlarged negative.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


John George Diefenbaker: If the hon. gentleman will just allow me-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have risen on a point of order.

Maintenance of Railway Operation Act


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member is raising a point of order, I will hear him.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The point of order I am raising is that Your Honour, by a long pause before putting the motion, gave ample opportunity to every hon. member of the house to raise a point of order and that any opportunity for raising a point of order has now passed since the motion is before the house.


Mr. Speaker:: I did not understand the Prime Minister to contend that the amendment should not be debated.


John George Diefenbaker: No.


Lionel Chevrier: Oh, yes.


Mr. Speaker:: Since the point has been raised, perhaps it would be well if I clarified the basis on which I accepted the amendment. I accepted it as being in substitution for the motion before the house, namely that the bill be read a second time, and as though it contained the words "that all the words after 'that' be struck out and the following added." In fact, that formal part of the motion is not there. In proceeding to debate this amendment as it stands, in order to have it make complete sense I think the house should accept that interpretation with the addition of the formal words which are usually there or that it should be moved again in the corrected form so that we have an amendment which makes complete sense.


John George Diefenbaker: I did not want to go that far and say that it was an amendment that did not make sense, although I am indebted to Your Honour in that regard. However, I am certainly not going to engage in argument on that score. I can understand why the hon. gentleman raises the point of order because, as the matter stands, there is no amendment. However, if the architects of the so-called amendment proceed to restore it and make it read sensibly, then no doubt it can be an amendment. However, in its present form it is meaningless as an amendment.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I rise on a point of order. The Prime Minister has said that there is no amendment, Mr. Speaker. I think we are entitled to a ruling from you as to whether there is or is not an amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it that the house concurs in the reading of the amendment with these preliminary words included so that it is before the house properly. Otherwise I would have to reverse the proceeding. In other words, the amendment as moved by the Leader of the Opposition, seconded by the hon. member for Laurier would be:
That all the words after "that" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
Then there would follow the substantial form of amendment that is there. Is that procedure acceptable to the house?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I had intended raising this point but you recognized the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) before I had the opportunity to do so. Before this precedent is established of accepting as an amendment what is merely a negative, I think it should be carefully examined.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is a little bit late to ask that now.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I do not consider it to be too late to draw the matter to your attention, Mr. Speaker. I think the hon. member for Port Arthur was out of order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I rise on a point of order.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am speaking on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is speaking on a point of order and I will hear the hon. member.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think the hon. member for Port Arthur was out of order because he was discussing-


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


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not know how a question of privilege could arise at this point but if the hon. member wishes to introduce a question of privilege I will hear him.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My question of privilege is this. Having listened to what the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) said I contend that there can certainly be no raising of the kind of question that is now being raised by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Churchill). The amendment is now before the house. The Minister of Veterans Affairs had his opportunity. He did not rise in time and he cannot now take advantage of a situation in order to do that which, under our procedures, is denied him.


Mr. Speaker:: There is some point in what the hon. member says, except that I myself, after putting the amendment before the house, recognized the deficiency in the preliminary wording and I either wanted the amendment to be withdrawn and be reintroduced in proper form or to have the house accept the additional words which would be desirable in order to give it the effect which it is intended to have. I rather understood, when the Prime Minister proceeded, that the
356	HOUSE OF
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act house would accept that position. The point which the Minister of Veterans Affairs makes, namely the point of order that the substance of the amendment rather than the form is in effect a negative or an expanded negative and therefore not in order, I would think would be too late. If he objects to the amendment as it stands I shall declare it out of order completely, without argument on the other point and allow it to be moved again. I would think that would be a fair course. But as to the argument that it is an expanded negative, the opportunity having been available to make that argument at the time when the amendment was placed before the house, I would think objection should have been taken at that time. The minister has the alternative. I am waiting for the instructions of the house as to whether to accept the amendment in this way or to ask that it be withdrawn.


John George Diefenbaker: We will always act in a way that will bail out the opposition, and we will agree to that procedure.


Mr. Speaker:: Then the Prime Minister has the floor.


John George Diefenbaker: It just shows that finally an amendment can be achieved provided there is between the government and opposition that spirit of co-operation which we are most happy to give on this occasion.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And which we gave 24 hours ago.


John George Diefenbaker: If the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) can maintain his silence, I would appreciate his doing so. These sotto voce interruptions that are heard by the reporting staff and which I find difficult to follow seem to be part of a propensity in the exercise of which he might restrain himself.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, it is very rarely that I rise on a question of personal privilege in this house, but the Prime Minister has made what I think is a rather unpleasant reflection upon my conduct as a member of this house. I trust that the Prime Minister made those remarks in the same tone of levity in which I am accepting them.


John George Diefenbaker: I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I used the most pleasant manner of admonition that I could possibly command.
I want to begin first by referring particularly to the remarks of the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher), who dealt with this question in a manner that indicated he had given considerable study to the problem and realized all of the difficulties and anomalies.


He pointed out that the unions with whom we have been meeting in the last few days are responsible unions. I can say immediately that there can be no denial in any way of his views in that regard. I want to emphasize that throughout the entire negotiations at which I was present, there was on the part of Mr. Hall-who conducted the negotiations entirely by himself on behalf of the representatives for whom he was acting as chairman-a manner that is entirely in keeping with the best traditions of labour negotiation and discussion.
I realize that there are strong feelings expressed by men employed on the railways regarding conditions under which they are operating and have operated for many years. The hon. member for Port Arthur spoke of his close connection with railwaymen. I, too, have, through the years had the most close and intimate relationship with many union and labour men in the transportation field. Indeed, the relationship has been such that of all the friendships I treasure, none have meant more to me than those I have formed both personally and professionally throughout the years with these men.
One of the major objections that I have heard raised through the years has been the fact that turn-around benefits and comforts have not been properly provided for the operating unions, that pensions were broken or interfered with in so far as their term was concerned during the 1930's, and that many of those who have been pensioned off from the railways-and there are today many such railway employees-find themselves in a position where, because of the breaks that took place during those years, they are being, in their opinion-and with justification- unfairly dealt with.
I have on many occasions in this house dealt with these situations, and this year I intend to ask the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, when set up, to undertake an investigation of one of the major grounds of objection on the part of railwaymen, that of the break in pensions. I will ask for this matter to receive the fullest investigation by the committee when set up, to the end that, where injustice exists, changes may be recommended by the committee in that particular, as well as in those turn-around comforts and benefits for which railwaymen have asked for so many years. Where there are injustices, I want to see an opportunity given to the men themselves to appear before a parliamentary committee, to the end that in the presentation of the wrongs which they allege parliament will become fully conversant with those wrongs and unfairnesses and will be in a position

to act on the basis of any recommendations that may be made by the committee set up in that regard.
I have listened with a great deal of interest to the analysis that was made of the course taken by this government, a course which-as the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) said during his remarks-was one that no government would want to take unless, in the opinion of the government, it was the right and proper course to take.
I am going to review, without going into particulars, some of the things that have happened, not traversing the ground so ably covered by the Minister of Labour, but simply to bring into perspective the events as they have taken place.
A conciliation board was set up. The Leader of the Opposition indicates that he is today strongly of the belief that whenever there is a majority opinion of a conciliation board It should be accepted and implemented. I do not have the opportunity of asking him what his attitude was recently when that strike of employees engaged in unloading ships took place in Vancouver. When that strike took place it was carried on for a long period of time, to the detriment of western agriculture and the Canadian economy in general. It was carried on against the majority recommendation of a conciliation board. You cannot have it both ways.
From what the Leader of the Opposition said, I take it that in his opinion when a conciliation board makes a recommendation in the majority it should be accepted and implemented. I do not think his views in that regard represent the thinking of labour leaders in Canada or, if they do, then indeed we would have brought in compulsory implementation of majority recommendations of boards of conciliation, and all the difficulties would be over in so far as labour disputes are concerned. The majority of the conciliation board would recommend and, having recommended, there would be acceptance by both labour and management of that majority report. If that is acceptable, and if the Leader of the Opposition in holding that view is speaking for the party he represents, then indeed he is accepting for his party the principle of compulsory arbitration in all disputes between labour and management.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I merely wish to point out to the Prime Minister that he has completely misrepresented what I said, as he will find out if he reads Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member differs with what has been said, the proper place to make a correction is at the end of the speech.
Maintenance of Railway Operation Act


John George Diefenbaker: I simply took down the words of the hon. gentleman.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have them here.


John George Diefenbaker: Hansard will show
whether or not the interpretation I placed on the hon. member's words is a proper and appropriate one having regard to what he said.
I realize the difficult position in which the hon. gentleman finds himself now. He dare not accept the only possible interpretation of his words, which I now apply to the words he used. However, he apparently does not want to take that position now for very obvious reasons.
A board of conciliation is simply a body set up with one representative of labour, one representative of the employer and a third representative chosen by the government of Canada. This particular board of conciliation met for a considerable period of time and made certain recommendations. Those recommendations were accepted by the unions but were unacceptable to the employers. The Minister of Labour has pointed out the number of occasions in recent years-I think it is almost fifty-fifty-in which the recommendations of the conciliation board have not been accepted.
I have endeavoured throughout, as have the Minister of Labour and the other ministers involved, to maintain a complete neutrality so that neither side can say we are endeavouring to bring about any agreement between the parties by coercion. We met with them. There was an alternative suggestion yesterday to which reference will be made later on-an alternative suggestion by Mr. Gordon along the lines of the suggestion made by the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher)-that there must be standards in so far as transportation companies are concerned. I will deal with that on another occasion. There was a report; there were recommendations. But it was not a government board of conciliation. It was a board of conciliation set up under law to which the third party, the chairman, was appointed by the government as is always the case on the request of the parties. I wish to make that very clear.
The railways refused to accept the recommendations. All through the years this government, and members of this government when in opposition, have pointed out the injustice which was being imposed on various parts of Canada by the inequity resulting from discriminatory rates. It is true enough that there have been subsidies, as the hon. member for Port Arthur said. There are subsidies in the maritime freight rates legislation; there are subsidies covering that area of

Maintenance of Railway Operation Act western Ontario which the hon. member for Port Arthur represents, the gap between the populated areas of eastern and western Canada. There is also the indirect subsidy, claimed as such, of the Crowsnest Pass rates which, in so far as this government is concerned, must not be changed, for the legislation of 1897 was a Magna Carta, as it were, for the western provinces before they became provinces.
The railway companies said: "We cannot pay this". We have no right to say to a railway company or to any other employer: "You have got to do this".


Paul Joseph James Martin: Why not?


John George Diefenbaker: "Why not?" asks the hon. gentleman. In other words, it is the position of the opposition that there shall be compulsory arbitration against the employer, but they will not accept compulsory arbitration against the employee. That is the hypocritical position in which the opposition now finds itself placed as a result of the argument made today. They say you can force the companies to do this under the majority recommendation of a board of conciliation, but you cannot enforce majority recommendations upon the representatives of labour. You cannot have it both ways except when you are making an argument based on political expediency.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the Prime Minister permit a question? Is not that precisely what the government did two years ago in British Columbia?


John George Diefenbaker: I see I must have got some results, because we are beginning to get interruptions and that is always the very best indication of the way things are going. The Leader of the Opposition said he did not want me to speak outside this house until I had spoken within the house. He knows I am speaking tonight on television-


Lester Bowles Pearson: How should I know?


John George Diefenbaker: -in the regular course of events. As a result of these interventions many of the things I should like to say here may have to be said then.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Wholly improper, if you do.


Hazen Robert Argue: Closure by T.V.


John George Diefenbaker: However, I do not wish to be denied the opportunity of saying the same things in this house, and I intend to summarize them. First, we have said that there shall be no increase in freight rates until the report of the royal commission on transportation has been considered. Whatever the merits or demerits-and I am not entering into that-the railway companies say they cannot afford it. They say: You must either let us

raise our freight rates or adopt some other course, and other suggestions have been that we should give a subsidy. We have taken the stand that we shall not subsidize in this connection because to do so would simply mean that any time there is a dispute across this country with a national company involved which affected the public interest so greatly that a stoppage would paralyse Canada it would be known in advance that we would give a subsidy in order to prevent the Canadian economy being paralysed. We do not intend to follow that course.
It was interesting to hear the Leader of the Opposition say that what we were doing amounted to compulsory arbitration, that is, postponing the date by which the final decision is made. The conciliation procedure can proceed until May 15. There is nothing to stop that at all. When I mentioned that there had been an end of the conciliation procedure I had reference to an end of conciliation procedure before the strike would commence. It was made perfectly clear to us that there was no possibility of any resiliency or give and take on the part of either the employees or the employers. Under the bill as it stands provision is made for a continuation and if at any time there is any agreement in this regard that agreement will immediately put an end to the legislation in effect provided parliament passes this bill.
Let me find a definition of compulsory arbitration. Speaking in this house on August 29, 1950, as reported at page 14 of Hansard of that date, the then prime minister, Mr. St. Laurent, said:
It is directed by the legislation that the companies and the employees shall themselves attempt to iron out these difficulties and to bridge the gap between the demands and the offers. If they are not able to do so themselves within a period of fifteen days it is provided that they select an arbitrator to do it and that they agree to be bound by the decisions of that arbitrator. If they cannot agree on the arrangements affecting all other matters outstanding between them, if they cannot agree upon someone to be selected to decide between them, the governor in council will appoint an arbitrator and he will, with the greatest possible dispatch, examine, determine and decide these questions, and his decisions will constitute the basis upon which the services will continue for the period for which the decisions are made.
At that point the present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green) interjected:


Mr. Green:: That means compulsory arbitration.
Mr. St. Laurent replied:
That does not mean compulsory arbitration in the usual sense. It is not compulsory arbitration to prevent a strike.
That was the answer of the then prime minister of Canada. In other words the explanation he gave and the definition of compulsory arbitration in 1950 was that when

Maintenance of Railway Operation Act
parliament had to act in the national interest it was not compulsory arbitration in any sense of the word. We have provided that the processes of conciliation shall continue. The right to strike is not taken away. The right to strike is suspended at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: The right to strike is suspended until the royal commission makes its report. The hon. member for Port Arthur said that the royal commission is not dealing with wages and he is absolutely correct. The royal commission is dealing with one of the major problems facing Canada, namely the equalization of opportunity all across the nation. Freight rates, discriminatory in effect, deny that equal opportunity in the maritimes in part, in western Canada and elsewhere in northern Ontario. All through the years that has been a problem. The reason we froze freight rate increases was that if we allowed them while the royal commission was sitting horizontal increases would simply magnify and increase the degree of discrimination.
Freight rates have increased by 157 per cent since the war. It has been alleged that the discrimination in western Canada was some 15 per cent in 1945 and that rate has been materially increased as a result of horizontal increases in freight rates.
The reason we say we are waiting for the report of the royal commission is this. It will make its report as to the means whereby these discriminatory rates may be avoided. Legislation will then be introduced in order to equalize opportunity across Canada. The freeze will then be taken off and the railway companies may then make an application to the board of transport commissioners to raise the freight rates and to take into consideration the agreements now in existence between the employers and the unions back to January 1, 1960.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister a question. Does the right hon. gentleman realize that applications of the railway associations for increases in freight rates sometimes have taken as long as one year?


John George Diefenbaker: I realize that very well but we are in a position where once the application to the board of transport commissioners is made the board will have before it the evidence taken before the board of conciliation, which evidence the Leader of the Opposition said was so complete. The transport board, without taking the evidence that ordinarily would be taken, will be in a position to know the situation and possibly act accordingly on any application made.


Lionel Chevrier: Would the Prime Minister permit another question. Does the hon. gentleman think the provinces will sit by and not object to applications for increases by the railway associations?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, do you see
the position into which the hon. members of the official opposition have got themselves?


Lionel Chevrier: Does the hon. gentleman see the position into which he has got himself?


John George Diefenbaker: They say, "Give a subsidy".


Lionel Chevrier: We did not say that.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, the Prime Minister has made another statement which is inaccurate.


John George Diefenbaker: Inferentially, as a result of a question asked the other day by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier), I concluded that that was the view of hon. gentlemen opposite then. Did the hon. gentleman not ask the other day whether we were considering a subsidy?


Lionel Chevrier: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, neither the member for Laurier nor anyone else on this side of the house has at any time during the course of this debate, either directly or by way of inference in a question, suggested that there should be a subsidy.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, Hansard will tell the story. My recollection was that the hon. member in question did ask what action was being taken in this regard. If the hon. gentleman says he did not ask a question of that nature I will accept his denial of his having asked such a question.
In no way is labour being denied its rights. There is a postponement because of the action of the government to preserve the equality of all parts of Canada until equalization has been provided for as a result of the recommendations of the royal commission. After the commission has reported1 consideration can be given to any agreement arrived at as between the employers and employees. If there is an agreement to raise wages it shall go back to January 1, 1960. In other words, there is no prejudice to the unions in any way whatever or to the workers. There is simply in the national interest the need of action to preserve and maintain the economy of Canada against the disastrous effects of a strike at this time.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock.

Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, is the house leader in a position to indicate the business for tomorrow?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the rules tomorrow would normally be given over to a consideration of private members' bills but after consultation with parties on the other side of the house we have agreed
that we will continue with government business tomorrow and that would mean the continuation of the debate on the bill now before us. If that is concluded we would go on then with the resolution in the name of the Minister of Labour dealing with technical and vocational training.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.