1964-10-23

Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I crave the indulgence of the house to recognize and do honour to the one hundredth anniversary of Italian settlement in Canada. Tomorrow evening, October 24, in many communities across Canada celebrations will be held to mark the many contributions the Italian people have made to Canada. Indeed, they are the second largest group of people who have emigrated to Canada. Canadians of Italian origin have played a very important part in the development of our country, and as one who has the honour to represent many Italian Canadians I am pleased to recognize this century of their contribution to the economic and social life of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (President of the Privy Council) moved:: That the report of the joint committee of both houses on the library of parliament, concerning a revision in salary rates of clerical classes in the library, presented to this house by Mr. Speaker on Thursday, October 15, 1964, be now concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make the following statement as a result of questions put to me on October 15, 16 and 21 by the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) and the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas).
The prime responsibility of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police was for the safety of Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh. A secondary responsibility would have been to furnish assistance to municipal and provincial police in the event that in the maintenance of law and order those forces required assistance from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
So far as the visit to the city of Quebec is concerned, it should be pointed out that for a considerable period prior to the royal visit threats of demonstrations, civil disturbances and violence had been made publicly from anonymous sources.
Several demonstrations occurred, the first one of any consequence being in front of the provincial legislature while Her Majesty was inside the building. These and other demonstrations in the city of Quebec were dealt with by the Quebec city police. The solicitor general of the province of Quebec has issued a statement on these matters.
During the day a number of persons were arrested by the various forces, of whom eight were arrested by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in rendering assistance to the local authorities.
Le Soleil of Quebec city subsequently published a part of the orders issued to members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who were on duty in Quebec city during the royal visit. Individual copies of these orders were issued to all members of the force on duty, and the copy which came into the possession of Le Soleil was not secured from any official source. It has not been possible to ascertain how this particular copy, out of the many that had to be issued, reached the newspaper; but while the document was confidential and for the information of members of the force, there is nothing in it of a secret nature or of a nature affecting security. In fact it exemplifies the care which was taken to see that members of the force were properly instructed. In the circumstances I do not believe that any investigation beyond the ordinary service inquiry is necessary.
The security arrangements provided by all the police forces which were involved in the royal visit were effective and successful and,

Canadian National Railways in spite of several demonstrations, at no time during the royal visit in any of the provinces that were visited by the Queen was there any attempt to molest Her Majesty, His Royal Highness or any member of the federal or provincial governments.
Neither I nor the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have received any complaints whatsoever regarding the security arrangements or the conduct of or action taken by any member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. On the contrary, the press and the public generally have commended the R.C.M.P. In these circumstances I am sure hon. members will agree that there is no occasion for me to direct an investigation.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Melville, the adjournment of the house under standing order 26 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the pending changes at Sunday midnight, October 25, by the C.N.R. management which will establish run-throughs at the divisional points of Nakina and Wainwright, thus creating a great likelihood of a tie-up of the transcontinental line and tremendous hardship on the communities and railroaders affected.
In making the case for urgency I would point out that as you may have noted, Mr. Speaker, this matter was raised yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition, and several days before by the hon. member for Edmonton West. I have not made it an issue in terms of questions because delegations have come to Ottawa and we have been working through the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Transport on the assumption that this was the channel through which advice and representations should be passed to Mr. Gordon and the management of the C.N.R.
It is obvious that despite our representations and our efforts, Canadian National Railway officials have not seen fit to change their plans or to accept the request for postponement. The change is going to be introduced on Sunday night and, as I have expressed in the motion, there is every likelihood that this will create a situation that can tie up the transcontinental line of the C.N.R., and it may have even further ramifications. I do not

need to point out that such a situation has always been considered, in the Canadian political scene, as one of the most serious things that could happen.
I am making the point in addition, Mr. Speaker, that this move by Canadian National Railways, particularly as it affects Nakina and Wainwright, according to the contention of some of the men in the unions involved is a violation of an agreement entered into in 1926 between the Canadian National and the unions. This gives all the more reason for our feeling that a debate should take place on this matter, in order to bring to the attention of the Canadian National Railway and its president the need for, at the very least, a postponement of this decision for six weeks in view of the protests that may follow.
You will not mind if I point out, Mr. Speaker, that there is a motion for interim supply to follow which undoubtedly will give an opportunity to me and other members who are interested to speak on this problem. However, I want to put it to you that if, as I believe, this matter is of urgent importance, it deserves the significance of having the house accept this motion to give it the effect that I think it needs in order to put over to this crown agency, which has taken this action despite the representations that have been made, that to go ahead would involve consequences which I do not think I over estimate in presenting this motion to the house.


Mr. J. N. Ormiston (Melville):: In seconding the motion moved by the hon. member for Port Arthur, Mr. Speaker, I am activated by the same concern for the railway employees which he indicated in sponsoring this motion. The situation regarding this proposed run-through operation is most controversial, and the railway employees feel that unilateral action has been taken by management to impose this change on the railway employees concerned. The railway employees feel that the urge by the railway companies to economize by instituting the new run-through system should not be acted upon without due consideration for its effect on the employees and their families, and on the economies of the local communities involved. Surely, with new railway legislation pending, there is a logical reason for a reappraisal of this whole program.
What the hon. member for Port Arthur has mentioned with regard to Wainwright and Nakina, which are isolated instances, will be

felt all over Canada and particularly in my own city of Melville, because there will be this change in pattern. It is for this reason, and because of the threatened deterioration of our system, that I urge some consideration be given to this matter.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, while the matter raised by the hon. member is undoubtedly one of considerable importance, particularly in the two areas concerned, the point at issue here as I see it relates to the urgency of debate on this matter, and as to whether the matter is one coming under the administrative responsibility of the government. The purpose of rule 26, I respectfully submit, is to permit the discussion of a matter that is, by its nature, of such urgency that debate is required, taking precedence over all other opportunities in the house for discussing the matter and interrupting the ordinary business of the house for that purpose. It is a very extraordinary remedy and must be limited under the circumstances. In addition it is, of course, quite clear that it must be something related to the administrative responsibilities of the government.
As to the first point, the urgency of debate, 1 would draw Your Honour's attention to the fact that at the conclusion of the business of the house last night the item of business indicated for today was interim supply, when it is possible for an hon. member to raise a grievance against the government in the area of the government's administration. Therefore if the matter is indeed one that comes under the responsibility of the government administratively, it is properly discussable on interim supply which will come in a few minutes, I hope, when we reach orders of the day. Of course if it is not one within the administrative responsibility of the government then it is not something upon which a motion under standing order 26 can be raised.
I would like to direct Your Honour's attention to the first sentence in citation 100 of Beauchesne's fourth edition, which says:
The definite matter of urgent public importance for the discussion of which a member may ask leave to move the adjournment of the house under standing order 26 must involve the administrative responsibility of the government.
I want to point out that while this question of run-throughs may properly be of great concern to all hon. members, it is a matter for the administration of the Canadian National Railways, a statutory corporation created by statute of parliament; that parliament has divested the government of responsibility for the operation of the railway and has seen fit
Canadian National Railways to give that administrative responsibility to the Canadian National Railways by statute.
In support of that proposition I would refer Your Honour to an attempt made on March 13, 1961, by a former minister of transport to move the adjournment of the house under standing order 26. On that occasion the matter had to do with a rather substantial proposed lay-off of men in the Montreal region. When the then hon. member for Laurier presented his motion he was advised by Mr. Speaker as follows, and I quote from page 2903 of Hansard for that date:
I shall be glad to hear the hon. member. I assume that it is a matter of importance, but the urgency that is involved is urgency of debate. I think I should like to hear the hon. member on the question of whether or not this is one of the administrative responsibilities of the ministry. It seems to me that the point may be well taken that it is a decision of the Canadian National Railways on its own authority.
That was very early in the attempt made by the hon. member to move the adjournment, and after considerable discussion, as recorded at page 2907 of Hansard, in giving his ruling Mr. Speaker went on to say:
The problem of their employment is, of course, an important matter to them at least and of significance to the Montreal area. However, parliament has given to the Canadian National Railways the responsibility for administering the railway and included in administration is the responsibility for all labour policy. It is true that parliament can change the legislation but it is not true, as I see it, that the government can intervene to direct Canadian National Railways to do something different.
At a later point he said:
It would be necessary for parliament to amend its Canadian National Railways legislation, if an enforceable decision is to be made or an effective remedy applied.
That may not appeal to all hon. members as a correct summary of the situation, but in addition to that point I think that lay-offs of this kind, whether isolated or part of a pattern, are a continuing problem of employees of the government owned railway which will be coming before the house from time to time when it is sitting, and should be dealt with on the occasions on which it is possible to debate the administrative policies of the Canadian National Railways and the control of these policies by parliament.
I therefore regretfully have to refuse the hon. member leave.
I suggest that the motion proposed today is directly parallel to the type of situation faced in 1961, and that leave should be refused for the reasons stated by the Speaker on that date.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words with respect to the question of urgency of debate. The President of the

Canadian National Railways Privy Council relied heavily on his contention that matters raised under standing order 26 must be matters within the administrative responsibility of the government. May I point out, however, that standing order 26 does not impose any such limitation; it is drawn to make possible discussion of questions of urgent public importance, and nowhere is discussion limited to matters which come under the administrative responsibility of the government. I would point out that only recently this house passed a provisional amendment to standing order 26, which implies that we have reviewed this standing order, and we did not feel it necessary to put in language of the kind the President of the Privy Council has just used.
The hon. gentleman quoted from citation 100 of Beauchesne's fourth edition. Of course he is a lawyer and I am not; therefore we have different views about precedents. But the citation he quoted is taken from a ruling given by Mr. Speaker Bowman in the House of Commons on May 22, 1935. All it amounted to was a ruling of the Speaker on that occasion. Anyone would agree, I think, that we should look at what was placed before Mr. Speaker Bowman on that occasion. In fact it was a motion to adjourn the house to discuss a certain matter, namely the presence of a large number of men from unemployment relief camps in the city of Vancouver. The contention put forward by those who opposed that motion-the contention accepted by Mr. Speaker Bowman-was that this was a matter which came within the responsibility of the provincial and municipal authorities.
I suggest the conclusion that it could not be brought before the house because it did not come within the administrative responsibility of the government was in the nature of an obiter dictum. All that Mr. Speaker said on that date was that this was a matter which came under the jurisdiction of the province of British Columbia or the city of Vancouver. I suggest, therefore, that it is improper to take that sentence out of Mr. Speaker Bowman's ruling and make it part of standing order 26, which it is not.
Standing order 26 provides for the discussion of a matter which is of urgent public importance. There is a limitation that it must be a matter on which debate is urgent. But we in parliament may feel that there are matters beyond those within direct governmental responsibility which should be discussed in this national forum and I submit, therefore, that this particular argument


of the President of the Privy Council falls to the ground.
I submit also that the hon. gentleman's contention that there is a parallel between what was proposed by Mr. Chevrier a few years ago and what is asked for today by my hon. friend from Port Arthur does not stand up. These are totally different matters. The concern then was the employment of a certain group of people. The concern now is a policy, the putting of which into effect could result in tying up the Canadian National main line right across this country. I suggest there is a difference, and that the case established for the urgency of debate is a prima facie case.
The only other point made by the President of the Privy Council is that interim supply has been listed as an item for debate today. My hon. friend from Port Arthur has already referred to this, and in my view he has a valid case in suggesting that this subject is in itself so important that it should be discussed now, not when anything else can intervene or at a time when it could only be sandwiched in among various speeches on other subjects on the motion for interim supply.
For these reasons I think Your Honour should recognize that the subject raised is one which meets the urgency of debate requirement.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, there is just one matter I should like to add. The President of the Privy Council made the point that today we would be taking up interim supply. He also mentioned that the question before us was not one of government responsibility or one which should be discussed in parliament.


George James McIlraith: No, I did not say that.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: The fallacy of this argument is that if we can discuss it on interim supply surely it is a matter which can be discussed in parliament. I suggest that this would bring it under standing order 26. The President of the Privy Council cannot have it both ways.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, there is a point here; I am sure the hon. member does not wish to misrepresent what I said. I did not for one moment suggest that this was a subject matter which could not be raised for debate in parliament. It is a subject matter which can be raised for debate in parliament. My point was that it is not a subject matter that warrants the usage of standing order 26, because standing order 26 can only

be made applicable to those matters which come under the direct administrative responsibility of the government. Therefore it must be debated in other areas of debate available in parliament. So the two points are quite separate. I never for one moment suggested that this was not a subject matter which should be debated in parliament.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Just one word in reply to that. Standing order 26 refers to a definite matter of urgent public importance and I am sure does not limit itself in the way suggested by the President of the Privy Council. If it is a definite matter of urgent public importance, then it can be discussed under standing order 26. If it is not, then his argument about discussing it on interim supply today is not valid.


Mr. Speaker:: Are there any other members who wish to help the Chair? If not, then first of all I should like to thank all hon. members who have contributed to the discussion and have been very helpful.
In my view there is no doubt about the importance here. Anything affecting the lives or the livelihood of seven or eight hundred people is certainly important. There is no doubt about the urgency of the matter, but in the view of Beauchesne in citation 100 (3), urgency means:
"Urgency" within this rule does not apply to the matter itself, but it means "urgency of debate", when the ordinary opportunities provided by the rules of the house do not permit the subject to be brought on early enough and public interest demands that discussion take place immediately
I may say in passing that in my view standing order 26 could apply to any public matter within the powers of the federal parliament.
As to the question of opportunity, Mr. Speaker Black on March 31, as reported at page 50 of the Journals for that day, said:
The reason for allowing such a motion-
-obviously under standing order 26.
-for the adjournment is to afford members an opportunity of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance which they could do in no other way-
So we have these two citations; that "urgency" means urgency of debate, and the decision of Mr. Speaker Black in 1931 concerning giving members an opportunity of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance which they could do in no other way.
In view of the fact that interim supply was announced last night and that there will be almost immediate opportunity to discuss this matter, it does seem to the Chair that
Inquiries of the Ministry there will be every opportunity of discussing this matter within a matter of minutes. Therefore I regret that, in my opinion, consent to adjourn the house under standing order 26 should not be granted at this time.



PROPOSED RUN-THROUGH CHANGES-COMMUNICATIONS WITH COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would now direct a question to the Acting Minister of Transport in connection with the action being taken by the Canadian National Railways. I asked him a question on this matter yesterday, and he said he would communicate with the C.N.R.
I would also ask whether, having regard to the very serious repercussions which could follow such action, which is almost peremptory in its nature, and the effect this action would have on the railway employees who have always given of their best, and on the general economy of the country, would the minister say whether he suggested to the president or to other executives of the C.N.R. that, under all the circumstances, the public interest demands a postponement of this action?


George James McIlraith: Well, Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman's question was rather lengthy, and he made certain statements about the nature of the action proposed to be taken. For example, he used such phrases as "almost peremptory" and so on. In a difference of this importance between the management of the railway, which parliament has charged with the operation thereof, and the employees I would not want to have any remarks of mine interpreted in such a way as to indicate that I was taking one side or other in the difference which exists.
Having said that, I want to go on to say this. I do not know whether it is proper to refer to the Hansard blues, but as quickly as the blues could be obtained yesterday the actual text in connection with this matter was immediately communicated to the railway management. There was no instruction given, or

I have forgotten the word the right hon. gentleman used-


John George Diefenbaker: I think a good word would be "recommendation" from the minister.


George James McIlraith: There was no recommendation on the part of the acting minister as to what action should be taken by the railways,

Inquiries of the Ministry because I do not know whether that would be welcomed; I suspect it might not. In any event, I did not see fit to go beyond the authority granted to the minister under the legislation by taking this action. Perhaps I will have to leave my answer in that way.


John George Diefenbaker: I did not quite get the answer, Mr. Speaker, so I am rather uncertain about this. Was this suggestion met by silence on the part of the officials and the head of the C.N.R., or was it just disregarded? Because somehow the minister's answer seemed to die away.


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the answer died away because I do not know that it is proper for me to discuss the details of the conversations that have taken place. A great many discussions on this subject have gone on in the last week with the responsible officials in the railway company, and I do not think it is appropriate or proper for me to give the details of those conversations, other than to say this. Each representation, whether made in the house or made outside the house, by delegations either from communities or from unions, was communicated very promptly to the railway management, and there has been a great deal of responsible consideration given to this subject.


John George Diefenbaker: Then would the minister say, as to this question which was raised yesterday and which is of such importance, it having been placed before the president of the C.N.R., whether he gave an audible answer?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the president of the C.N.R. is always audible.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether he actually got a negative reply, not to any persuasions he may have attempted but to representations. In other words, has the C.N.R. told him they are not going to postpone it but are going ahead?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I have received no firm negative reply.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether he has consulted with the Minister of Labour and his officials about this particular problem, and whether they have brought forward any suggestions that might be useful in clearing up this situation.


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have consulted with him to a great extent on this


matter. We have had discussions about possible methods of dealing with the problems posed by the railwaymen in relation to the possible effect run-throughs might have.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay Wesi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question. Would the minister inform the house whether he has received an unfirm negative reply from the railway officials?


George James McIlraith: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg Norih):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Have the minister and the Minister of Labour been in touch with the employees concerned to ascertain whether we are going to have a stoppage on the transcontinental line next week?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I do not think any of the employees have taken that position. In respect of all these disputes there is a great deal of talk, rumour and so on. I do not think it is fair for me to guess as to what action will be taken by the railway employees or by management in this difficult situation.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have been in continuing communication with the world food program, and we have received no request from the FAO to provide assistance to the food aid program to India.']
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Prime Minister?
Could he ask members of the other place to stop taking holidays all the time and to sit a little more often, so as to pass the bills being studied by their committees, including the one relating to the establishment of the bank of British Columbia?


Mr. Speaker:: May I point out that this question is out of order.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I am not sure whether I should address this question to him, to the Minister of Agriculture or to the Minister of External Affairs, but in view of the fact he is the minister present I will direct it to him. In view of

the critical food situation in India, is any special action being taken under any of our food aid programs?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the government is well aware of the very critical situation facing India at the present time because of the shortage of food. We have made known to the government of India our willingness to assist in the provision of wheat, in particular, and other foods if they are useful to them. We have had no request for aid.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. Has there been any communication between the government and the administration of the world food program or the FAO?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have been in continuing communication with the world food program, and we have received no request from the FAO to provide assistance to the food aid program to India.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. B. S. Beer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, October 15 the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale directed a question to me, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture, concerning the tariff on live turkeys.
Further to my answer of that day, I am pleased to be able to inform the hon. member that the Minister of Finance has referred the question of the tariff on live turkeys to the tariff board for study and report, with the request that the board deal with this matter as promptly as possible. It is expected that the board will shortly be issuing the notice of hearings on this matter.


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question of the parliamentary secretary. In view of the fact that this study and report will take some time and will not be of any material help to producers at this stage, is any consideration being given to a reimposition of import controls?


Bruce Silas Beer: Mr. Speaker, I have been informed that the minister will be in consultation with the federation of turkey producers on Monday of next week, and any announcement will be made by the minister.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldl-Melfori-Tisdale):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Would it be possible, until the tariff board makes a decision, to put the tariff back on, or fix quotas?


Bruce Silas Beer: Mr. Speaker, that would be a matter of government policy, and I am sure any announcement will be made at the appropriate time.



QUEBEC-REQUEST FOR INCREASED MILK SUBSIDY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture-and it seems one must preface questions at all times with that remark-may I direct a question to the acting minister, or the Minister of Forestry.


Miss LaMarsh:: Look at your front benches.


John George Diefenbaker: They are not ministers with the responsibilities of the ministers of the crown, and that is something which you over there should learn. In view of ministerial absences we are unable to obtain answers. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but it was the intrusion of a completely improper remark that caused me to say that.
I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Forestry, because he is responsible for many of these things. Has l'union catho-lique des cultivateurs been in touch with the government regarding the serious dairy industry situation in Quebec? Is consideration now being given by the government to that union's request that the subsidy of 30 cents a hundred pounds of milk for industrial purposes be raised to 40 cents?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the house that there will be meetings among the Minister of Agriculture, the Quebec government and representatives of l'union catho-lique des cultivateurs in coming weeks for that purpose.



RAPESEED-ANNOUNCEMENT OF INCREASE IN QUOTAS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mitchell William Sharp: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I answered a question asked by the hon. member for Rosthem about quotas on rapeseed. I said the indications were that the quotas could be increased in the near future. Indeed, the quotas were increased almost as soon as the

Inquiries of the Ministry words were out of my mouth, so I thought perhaps I ought to inform the house that the wheat board has just announced an increase, effective October 26, for flaxseed and rape-seed quotas as follows. For flaxseed the quota was increased from 5 to 10 bushels per seeded acre of flaxseed for all stations in western Canada or 400 bushels, whichever is the larger; for rapeseed, in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, the quota was increased from 5 to 10 bushels per seeded acre of rapeseed or 400 bushels, whichever is the larger; for Alberta, the quota was increased from 5 to 8 bushels per seeded acre of rapeseed or 325 bushels, whichever is the larger.


Reynold Rapp: This information is very helpful to the rapeseed producers, but quite often at this time of year the wheat board removes the quotas altogether for some areas. Will the minister not make representations to the Canadian wheat board to follow the usual practice of removing the quotas?


Mitchell William Sharp: As I said yesterday, the quotas on rapeseed are related to the market requirements. As the hon. member knows, stocks are more than ample at the present time.



PENITENTIARIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. In view of a press story which appeared this morning in the Toronto Globe and Mail, which indicated that the minister intends to make a personal inspection of St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary in Montreal, accompanied by the Minister of Public Works, will the minister make arrangements so that as many members of parliament as may wish may participate in this visit?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to arrange for a visit by members of parliament, but one must bear in mind the various factors and circumstances involved in such a visit, including such things as the necessary precautions to be taken and limits to the number of persons visiting penitentiaries at any one time. I wish the hon. member had given me notice of his question so I might have consulted with the commissioner of penitentiaries and other authorities. We know

that the visit which has been planned will take place under circumstances fully consistent with the operation of a penitentiary. I should be very pleased to arrange for a visit by hon. members if given due time to properly consider what relevant factors exist in this respect.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question. Has the minister forgotten that I asked him about a week ago whether he would arrange such a tour, and his answer to the effect that he would give it consideration?


Guy Favreau: Of course I said I would give that request consideration, and I am considering it. The hon. member should not complain within ten days of making that request. One visit has been arranged for him and a group, and another visit has been authorized. I do not think anything can be said that would make it appear there is any reluctance on the part of the Department of Justice to organize such a visit in order that members of parliament may see what is taking place in penitentiaries. More will be said about that in the very near future. What I said was that rather than refer in the house to a newspaper article which appeared this morning and which I have had no occasion to read as yet, the hon. member could have notified me in advance.


William Arnold Peters: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I agree there is some displacement when these visits take place, but because of the nature of the visit outlined in the minister's press statement would it not be more advantageous from the point of view of the operation of the penitentiary for the whole visit to take place at the same time as the visit by the large number of press people you have already invited, when a certain amount of dislocation of operations is going to occur anyway?


Guy Favreau: Of course, Mr. Speaker, the reason I gave the answer I did is precisely that I should like to have the opportunity to discuss the matter fully with the officers of the penitentiary commission. All I can say for the moment is that this visit has been arranged, and it is consistent with the proper operation of the penitentiary. This is why I should like to have the opportunity to consider further the matter of a visit by members of parliament, as it might well be that doubling the number of visitors would have serious consequences.

Righl Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition): A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister say how many newspapermen are going to accompany him on this crusade?


Guy Favreau: I have not made the arrangements personally, Mr. Speaker, but I have asked that the proper measures be taken so that the penitentiary will be properly operated.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Chapleau.


Mr. Scott:: A supplementary question. Does the minister's announcement mean-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has recognized the hon. member for Chapleau. There have already been three or four supplementaries, and perhaps we could give the hon. member for Chapleau the opportunity to ask his question. If the hon. member has a question on this subject he might return to it later.


Reid Scott: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I submit with respect that surely the practice of the house has been that supplementaries are permitted, in a great many cases endlessly, and as this is an important subject-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Listen to the angry roar over there.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Chair did not deny the hon. member the right to ask a question. He will have an opportunity to do so within a very few minutes.



ST. VINCENT DE PAUL-INQUIRY AS TO NEW CONSTRUCTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works regarding his pending visit on Monday next to St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary and the proposed press conference at 4.30 that afternoon at the Leclair institute. Has the minister any plans to announce at that press conference regarding the building of a new penitentiary?


Hon. J. P. Deschateleis (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, after the visit to this building by the Minister of Justice and myself, it is proposed to have a press conference to answer questions. At this time I cannot say whether we have any definite plans for St. Vincent de Paul.
Inquiries of the Ministry SUGAR



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON INQUIRY INTO PRICE INCREASES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
[Translation\
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice, but not along the same lines. Can the minister tell the house whether, following last year's excessive increase in the price of sugar, an investigation was held by the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission under the Combines Investigation Act and, if so, what are the results?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I suggest to the hon. member that he put his question on the order paper?


Gilles Grégoire: Why?



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General. In view of the questions raised by the Ontario department of labour, is the government considering paying Christmas postal staff less than the minimum Ontario wage and less than the proposed federal minimum wage?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Poslmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, a brief answer would be no. Actually I think the hon. member's question arises out of a discussion that took place at the annual meeting of the Canadian postmasters association held here earlier this week. I took advantage of the presence of the postmasters in Ottawa to discuss certain things that were taking place, and I announced on that occasion that in semi-staff and revenue post offices a rate of 95 cents pei hour would be payable to Christmas help.
This is not less than the minimum rate There is legislation in the province of British Columbia fixing a minimum rate of $1, but for inexperienced help you can go as low as 85 cents. Similar legislation exists in Ontario, where the minimum rate is $1 but there is a leeway of 10 per cent for beginners or inexperienced help. The people, who are taken on in revenue post offices and semi-staff offices, not in the staff offices which are in the cities, are frequently high school students and others who are relatively in-

Inquiries of the Ministry experienced. Therefore in trying to establish what would be fair on a national basis we have picked 95 cents per hour, which is the highest provincial minimum established by statute in any of the 10 provinces.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Without wishing to be facetious, is this the spirit that the government is going to adopt in connection with its minimum wage of $1.25 an hour?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: No, Mr. Speaker, it is in line with the spirit of the legislation. If the hon. member has read the bill introduced by the government, he will have seen that the objective of $1.25 is to be reached by July 1, 1966; and when we at this time move in the post office field from rates as low as 60 cents in some of the provinces to 95 cents, we are moving progressively in the direction envisaged by the proposed legislation.
Mr. Reid Scot! (Danforih): A supplementary question on this point. In view of the fact that most of these temporary workers are repeaters who have done the work from year to year for a considerable number of years, would the minister not agree that these are experienced people, and that the action of the department does violate the spirit of the Ontario minimum wage act?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I will agree with the hon. gentleman that in cities of any size in Canada many of the Christmas helpers are experienced. In the case of the cities however, we do pay a minimum of $1 in all staff offices, as distinguished from semi-staff or revenue offices. The minimum is $1, and for heavy work the minimum is $1.25.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the Post Office Department now giving general reconsideration to the question of postal contracts, which was raised in connection with the Minister of Labour's bill? Is general reconsideration being given to all postal contract rates in relation to that bill?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: The answer is yes. The matter is under consideration, and officials of my department have discussed it at length with officials of the Department of Labour.



INQUIRY AS TO BOARD OF REVIEW ON &quot;HATE&quot; LITERATURE DISTRIBUTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alfred Dryden Hales: should like to direct a question to the Post-

master General. I wonder if he is in a position to advise the house when the review board in connection with the distribution of hate literature will be holding meetings, and whether the public will be admitted?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I am glad to be able to inform the hon. gentleman and other members of the house that I have nominated the three men whom I would like to see act on a board of review. They were to be approached either yesterday or today, and if all three accept I hope to be able to announce at the beginning of the week the composition of the board of review and the place and date of the hearing. They have to get together and agree upon a date. I consider the matter of this board of review one of great urgency, because there has been a splurge of literature and at recent public meetings this has been referred to. Items appearing in the press suggest that box No. 11 in one of the Toronto postal stations is still being used by individuals engaged in the distribution of this type of offensive literature.
I should like to clarify that situation. This box No. 11 was one of the boxes that I closed last spring because it was rented by a person who I learned had been engaged in the distribution of this literature. I exercised the power which I had under the act and closed it. After the box was closed it was entirely removed from any association with this type of activity. Subsequently it was rented to a person for normal, legitimate purposes. I am assured it is not used in connection with any activities that might be associated with the distribution of hate literature. In other words the statements on this subject that have been appearing in Toronto and other newspapers are erroneous.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Eloise Jones (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the serious lack of funds for adequate research and care of the mentally retarded, and since this is an urgent Canada-wide problem as revealed at the dominion-provincial conference which has just terminated, will the minister recommend to the government the setting aside of a special fund to meet this pressing need, over and above the present inadequate matching grants?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I would have appreciated the hon. member giving me notice. As she knows, this conference, the first of its type ever called in Canada, ended only yesterday. Reports were prepared by all the experts who were in attendance, and these reports have not yet found their way to my desk.
I cannot agree with what the hon. lady says about the inadequacy of the health grants, in that there has not been a request heretofore for an increase in the grants for this purpose. The hon. lady may not yet know that at this time of year all departments begin the preparation of their estimates for the coming year and this is one matter, of course, which will receive particular attention.
However, she probably will know, as will many members of the public, that the chief recommendations given publicity to date have not been for an increase in grants of money but for co-ordination and assistance in assuring that the four or five provincial departments which deal with the matter of retardation do so in a co-ordinated way.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. W. Prillie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Prime Minister has an answer to the question I asked yesterday concerning how the Canadian delegation at the UNESCO conference voted on the admission of mainland China.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped to talk to the Secretary of State for External Affairs about this matter, as he has been in touch with our delegation in Paris, but he is out of town today on official business. However, although this may not be a complete answer to my hon. friend's question-and if not it can be supplemented next week-I have learned that there was no vote at the UNESCO conference on admitting communist China. This incident arose over the challenging in the credentials committee of the credentials of the nationalist Chinese delegate. Canada was not represented on that committee. The validity of those credentials was upheld. The plenary assembly did vote on a resolution put forward in the same 20220-5931
Inquiries of the Ministry sense as that on which the credentials committee had ruled, namely the validity of the credentials of the Chinese delegate, and his credentials were upheld. Canada, at the plenary assembly, voted with the majority.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lucien Cardin (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Yesterday the hon. member for Cape Breton South asked the following question which I took as notice:
Does the trade testing of qualified employees at the Point Edward naval base, and the proposed lay-off of tradesmen without right to seniority or veterans preference, represent government policy?
Well, Mr. Speaker, there was a suggestion that certain categories of employees at the Point Edward naval base should be trade tested in order to determine their qualifications for continuing employment, but it is not proposed to proceed with this trade testing program. As hon. members know, the Department of National Defence has for many years used a point system for determining the order of release when it becomes necessary to reduce the staff of hourly rated employees at any defence establishment. This system gives points for seniority, for wartime overseas service with the armed forces and for efficiency. This system has been used to determine which qualified employees were to be retained when it became necessary to reduce staff at the Point Edward naval base in the past, and will continue to be used in the future.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Harvey Aiken: I have a question for the Minister of Justice. In view of the imminent report on juvenile delinquency, has the minister yet decided whether this report will be made public when it is received by him?


Guy Favreau: This is one thing which I have yet to consider finally, Mr. Speaker.

Inquiries of the Ministry IMMIGRATION



TORONTO-STATUS OF PERSONS CONCERNED WITH NEWSPAPER STRIKE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Reid Scott: I should like to ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration whether he has yet completed his study of the reference to him concerning the newspaper strike in Toronto, and particularly the six individuals who are here without status. If so, can he give a report to the house this morning?


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the hon. member for the delay in *obtaining the information he requested from my parliamentary secretary concerning the six persons who were admitted at Toronto and who do not yet have any status. I will do everything possible in order to obtain this information and give it to the hon. member Monday or Tuesday next, because I deem that it is important for him to obtain it.


Reid Scott: May I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister give us any reasonable explanation as to why it is taking so long to get this information? Surely the information is available by picking up the telephone and talking to the officials in Toronto.


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I requested this information, but as everyone knows, due to the various levels of government, communications must be effected at every level until they reach the Toronto authorities.
This information related to particulars concerning the trade and various types of work [DOT]being performed at present at Toronto by those persons, and I believe that this matter requires several days of investigation.
However, I will do my best to give this information as soon as I shall receive it.



INDUCEMENTS TO ENCOURAGE ENTRANCE OF DOCTORS. NURSES, ETC.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: I should like to ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration whether he has anything to report on his endeavours to influence doctors, nurses and technicians from the United Kingdom to come to Canada?
[Mr. Favreau.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I suggest that perhaps this is a question that might be put on the order paper. I wonder if in view of the time that has been spent on these questions, we should not proceed to orders of the day?


Philip Bernard Rynard: I have just this to say on that point. This question was asked some weeks ago, and I think the minister probably has an answer.


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I had already answered the hon. member when he asked his question.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: I should like to ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration if he is yet in a position to announce the time or date of the introduction into the house of a bill respecting the Indian claims commission.


René Tremblay: No, Mr. Speaker, this bill, as amended, is part of the total legislative program of the government, and this is announced by the house leader on behalf of the government, as parliament proceeds with its work.
I will tell the hon. member that at present we are actively engaged in revising this bill and that it should soon be introduced. [Text]



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Fred F. Stenson (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry. It arises from the statement he made in Toronto yesterday to the effect that the federal government is considering direct financial aid to private industry for new projects designed to develop better products. The minister said Canada was lagging behind in this field and my question is, does he not feel that the tax on production machinery should be removed immediately? I feel this would be a start in the development of projects of this type.


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: 


Mr.   Speaker-Mr. Deputy Speaker@: Order. May I suggest this is a question for the order paper.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.



INTERIM SUPPLY

['As was stated we will carry on with interim supply on Monday.']
George James McIlraith: Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $740,710,874.77, being the aggregate of
(a)	two twelfths of the total of all of the items to be voted in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1965, as reduced, except finance item 15, mines and technical surveys item 25. national research council item 10, and transport items 15 and 25 for which the proportion is one twelfth and atomic energy item 5, external affairs item 20, forestry item 25 and legislation item 20 for which no proportion is being released, $651,829,576.84;
(b)	an additional two twelfths of the amount of public works item 70 (schedule A), of the said main estimates, $666,666.67;
(c)	an additional one twelfth of the amount of fisheries items 5 and 10. legislation item 5, mines and technical surveys item 70, post office item 1 and public works item 40 (schedule B), of the said main estimates, $20,263,800.00;
(d)	two twelfths of all of the items to be voted in the supplementary estimates (A), laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, except national defence item 56a and loans, investments and advances items L12a, L17a and L37a for which no proportion is being released, $20,612,522.50;
(e)	an additional two twelfths of the amount of transport item 103a (Schedule C), of the said supplementary estimates (A), $872,966.67;
(f)	nine twelfths of the total of the items to be voted in the supplementary estimates (B), laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, $46,215,108.75;
(g)	two twelfths of the amount of transport item 103b (schedule D), of the said supplementary estimates (B), $250,333.34,
be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1965.


James Norris Ormiston: Mr. Chairman, the discussion of interim supply gives us an opportunity to accept the suggestion kindly put forward by the President of the Privy Council, the Acting Minister of Transport, to debate some of the matters concerning the management of Canadian National Railways and the implementation of some of the run-through systems which it is anticipated will be coming into effect in the next few days.
The hon. member for Port Arthur outlined the situation in a clear and concise manner, and other hon. members primarily interested in this problem include the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, myself, and the other hon.
Interim Supply
member who spoke earlier this morning. The problem involved is not new. It has been with us for several years, and the situation is likely to deteriorate before it becomes any better.
The Acting Minister of Transport is well aware of the situation. In the past he has been very co-operative, as a matter of fact sympathetic, and I am sure he has made every effort to bring the representations of the railway employees to the attention of management. Evidently, however, these representations have fallen on deaf ears, and we believe the new run-through system will be introduced in some areas very shortly.
At a time when the economy is fairly buoyant it is unfortunate that some areas of our country will suffer as a result of the proposals of Canadian National Railways. Trainmen have lived in these areas for many years, building up comfortable communities, and now it is possible that in the near future the population of these areas will be depleted as a result of the adoption of the run-through system. The basic idea of this system is that trainmen will spend longer time over longer distances performing their duties in running trains. This means that the turnaround points will be too far away for return trips, and will cut down on the time train crews are able to spend at home.
This is an inconvenience to the trainmen and their families, and I believe their feelings and the impact of this on their morale should be taken into consideration by management, which on many occasions has expressed its concern for the welfare of the workers. It must be evident that when employees are antagonistic to a system being imposed on them, their work will suffer.
The employees realize automation is inevitable and that management is willing to make certain concessions, but up to the present very little consideration has been given to the reasonable requests of railway-men who will be greatly inconvenienced by the new run-through system. Inevitably the population of some towns will be reduced, thus changing the economy of the areas around them.
Some consideration-and I do not mean just monetary consideration-must be given to employees who will be displaced. The run-through system may have some advantages. Possibly it will be more economical to the railway companies, but if the employees operating the trains are dissatisfied the railway operation in itself will suffer. Because of this we are asking the minister and the

Interim Supply
government to give consideration to some of the representations which have been made, and I urge the minister, his departmental officials and the railway management to sit down and once more discuss and analyse the situation in so far as it applies to railway employees.
I suppose I am fortunate in that the system is not to be introduced immediately in my area, but I understand it will be soon effective in other areas, and many areas will be adversely affected by it.
I feel the management of the C.N.R. has a responsibility to sit down again with the unions and try to work out a reasonable solution to this problem, which has been a festering sore for the last couple of years. Those members of the house who are more directly interested in these questions will be able to corroborate the statements I have made regarding the inconvenience which will be caused to these employees of the C.N.R. particularly, and a great deal of inconvenience will probably be caused to the travelling public as well. As the hon. member for Port Arthur has told us, time is running short, but I should like the minister to do everything in his power to see whether some solution can be reached to this urgent problem.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The step which the C.N.R. proposes to take on October 25 is another incident in what I have thought of all along as a long

and I am tempted to use the word "slimy"-series of incidents in which over the past decade the management of this railway has been following a policy amounting to "divide and rule". It has been a process of doing a little bit here and a little bit there; a process of changes and shifts, never coming out into the open with a clearcut plan. In the meantime they have managed to create an atmosphere in which you have a president of a railway who is probably as detested by a large group of people in Canada as anyone could possibly imagine.
It is not my purpose here to throw recriminations at Mr. Donald Gordon, but I wish to put this point before the committee. We are seeing the death arranged of communities in this country as a consequence of huge sums which this parliament has approved to allow the C.N.R. to make changes. We have approved the spending of billions of dollars to allow the C.N.R. to modernize, dieselize, introduce central traffic control and so on.
Members of this house who have served on the railway committee before which Mr. Gordon appears every year know that for a
[Mr. Ormiston.l
number of years I, in association with others in this house, have brought up this problem and tried to discuss the way in which the C.N.R. could make the adjustment. Only last July when Mr. Gordon was before the committee he was asked directly whether there were to be any more run-throughs in connection with the changes proposed as a result of dieselization. We also asked where these run-throughs would take place, if any were proposed.
We were fobbed off with the general answer that the C.N.R. was not yet in a position to reply. On September 15 it was announced to the local chairman at a divisional point that it had been decided to abandon the whole terminal of Nakina and run through. A parallel situation is that at Wainwright. There is no general plan. The C.N.R. refused to negotiate this question with the men's representatives in the unions at bargaining and contract time. Instead, they do a little here and a little there. They did it at Sioux Lookout; they did it at Belleville; they will never present a common problem.
I am sick of our approving expenditures for the Department of Labour to set up manpower consultative services, to study the effects of automation and how best to meet technological change. Here we have a prime example of technological change and its consequences. But are we prepared?
As the member most affected by the change to be introduced this Saturday, I have obviously played my hand incorrectly. This is a problem national in its scope. I thought the way to proceed was to make representations to the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Labour; to approach the problem quietly, with common sense and realism. Obviously an approach of this kind has not done any good. The Acting Minister of Transport by his remarks earlier today gave an indication that he sees himself, or his function, as simply a funnel or channel through which representations can be made. He regards himself as, in a sense, equivalent to a telegraph clerk or somebody who links up an intercom system. He did not seem to think he was in a position, in his relationship with the company, to add any force of persuasion at all.
In other words, in the representations we have made to the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Labour to the effect that there really is a good case for postponing this important move, we have not been able to carry conviction, or else the Acting Minister

of Transport feels he is in a strait-jacket because of the type of relationship which exists between the government and this crown agency and is unable to intervene in favour of this postponement.
One of the worst grey areas we have is this relationship between crown agencies and parliament. We know we are not administrators. We know we are not executives. But, somehow, the only way the spending of these agencies and the appointments to them can be legalized is by ourselves, acting in consort, doing something about it. We are on the scene; somehow or other we are in there. Yet we seem to be denied, perhaps properly so, any great influence; all we can do is talk about these things.
Well, talking is not very effective if one is talking to ministers who are not prepared to argue the case and take it to the head of the crown agency concerned, in this case the head of the C.N.R. I contend that the government should take a direct interest in this situation. For the first time a home terminal of the C.N.R. is being wiped out. A home terminal is a terminal from which railroaders operate.
I contend that this is probably an illegal action, and I am prepared at this time to say I will go into my area and work with the railroaders there in meeting this problem by what is possibly another illegal action, namely by a refusal to give service when the date comes. I may be penalized, and so may these men, for refusing to offer services on Saturday night. It may be held that a crime is being committed under the Criminal Code, but this is the situation to which long-suffering employees are brought in the absence of a constructive approach by management to grave situations such as this.
Knowing the minister personally and the interest he has taken in this-the good Lord knows the hon. gentleman has listened to me and I have listened to him in the last few weeks-it occurs to me he may think I am exaggerating, dealing in hyperbole because I am speaking in a public forum and appealing beyond it. But I would point out to the hon. gentleman how little is being asked for. The C.N.R. decided in mid-September to introduce changes on October 25 which will lead to the death of a town. It decided that on such short notice as this it would change traffic arrangements which have been in effect for generations. Is it not reasonable to ask for a postponement?
We have before the house at the present time amendments to the Railway Act. We have all been told about the scope of this
Interim Supply
legislation based on the deliberations of a royal commission. Included in it are provisions dealing with section 182 of the Railway Act which has been a matter of contention for a decade. Only a couple of weeks ago the railway brotherhoods were in to see the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Transport about this particular section, whether it is not possible to give men better protection when railways go through with these grand changes that dislocate jobs. Surely the fact that the legislation is before us is worth advancing as a reason for the postponement.
I think the minister likes technical points, so I would mention this. The Railway Act is before the house for amendment. It is the right of everyone to move amendments, and I have already indicated that I am going to offer an amendment to section 182 of the act which, if accepted by the house, will have the effect of bringing situations such as those existing in Nakina or Wainwright under the purview of the act. And I think I have a good prospect of getting this amendment accepted, because I remind the minister that last year our railway committee approved the subject matter of a public bill which I brought before it. Among the recommendations made by the railway committee, which is the same committee which will be handling the Railway Act, there was a strong recommendation that this kind of situation be met by a change in legislation. Surely I am right in assuming that this situation may come under the Railway Act as amended, and it indicates that the door should be left open and this decision postponed. That is the Railway Act aspect of the matter.
I wonder how many hon. members noticed, Mr. Chairman, that recently the Canadian Pacific Railway announced that it would suspend passenger operations on its day-liner service between Peterborough and Toronto. Public opinion geared the newspapers to take the matter up, members of parliament were contacted, representations were made and the acting minister expressed concern. A few days ago, before it was announced in the house the Canadian Pacific Railway indicated that it was not going to go ahead with the withdrawal of this passenger service at this time. I mention that as an indication that there is nothing fundamental about postponing something. It is a very simple request.
Yet Canadian National Railways have given no information at all about this matter. I have information that it has alerted its officials, trainmasters and so on, so that in

Interim Supply
the event there is a withdrawal of service the men who ordinarily move the transcontinental trains will be ready to move over for a period while the squeeze is put on the men. This information I have is reinforced by the fact that the C.N.R. has wired the people of Nakina to the effect that the offer made a couple of weeks ago-belatedly-to buy their homes still holds, which is surely an indication that there is some kind of conscience in this matter. Why would this offer be repeated if it was turned down by the men and by the community? It has been repeated because the company feels that this will be a sort of oyster for someone to reach for as the men begin to worry and to fear the power of this company if it does withdraw this service.
This is a power game, and the people who are under the power of this company are out along the periphery in small towns along the system without the resources of communications media which can really build up their case as the Peterborough case was built up. They do not have a couple of columnists in Toronto who were riding this dayliner and who built up the case in the newspapers. These people are exposed to the power of the major employer of the area, an employer who, in the main, has indicated that in matters like this it is prepared to be ruthless.
I have never liked the contention that the Minister of Transport is just a funnel through which you can drop something and it will get to the president of the Canadian National Railways. On the other hand, I am not one who believes that the Minister of Transport is at all times second guessing the president of the Canadian National Railways. Nevertheless we have to assume there is a relationship somewhere between the funnel and the Charlie McCarthy kind of act.
I suggest that the difference here is exposed in specific situations. Normally you leave the Canadian National Railways free from advice on minor matters, but when something major brews up it seems to me you have to have consultation and a rather full explanation of policy. One of the regrettable things, despite the questions which have been asked in the house, is that the minister has come into this place and given us no information at all on the Canadian National point of view. He could not even transmit a firm negative today. In other words the matter is still up in the air.
The situation roughly is this. Canadian National Railways, as a result of great expenditure, has to make changes in its arrangements. It feels it has to do this. It has not worked out any system of doing this. A lot of people say, why is it that Canadian National is in the van? Why is it that Donald Gordon always carries the ball and is the aggressor? Why is it not the Canadian Pacific Railway, the private enterprise outfit, which is in this position?
I will tell you why, Mr. Chairman, and it is very simple. The unions working under the Canadian Pacific Railway have protection because they have no big seniority districts, and no changes can be made in the working conditions of the contracts which affect them in any single one of the terminals. But the situation is different with the Canadian National. It is organized-and this has been very useful to the company over the years-in big seniority districts. In this way it can make a change which will wipe out Nakina and its railwaymen and will bump along all the way down through Capreol to Toronto, and so on, and there is no way the men can come at this as the railway interprets it.
There is an agreement in existence. There is a 1926 Montreal agreement entered into between the brotherhood of locomotive firemen and enginemen and the brotherhood of locomotive engineers and the C.N.R. Section 9 of that Montreal agreement sets out that no changes will be made in the set-up regarding home terminals without prior conference, arrangement and negotiation between the management and the unions. This agreement can only be rescinded on 30 days' notice. As far as I know this agreement still exists and is still in effect. The railway does not want to talk about it. It does not even want to give notice of rescission, because it knows that something will blow up. This brings a very large issue into some kind of arrangement for negotiation.
I do not think the Minister of Transport has really realized the way the C.N.R. has moved on this whole question of technological change. It has never given us any over-all policy. What they are doing in Wainwright is hitting the trainmen over the head with the club and leaving the firemen and engineers alone. At Nakina the situation is the opposite. They haggle and nip a piece off here and a piece off there and never give the railway-men an opportunity of seeing what is the over-all plan or structure. I suppose that is good labour relations. It is good labour relafMr. Fisher.]

tions on the basis that the arrangement between management and labour is a war of some kind and that it is good to outsmart the opposition, but it really is not good enough in a situation where we have technological change of such scope.
What will this do to the town of Nakina; and it will bump others along the way? This is a town of 800 people. Approximately half of them are railroaders and dependants. In two years all will be gone. What are the consequences for a town which has a school, roads into it, a Legion and churches? In effect it means the end of the town. The town may have other prospects because of very large iron resources which happen to be nearby, but in effect it is a town created by Canadian National Railways, created by Sir Henry Thornton and killed by Donald Gordon. Surely there is a greater responsibility here than just making a decision like this. Nevertheless Mr. Gordon has decided to do it; and make no mistake about it, Mr. Chairman, this decision was not reached at the local level; this decision has come right out of Montreal. We are going to begin the ending of this town's existence. And this is only the first one. Biggar will be next. Wainwright is under the gun this time, of course.
Where is a policy to meet this situation? Are the Minister of Transport and his colleague the Minister of Labour going to keep on insisting that they can only transmit representations which are made, that they have no responsibility and that there is no onus on them to see that a better plan is forthcoming? This may be the new co-operative federalism, I do not know, but it certainly offers very little and makes hypocrisy of a great deal many of us have said here during our consideration of the estimates of the Department of Labour. I thought we were going to have some kind of reasoning and planning in this regard. The Minister of Labour is touting his doctrine of economic planning around the country, and we have created the new Department of Industry to do something about this whole question of planning and developing industry and regional co-ordination. I'll bet the Minister of Labour has never even heard of Nakina and Wainwright.


An hon. Member:: And couldn't care less.


Douglas Mason Fisher: That may be his Goldwater phase, but I do not know about that.
My point is that we have all these agencies and we have talked about our responsibilities in this situation, but when we get down to 20220-594
Interim Supply
brass tacks we cannot even obtain a postponement. We cannot obtain any suggestions as to how these kind of changes should be made. I cannot go back to the people of Nakina and Wainwright and tell them that the saving of $40,000 or $50,000 of public money by the C.N.R. is worth the cost of social dislocation in those areas. This action on the part of that company is unilateral, and surely we have a greater responsibility to the people of these areas than has been indicated.
The premier of Ontario has made representations to the government in this respect. The minister of mines, who represents that area in Ontario, has made representations, the unions have made representations, and the communities have instructed their federal members here in parliament to make representations in this regard. The only answer to these representations we can obtain from the Minister of Transport is that he has passed them on. The Prime Minister has been approached in this regard. Women's associations in the area have approached the Minister of National Health and Welfare on the assumption that she, also being a woman, would be interested in their problem. I do not know what response she made. All I can say is that I hope consideration is being given to all aspects of the situation in which the people in this area find themselves.
Mr. Chairman, as I conclude my contribution to this debate I should like to refer to the seriousness of the political aspect of this situation. The thing that has galled me about the Liberal party ever since I was a small boy is their damnable arrogance as a total crew. I have always felt that Donald Gordon is sort of a perfect administrative instrument for that kind of arrogance that has been associated with the Liberal party and its record. It seems to me that one of the most galling things that can happen is for a minister of the crown, and the government, to assume that questions such as the one to which I have referred should be left to the administrative competence and decision of these crown agencies. That seems to me to be the core of Liberal party doctrine. Their doctrine seems to be that these questions should be left to be answered by those who know best, in this case the president of the C.N.R.
Mr. Chairman, we all know what happened to parliament under the Liberal regime up to 1957. It was falling away, and everything was being left to a group of administrative geniuses who supposedly knew how to do things. I want to inform the Acting Minister

Interim Supply
of Transport, much as I have appreciated all the assistance he has given in the last week or two, that I cannot help but read into the general reaction of the government the feeling that they assume they are really a funnel through which representations pass. I have noticed that in almost every case. That is an example of the existence of that same old Liberal arrogance.
Mr. Chairman, there is a final irony to this whole situation. Most railroaders along the Canadian National Railways tend to vote Liberal. This is a long tradition which goes back to the ability of Mackenzie King to settle railway strikes at the time of the first world war. This tradition is related to the fact that this region of Canada was settled during a Liberal administration many years ago, and the railroaders have tended to look at that party with kindness. The final irony is that one of the hardest things I have had to do, as have the Conservatives, has been to convince these men that all their faith placed in the Liberal party for so many years has been proven repeatedly during the last generation to be absolute nonsense.
I do not want to dot the "i" too much in this regard, but I will always remember the people of Redditt, Kenora and Sioux Lookout coming to Ottawa in conection with the same kind of problem a few years ago, on which occasion they discovered that the Liberal representative for Kenora had difficulty even arranging a meeting for them, let alone carrying their case.
I can only come to the conclusion that one of the features of this whole situation is that we have a government which refuses to even go to the trouble of asking, with some firmness, that the railway officials postpone this decision for six or eight weeks, or until this parliament can consider appropriate legislation. I do not think that in these circumstances I can do anything else than carry back to my area, or anywhere else I go in the country, the feeling that we have here an indifferent regime with that kind of arrogance I have come to identify with the Liberal party. All I can do is say how much I regret that this is my conclusion about the attitude of this government regarding a problem which I feel should be aside and apart from any partisanship or politicking.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, when this item was called I was in the process of rising in my place for the purpose of making it clear that the usual undertaking was being given in connection with this interim supply motion, 
that the passing of interim supply would not prejudice the position of hon. members. I want to make it clear now that this committee can assume that that undertaking has been given.
The question raised by the hon. member for Melville is an important one, and I think he presented an objective statement to this house about a problem which is of great concern to the House of Commons and to parliament generally. He referred to the difficult consequences of automation and its effect upon employees who will be dislocated because of changing procedures. He also mentioned the possible detrimental effect on communities involved.
I must contrast his method of presentation with that of the hon. member for Port Arthur, who raised two main points. Undoubtedly they are closely related, but I think he unnecessarily confused the two. He referred to the important problem of the dislocation of railway employees and the consequential effect on communities. He referred also to the immediate local difficulties at Nakina and related communities.
The hon. member for Port Arthur saw fit to commence his presentation by using some language with which I cannot associate myself. I do want to point out to the committee, though, that in my view at least this is not the method to approach a difficult problem like this if any appropriate solution is to be reached. It will be recalled that he started his remarks by referring to the management of Canadian National Railways as slimy.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Just a minute. On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I intended to say and believe I said that there was a long history of a slimy trail in management-labour relations on the C.N.R. There is some difference.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I completely accept the hon. member's explanation of the difference, but I will let the record speak for itself. I respectfully suggest this is not the way to bring the facts before the committee, but that is his responsibility and not mine. I want to dissociate myself publicly from that kind of argument.
He then moved on in the next sentence or two to make a personal reference to the president. He did not say that his actions were in any way wrong, but he made a personal reference by speaking about the extent to which he said the president was

personally detested. Then he moved on to the acting minister and chose to refer to him as the equivalent of a telegraph operator. His opinion of the acting minister is, I am sure, of no concern to the committee. It certainly does not concern me in the least, because I think hon. members will make their own assessment in regard to these matters and I am content to leave it there. He referred later to the acting minister as a Charlie McCarthy.


Douglas Mason Fisher: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, if the minister wants to take this line I hope he will listen a bit. What I suggested was that it seemed to me there were two possibilities for a minister of transport, and one to be more or less a funnel or telegraph operator or a Charlie McCarthy, the kind of arrangement where he would be standing at the shoulder of the president of the C.N.R. I do not mind the minister making these remarks, but I do not think he should get that far away from what I said.


George James McIlraith: If I may continue, Mr. Chairman, I did the hon. member the courtesy of not interrupting him at any point. Perhaps it is clear now that I should have done so as he went along, but in any event I did not. He then concluded his argument with a reference to the damnable arrogance of the Liberal party and proceeded to identify the president of the C.N.R. as the chosen instrument-I think that is the term he used- for expressing that attitude.
I want to invite the committee's attention to the fact that I think it would be quite impossible to find any arrogance or damnable arrogance in the treatment of this subject since it arose, and in my opinion the answers to questions on the orders of the day in the last number of days should have indicated that there is nothing but great concern over this matter.


David Orlikow: What action?


George James McIlraith: If the hon. and impatient member for Winnipeg North could possess himself in patience and listen to other hon. members he might find it would be helpful to him in gaining knowledge about a great many subjects, including the standard of conduct expected of members of parliament. I do not mean to be severe with him, but surely a subject of this seriousness does not deserve interjections of that type.
In my opinion the matter at issue here involves a double barrelled problem. The sys-20220-5944
Interim Supply
tern of railway divisional points approximately 125 miles apart was set up in the days of the coal burning engines. It has been thought fit by management to seek to change that system with the advent of diesel engines involving different methods of servicing and different requirements inherent in the technological improvements in the building of engines for hauling trains. I do not want to divert into a discussion of the matter at the moment, but I suppose it will be generally granted that there must be necessary changes arising from this development. Indeed, changes are desirable if the users of the railway services are to be properly served by this transportation medium.
Therefore the matter is one of making sure that the changes are brought about in a way that is not harmful but rather is beneficial to all the interests concerned, which in the final analysis really means the public through-: out the country, rather than merely dealing with the problem from the point of view that there must be no change, period, and that anything that was established in the past must be left completely untouched. I would hope that would be common ground.
With regard to Nakina, when the initiation of the run-throughs was announced it was made clear by the railway company that it was proposed to introduce the run-throughs over a period of two years. That was made very clear, and it has always been clear. It was also made clear that the details of the method of introducing and bringing about the run-throughs were open for discussion. That was repeatedly made clear by the railway, management both to the community representatives with whom they discussed this matter and to the railwaymen concerned. Again, because the situation did not seem to be fully appreciated, it was made clear to the men by letter of October 8 in the proper way through the appropriate union authorities. It was also requested in the letter that anyone who wished to make any proposals on this matter should put them forward.
I am only the acting minister. I regret that the minister is absent, although we are looking forward to his return in a very few days. However, when I first learned of the proposition that had been made by management to the men and to the community, and sensed from the delegation who came to see me that it had not been properly appreciated, I took the liberty of reiterating it to the delegation in, I think, rather clear fashion. This has always been the position of management, and so far no proposals or suggestions on this

Interim Supply
point have been made. No advantage has been taken of the proposition put forward by the railway, either by the men or the community.
There is another facet about which I should speak. Very early in the course of events, as this difficulty was building up, the railway management put forward another proposition. It was that they would buy the homes of employees if these employees were moving from the town of Nakina. A method of valuation was established involving three valuators who would fix prices. One valuator was to be from the railway, one from the owners' group and an independent valuator was to be chosen by the other two. Hon. members will appreciate that the railway was going quite a long way, in that such a proposition is quite new. They put forward that proposition because of the particular nature or extent of the dependence of Nakina on the railway, and the history of the development of the town in relation to the railway. This has two consequences; it saves the individuals employed from any economic loss if they choose to move, and it also means that the community continues to receive its taxes on those houses.
Perhaps I should call it one o'clock.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
['If the hon. and impatient member for Winnipeg North could possess himself in patience and listen to other hon. members he might find it would be helpful to him in gaining knowledge about a great many subjects, including the standard of conduct expected of members of parliament. I do not mean to be severe with him, but surely a subject of this seriousness does not deserve interjections of that type.\nIn my opinion the matter at issue here involves a double barrelled problem. The sys-20220-5944\nInterim Supply\ntern of railway divisional points approximately 125 miles apart was set up in the days of the coal burning engines. It has been thought fit by management to seek to change that system with the advent of diesel engines involving different methods of servicing and different requirements inherent in the technological improvements in the building of engines for hauling trains. I do not want to divert into a discussion of the matter at the moment, but I suppose it will be generally granted that there must be necessary changes arising from this development. Indeed, changes are desirable if the users of the railway services are to be properly served by this transportation medium.\nTherefore the matter is one of making sure that the changes are brought about in a way that is not harmful but rather is beneficial to all the interests concerned, which in the final analysis really means the public through-: out the country, rather than merely dealing with the problem from the point of view that there must be no change, period, and that anything that was established in the past must be left completely untouched. I would hope that would be common ground.\nWith regard to Nakina, when the initiation of the run-throughs was announced it was made clear by the railway company that it was proposed to introduce the run-throughs over a period of two years. That was made very clear, and it has always been clear. It was also made clear that the details of the method of introducing and bringing about the run-throughs were open for discussion. That was repeatedly made clear by the railway, management both to the community representatives with whom they discussed this matter and to the railwaymen concerned. Again, because the situation did not seem to be fully appreciated, it was made clear to the men by letter of October 8 in the proper way through the appropriate union authorities. It was also requested in the letter that anyone who wished to make any proposals on this matter should put them forward.\nI am only the acting minister. I regret that the minister is absent, although we are looking forward to his return in a very few days. However, when I first learned of the proposition that had been made by management to the men and to the community, and sensed from the delegation who came to see me that it had not been properly appreciated, I took the liberty of reiterating it to the delegation in, I think, rather clear fashion. This has always been the position of management, and so far no proposals or suggestions on this', "Interim Supply\npoint have been made. No advantage has been taken of the proposition put forward by the railway, either by the men or the community.\nThere is another facet about which I should speak. Very early in the course of events, as this difficulty was building up, the railway management put forward another proposition. It was that they would buy the homes of employees if these employees were moving from the town of Nakina. A method of valuation was established involving three valuators who would fix prices. One valuator was to be from the railway, one from the owners' group and an independent valuator was to be chosen by the other two. Hon. members will appreciate that the railway was going quite a long way, in that such a proposition is quite new. They put forward that proposition because of the particular nature or extent of the dependence of Nakina on the railway, and the history of the development of the town in relation to the railway. This has two consequences; it saves the individuals employed from any economic loss if they choose to move, and it also means that the community continues to receive its taxes on those houses.\nPerhaps I should call it one o'clock.\nAt one o'clock the committee took recess."]
George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, when the committee rose for the noon adjournment I had been explaining the proposal put forward by the management of the Canadian National Railways concerning the proposed run-through at Nakina. I indicated that the management had dealt with the individual employees of the railway company at Nakina, and had put forward a scheme for purchasing the homes of any of the employees who would wish to move from Nakina consequent upon the implementation of the run-through. Further, I indicated the basis of valuation, and said the company had also dealt with employees individually on arrangements regarding moving expenses.
I then went on to state that the company had indicated it was prepared to consider or discuss any counter-proposals which the men might have to advance, and that the plans for implementing the run-through were completely flexible, subject to one condition which apparently I did not mention before one o'clock, that the program of implementing the

run-through be completed in two years, that is by the latter part of 1966.
I also indicated that the significance of these proposals and the invitation to put forward counter-proposals had not, in my view, been fully appreciated, and when I sensed this I made the point clear to the representatives of the community who attended as a delegation in Ottawa. The railway management also made this clear in a letter sent to the appropriate union officials involved, but as yet no counter-proposals have been made.


Mr. Churchill:: A counter-proposal with regard to what?


George James McIlraith: A counter-proposal regarding the timing and the method of implementing the run-throughs; and there was one condition, namely that the run-throughs be fully implemented by two years from now.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Surely the minister would acknowledge that a request was made for a six weeks postponement so that the matter could be discussed more fully?


George James McIlraith: I am coming to that point as I develop my remarks. No counter-proposal has yet been received in the context in which I have explained the invitation, and I think I have tried to make my remarks as accurate and precise as possible on this point. However, after the delegation attended in Ottawa last Friday, some time early this week a request was received from the community representatives asking for a postponement of the starting date of the implementation of the program,
A start was to be made on the program on October 25, just two days from now, but the community's request was limited to delaying the start of the program, and carried with it a plea that the whole matter be discussed. It did not carry with it any acquiescence in the whole program being implemented at the end of two years. Indeed the delegation made it quite clear they were completely opposed to the run-through, and that is where the matter stands now.
There are some other aspects of this matter on which I would like to speak for a moment or two. The hon. member for Port Arthur indicated to the committee-and I wish to draw the hon. member's attention specifically to this, so that I may not be accused of misinterpreting his remarks-that the action taken by the railway was probably, in his view, an illegal action, and he went on to tell the committee he would go into this area

and work with the railroaders there in meeting this problem by what would, possibly, be another illegal action, namely by a refusal to give service when the date comes. He went on to say that he might be penalized, and so might the men, for refusing to offer services on Saturday night and that it might be held a crime was being committed under the Criminal Code. Nevertheless, he observed, this was the situation to which long-suffering employees had been brought in the absence of a constructive approach by management to grave situations such as this.
I think I have accurately repeated what the hon. member said. I want now to draw his attention to this. He told us that in this difficult situation the approach by management had not been constructive. That is a legitimate argument and I have no objection whatever to such an argument being put forward. But here we have a member of the House of Commons indicating that he proposes to violate the law, and I want to ask him: What kind of constructive action is that? The people of this country have a representative in parliament who says he intends to act illegally and wilfully to break the law of this country. In other words he is not willing to use the methods which are open to him under the law but is asserting he will break the law. I would ask the hon. member to consider very carefully whether this is a helpful or constructive attitude to take in what is admittedly a difficult situation. Is this the kind of action which is likely to be helpful in bringing about a suitable solution to a problem of labour-management relations? Surely this is not the kind of example which should be given to employees of any company or to citizens of the country generally. I invite the hon. member to consider further what he said on this point and what his action should be.


David Orlikow: Would the minister permit a question? I wonder if the hon. gentleman would consider suggesting to the C.N.R. that the company should live up to the spirit of section 182 of the Railway Act, which it has consistently violated over the years.


George James McIlraith: I do not agree that the railways have consistently, over the years, violated section 182 of the Railway Act. But I will deal with the points raised by the hon. member for Port Arthur-


Gilles Grégoire: They have violated the law in the province of Quebec, with their trucking system, and they are now before the
Interim Supply
courts; yet they continue their operations. The minister knows that.


George James McIlraith: I will deal with points arising out of section 182 of the Railway Act in a few moments to the extent I think it is proper to do so during a debate on interim supply. In any event, turning now to the Nakina aspect of this matter arising from the technological changes due to automation and so on, it would seem to me that this aspect is a matter for the management of the railroad-that this is something relating wholly to the operations of the company. It would seem that in dealings with particular employees-I have in mind now the more restricted aspect of the problem as it immediately affects the situation at Nakina-the railways, or management, have made responsible offers to the men-some might say they were generous-and that in this narrower aspect they have shown a most considerate attitude toward the human element. Having said this, I agree there is a larger aspect of the whole matter which was raised by the hon. member for Port Arthur, and I sought at the outset of my remarks to indicate that in my view there are two closely related, though none the less separate questions raised in his argument, one of them being the whole question of the consequences of automation as it affects railroad employees and communities consequent upon the implementation of run-throughs by railways. In this context the hon. member raised the possibility of amending section 182 of the Railway Act and he developed his argument by suggesting other means of dealing with this problem. This is a much larger and, I agree, a most important question. For my part I do not know whether it is appropriate for me in a debate on interim supply to seek to outline precisely what should be done with regard to this question. But I would point out to the committee that the Department of Labour has set up an advisory committee on technological changes composed of representatives of government and of labour and management, a committee which is now considering this type of problem in its broader aspect, and it must surely be apparent to all members that the subject matter which the hon. member had in mind is being dealt with.
There are several arguments one could make with regard to the precise method which might best be used for dealing with this problem. It has been suggested it should be dealt with under section 182 of the Railway Act. I must frankly say I am convinced this is not the best possible way of dealing with



[Stage Direction]
Interim Supply
it. Another suggestion is that general legislation should be enacted to deal with the whole question. Just how this would be done, I do not know. Another school of thought takes the view that this is a subject for negotiation and coverage by union agreements. In any event it is apparent one could develop various arguments about which method of dealing with this problem would be the most suitable. Since I am neither the Minister of Transport, who is directly responsible for railway matters, nor the Minister of Labour, I would consider it inappropriate, in an interim supply debate, to argue-and indeed I have some doubt at the moment as to my competence to argue-as to precisely which method should be followed.
It is clear-however-that the government is concerned with this problem and that a government advisory committee within one of the departments is dealing with it. I believe it is an able committee and it might well be it should concern itself more directly with this particular problem. I know it will be unsatisfactory to many hon. members if I say that the immediate aspect of the implementation of the run-through policy at Nakina is a matter for the management of the railway. I appreciate that this will be quite unsatisfactory. Yet I believe it would be less than fair to hon. members if I were to indicate otherwise.
That is the fact as I believe it to be. Goodness knows all concerned, notwithstanding the tremendous burden there is on the railways because of the restrictions we have placed on them, will agree they must be kept efficient. I believe all hon. members will agree that on aspects which are purely for management in the internal operations of the railways it is desirable that members do not interfere.
Unsatisfactory as that answer may appear superficially to be, I believe it is important that it be asserted, but at the same time that a solution be sought to the larger, major question. I assure hon. members that this subject matter has been receiving very careful consideration, although perhaps over too short a period of time. Every aspect of the matter debated today of direct concern to the railways was communicated immediately i to them on every occasion. The other larger question is, of course, receiving continuing attention, as its nature warrants that it must.
Mr. Leboe:: Mr. Chairman, I have a few remarks I should like to make in connection with this important matter involving, as it does, the question of automation and tech-

nological advances. We cannot, of course, go into a lot of detail in this regard on a debate such as this, but it does seem to me that technological advances and automation are nothing new. However, government policy, particularly at the federal level, must be geared to take care of the circumstances that arise out of these technological changes and automation, and it seems to me we are lagging far behind in this regard.
I do not think we should be afraid of technological advances and automation. As a matter of fact we should welcome anything which will raise the standard of living of all our peoples. I am reminded of the speech made by the Minister of Labour, which was quite fully covered on a television program last night, in which he regretted that in many parts of Canada today people are in abject poverty. Here we find we are moving into a situation which will add to the distress of the people in the areas concerned because we have failed to go ahead with our plans to take care of situations which arise owing to technological advances and automation.
To the people who are affected this is a very serious matter. The minister has said that the railway company has agreed to buy the homes of these individuals. They might buy the houses of the individuals but they cannot buy the homes, because a home is more than just a place to live in. The association of a community is part of home life, and there is more to that than just buying the house of an individual or buying his assets. Surely this step should only take place under certain conditions, and there are a lot of ways in which this disagreeable move can be made less agonizing if the proper steps at the proper time are taken.
According to the minister, the over-all plan is to get these changes through by 1966. It would seem to me that with the moves which have been made to get some action on section 182 of the Railway Act over the years, certainly somebody has slipped up somewhere when there comes to light a situation where plans have been made to eliminate by 1966 many of these small places through action taken by the railways. I am one of those people who believe that we should never fear change or be afraid to move along; but at the same time where human beings and families are involved I think we should certainly take a much more serious look at the implications of such moves.
At this point I think I should say that I believe that a postponement of the railway's

plan is absolutely necessary. I think we must allow for further consideration of this particular case. There is no doubt at all in my mind that for the efficiency of the railroad these changes are good and I think they must come. It has been the practice of the railways over the years to make these changes at the same time as they make major changes in their time tables. Having this in mind it seems to me that there will be no great hardship in the offing either to the railroad or to anyone else if this proposed change was left over until next spring when the time tables of the railway companies are changed again. There are summer and winter schedules, and as I say it has been the practice of the railway companies to make most of their changes at the same time as they make the change from summer to winter schedules or winter to summer schedules.
I believe the management of the railway could easily bring about a discussion of this matter, such as we are having in this committee today, so as to bring the whole business into focus. I can understand that a businessman who is running a railway and having to deal with government, with parliament and with population, would demand that drastic action be taken where there is a lack of initiative on the part of the government. I suggest to hon. members that the railway company has been forced into taking this drastic action in order to focus attention on the problem. Certainly we have not received from the government any indication that the action necessary to forestall the inconvenience and hardship which is going to be caused the people affected will be taken. Therefore I would urge the government to take a very serious and hard look at this whole situation, to do what they can to influence the railways to postpone the action contemplated in these run-throughs and to find some real solution to the problem.
The minister says he is not certain whether section 182 should be changed. I agree that there are other types of business, occupations and operations facing the same problem with which we are confronted here, and perhaps section 182 of the Railway Act is not the place to make this sort of change. If this is not the place to make the changes let us move on and make changes where they should be made, so that this kind of thing can be taken care of whether it be in respect of mining, farming in dried out areas or railways and other services. Let us move in a direction which will lead to some permanent
Interim Supply
solution to the problem with which we are faced in respect of displaced persons as a result of automation and technological advances.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, while the minister was speaking before our luncheon adjournment he took exception to some interjections I made in his speech and in the speech of the hon. member for Port Arthur. Having heard the minister speak since lunch time I not only have no apology to make, but I wish my interjections had been made in a stronger vein.
I do not know why the minister took exception to the fact the hon. member for Port Arthur put the responsibility for what is taking place at Nakina directly on the shoulders of the president of the C.N.R. and the government. Surely the president of the C.N.R. must accept responsibility for everything the C.N.R. has done, whether he, a vice president or an official at Nakina issued the orders. Surely the president is responsible for the actions taken by the C.N.R., whether they are right or wrong. Certainly the hon. member for Port Arthur need not feel that he should explain or apologize for what he said about Mr. Gordon. If the actions contemplated by the C.N.R. this week end are wrong in principle and will adversely affect the people of Nakina, surely the government must accept responsibility.
We are not discussing this issue only because of the adverse effects it will have on a small town in northwestern Ontario, in spite of the fact that the town will be almost wiped out. We are discussing this situation because it is the first change of a series which undoubtedly the C.N.R. contemplate.
Let me make it clear that neither I, any other member of this party, nor perhaps any member of this house, objects to the C.N.R.'s actions and necessary steps to make it as efficient as possible, enabling it to move passenger and freight traffic as economically as possible to compete with other forms of transportation. On the other hand, we do have a right to expect the government and the C.N.R. to give some thought to the costs involved. Included in those costs must be considered the disruption of the lives of the many people who are not being asked to sacrifice only a few hundreds or thousands of dollars, but their whole way of life.
For the past two or three years members of the present government have been travelling from one end of Canada to the other talking about the importance of planning,

Interim Supply
and suggesting that this country will not develop in full the use of its material and manpower resources without intelligent planning. The Minister of Labour was in Hamilton last night talking about the benefits of automation, and what automation could do for Canada if we only had the intelligence to use it properly. Not so many months ago the Minister of Forestry, at a conference in Toronto, attended by a number of members of parliament, referred to the benefits of planning and direction by the federal government in co-operation with provincial and municipal governments. Indeed that minister went so far as to refer to himself, and this is often considered to be a dirty word, as a socialist. I do not know how he fits in with the ideas expressed by the Minister of Transport, or that great exponent of free enterprise, the Minister of Industry. That is the kind of talk regarding planning we have heard from one end of Canada to the other.
The present situation provides a concrete test, rather than a test of theory, as far as efficiency of operation is concerned. Surely the C.N.R. is not a company that can exercise the rights of free enterprise, to run its business in any way it sees fit which will be only to the greatest advantage of its shareholders. This is a company owned and operated by and for the people of Canada. This company was not built to make money, but was built to meet a political situation in Canada, to provide coast to coast transportation. This is a company which has received and continues to receive massive subsidies from the people of Canada. These subsidies run in the neighbourhood of hundreds of millions of dollars. Every year this company comes to the parliament of Canada asking for millions of dollars to help meet its deficits. If we pass the railway legislation proposed ostensibly to implement the recommendations of the MacPherson report this company will receive further hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies.
This company has decided that in order to be more efficient the workers of a small town in northwestern Ontario will have to be moved. What is this great planning about which the acting minister spoke so glowingly today? The company has indicated that it is willing to make contributions toward the purchase of the homes to be vacated by these people. I do not think the hon. member for Port Arthur was scathing enough in his remarks about the Liberal party, if the pending action by the C.N.R. is an example of its thinking on planning.

The provincial department of education recently built a high school in the area of Nakina at a substantial cost, with the understanding that a number of students from Nakina would attend that school. The provincial government spent a substantial amount of money to build a paved highway into Nakina five or six years ago. All that money will be going down the drain because these services will be completely useless with the run-throughs which the C.N.R. has ordered go into effect next week end. That town will virtually become a ghost town.
All these facts have been ignored by the acting minister. I should not expect anything more because he is typical of the do nothing, stand pat, business as usual Liberals who really run the show. Why are we concerned in this regard? We are concerned because we realize this is only the first step. I had a telephone conversation with an individual in Winnipeg last evening as a result of which I am sure that the step to be taken at Nakina this week end is only a first step in a program of this kind. In the very near future major changes affecting the Winnipeg area will take place. Many workers in the past six years have been shifted from Sioux Lookout and Redditt to Winnipeg. Soon they will be shifted again from Winnipeg to areas further west, if the projected plans of the C.P.R. in respect of run-throughs are carried out. These individuals, who in the last six years were shifted from western Ontario to Winnipeg, will again have to move from Winnipeg to somewhere in Saskatchewan and work on services from Saskatchewan back to Winnipeg. I do not know whether the C.N.R. will think them important enough to compensate them for their homes in Winnipeg. Probably they will not, because this is the first time they have ever made such an offer and I am sure they did not do so voluntarily, or with very good grace. So, Mr. Chairman, for the minister to say that this is not a very important or big matter is for him simply to beg the issue.
The minister said that he advised the railway unions and these people to make a counter-proposal. How ridiculous can you be, Mr. Chairman? This problem cannot be solved in Nakina or Wainwright. Railway workers from one end of Canada to the other are concerned and upset because they know what has happened in the last 15 years and they know that the tremendous changes which have taken place are going to continue. You cannot expect the people in Nakina or Wainwright or their local or national unions to

work out a plan to apply to only these two places.
Surely if the government really believes in what it has said about planning so eloquently, so often and in so many places, the government ought to be urging, in fact directing the management of the C.N.R. not simply to tell the railway workers and their unions what is going to happen on Sunday in Nakina and Wainwright but to tell them what their plans are for the next five or ten years. Let railway management work out a national plan in co-operation with the railway workers and their unions.
I suggest to members of the committee there is not a single railway worker or a single railway union that does not know about and agree with the idea that the railways have to be modernized and have to change their methods of operation, but the workers do not want to carry the whole burden and they should not be expected to do so. It behooves the management of the C.N.R. and the C.P.R. as well as the government of Canada to work out plans for an orderly transition.
The acting minister says today, as the Minister of Transport said on September 14 when we discussed his estimates for one day, that the department is not satisfied that section 182 of the Railway Act is the proper method by which to protect the rights of the railway workers. The railway workers and their unions are not very concerned about what section of the Railway Act is used, whether it is section 182 or another section or whether entirely new legislation is adopted, but they are tired of the excuses that have been made year by year by railway management and by the government. They want action.
The railway workers are not opposed to the principles and recommendations of the MacPherson report. They are not opposed to reorganization and rationalization of the railways. They are not opposed to the railways being put into a position where they will be able to compete fairly with all other methods of transportation. But they are fed up with the idea prevalent in railway management, which I must say it seemed to me the acting minister expounded very well for railway management, that everything must be done to modernize and rationalize the railways, but nothing can be done to protect the rights of the railway workers, to make sure that there is an orderly transition and that people who have worked for the railway for 10, 15
Interim Supply
or 20 years are not thrown on the scrap heap.
I am not going to prolong the debate at this time. However, if the government persists in ignoring and sloughing off the railway workers with double talk when they ask for guarantees in the proposed railway legislation so that they will not be treated in the future as they have been in the past, if the government persists in saying that section 182 is not the right section but they do not know what is, if the government says again what the Minister of Transport said to me on September 14, that the only way this matter can be handled is in the over-all method of handling the problem of automation through setting up a technical committee in the Department of Labour with really no power to do anything, then I want to warn the acting minister right now that it will be a long, long time before the proposed railway legislation will pass, if it ever does. The government is going to have to do a great deal better than it has or it will not get the co-operation of the house in passing that legislation.


Mr. Cadieu (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Chairman, I must say I listened with great interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Melville regarding run-throughs and the many people who will be affected. I also listened with interest to the hon. member for Port Arthur who covered the subject extensively. One thing that gives me great concern is Bill No. C-120 and the question of rail line abandonment. In the railway committee I put questions to the president of the Canadian National Railways about this matter. I think it is most unjust for the C.N.R. to talk about rail line abandonment before it has fulfilled its obligations.
I remember quite well when the Shell-brook-Turtleford line was constructed and how the department of colonization of the C.N.R. went into the area and encouraged homesteaders to settle there and develop the country. I have seen how Canadian National Railways has fallen down on its part of the bargain over the years by never completing this line. It now claims that the line does not pay, but the fact is it has not lived up to its responsibility to complete the gap from Frenchman Butte to Heinsburg, Alberta. It should keep in mind those people who have spent the greater part of their lives in developing this area because the fact is that it is the mismanagement of the Canadian National which has made it impossible for the line to be a paying one, simply because

Interim Supply
of the failure to complete the gap of 38 miles. If this were done we would have a main route that would serve northern Alberta including the salt mines at Heinsburg. There would be a direct run from Winnipeg through Prince Albert and North Battleford and the line could very easily be made to pay. But the C.N.R. has this line on its list for abandonment. In talking about abandonment it is betraying those people who went in there and developed that region. The C.N.R. has not lived up to its part of the bargain. If it had done so the line would have paid but it has failed to fill this gap of 38 miles across level country.
If the C.N.R. would take stock of its own failures with regard to some of the lines it is talking about abandoning, I think there would be a different feeling in western Canada. The people in this area are very much concerned because they settled there, established homes, built up fine farms and raised their families. But now they find they are going to be without a rail line of any kind and in many cases they will be 75 to 100 miles away from the nearest rail point. The people of western Canada are very much concerned about these things.
In another case the C.N.R. graded the right of way from St. Walburg to Cold Lake and then did not lay the steel. There the right of way stands today, overgrown with trees. This lack of faith on the part of the Canadian National, this betrayal of many settlements in western Canada, is something that should be considered before we allow the Canadian National to say they are going to pull up this track. The railway should be made to live up to its responsibilities to the settlers, merchants and businessmen all along this line which the Canadian National is talking of abandoning.
These are some of the things to which the railway should give a close look, and to which we as legislators of this country should give a close look. I questioned Mr. Gordon in the railways committee with regard to this. He admitted that the salt mine was still there, but the settlers were still there, and he admitted the railway had betrayed them by allowing them to go in and settle these farmlands, then talk about abandonment. The possibilities are still there, but there is no talk of filling in the gap in order to make this a paying line so that it would be unnecessary to talk about abandonment.
between both railway lines. I believe the Canadian Pacific was given running rights over the Canadian National from Prince Rupert to Debolt to complete the 90 miles to Debolt and tap the wealth of the Meadow Lake district. There it sits, with no hint of any extension because the railway has already tapped the wealth of the area, but they have deprived the people of Pierceland, Goodsoil and Cold Lake of access to a railway line. The Canadian National was forced to give the Canadian Pacific running rights on the 90 miles of track, and the Canadian Pacific only had to build 90 miles of track to tap the whole wealth of the Meadow Lake country.
These are some of the things at which I think this government should look before any such abandonment should be allowed. One knows very well that when the Canadian National had this line built to Debolt they were the ones who should have had the opportunity of tapping the Meadow Lake country. I am sure they could have made the line pay very easily. These are the things at which I feel we should have a close look before considering Bill No. C-120. We should consider the completion of these gaps that have resulted from mismanagement by the railways before the railways are allowed to go further in their betrayal of these people. When we stop to think that there is merely 38 miles of line to be completed between Frenchman Butte and Heinsburg to tap the wealth of that land and the salt mine in that area, then I believe the people in the area are entitled to have the line of which they have been deprived for many years. We should take another look at the line from St. Walburg to Pierceland, and the railways should get their heads together regarding running rights. Why should the Canadian Pacific have running rights over this track when they only need to build 90 miles of track to tap the wealth of the Meadow Lake country. They are leaving the people in the Goodsoil area with no chance of being any closer to a railway unless we make the railways sit down and talk some common sense before they talk about rail line abandonment.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I should like to ask the minister one or two questions. I understood him to say that a delegation had waited upon him and had put forward a proposal for postponement of the action which is about to
I should like to touch upon one more take effect at Nakina at midnight on Sat-topic which relates to a misunderstanding urday, I believe. What was the response to 

that request by the minister, and what was the response to that request by the management of Canadian National?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, when the delegation presented its main case it consisted of opposition to any run-throughs at any time. There was quite a lengthy discussion and interview lasting two hours or two and a half hours on the first occasion. The second occasion was much shorter. Immediately following that, and arising out of the discussion-I am not sure of the date- they then brought forward a request for a postponement. This was a request for a postponement, not a counter-proposal to the one put forward by the railways. It did not involve any recognition or tentative admission that run-throughs would be agreed to at any time. This request, which was by itself, was immediately transmitted to the railway company. The railway management replied that they would consider it. There have been several discussions by the railway management. After discussion back and forth the railway has taken the stand that they do not think this partial implementation of the run-through on October 25, which is the main point discussed today, should be delayed. They do not believe it is appropriate to delay it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: In other words, the request for a postponement was denied. What does the minister mean by "partial implementation of the run-through"?


George James McIlraith: Well, I do not have the precise data on the Nakina run-through, but it is to be implemented generally by making it applicable to certain railway workers or certain trains only. Perhaps I could express it this way, although there is some danger in doing it, that out of a number of employees, say 90 employees, it would affect about 20 at the moment.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On the 25th; and then when would the others be affected?


George James McIlraith: During the next two years- a gradual process during the next two years.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask the minister another question? When was formal notice given by the railway management to the Canadian National employees?


George James McIlraith: I cannot give that date, I do not have it. I notice that the brief presented by the community representatives refers to a discussion that took place in May of 1964. There are many references in that brief. In any event, there was a specific discussion of this on September 18, 1964. I do
Interim Supply
not know on what precise date formal notice was given.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Is the minister satisfied that the railway management has observed the appropriate sections in the Montreal agreement of May, 1926?


George James McIlraith: I am not familiar with the Montreal agreement. The first time it was mentioned in any of these discussions was today. It is a new agreement to me, and I immediately drew it to the attention of my officials the first time it was mentioned. I am satisfied all the other agreements have been fully observed. In addition there has been a great deal done that has not been required in law to be done. I am satisfied, notwithstanding some of the sharp criticism by hon. members today, about the generosity, if you like, of the offer to purchase homes from any of the men who wished to move, on the basis of a valuation of them and the implication of that in relation to the tax rolls of the community. I am not aware of any, and I do not believe any criticism has been offered of the method of valuation or anything like that. It has been a refusal to accept the proposition that run-throughs can be implemented that has been the core of the problem.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Well, I will refer to some of these matters in a few minutes. The subject introduced today by the hon. member for Melville and the hon. member for Port Arthur is of major importance, and others who have spoken have drawn our attention to the fact that more instances like this are likely to occur in the near future. It is advisable for the committee to take cognizance of this situation. Perhaps some time during the course of this afternoon we may persuade the minister to communicate directly with the head of the C.N.R. and indicate to him the opinion expressed by members of parliament, suggesting a postponement of his proposed action would be very much in order so that further attention could be given to the problem and the wishes of the people of the community affected taken into consideration.
I do not see anything wrong in postponing an action such as this which, in its final effect, will be disruptive of the life of the community. We in this country are not opposed to modernizing our methods of transport. We have a progressive country and we want to proceed with many of these things. Everyone appreciates that the age of automation is crowding us closely, that disruption of the activities of many people is inevitable, but

Interim Supply
at the same time we think the blow should be eased as much as possible.
We have some experience in matters of this sort. A few years ago when I had some responsibility for uranium we negotiated an agreement with the United States on the basis of a stretch out program, so that the mining communities would receive another two, three or four years life before the shift occurred. The blow was eased a little bit, and there was not the sudden chop off in 1962 that was foreseen at the beginning of the negotiations.
The minister is familiar with the disruption of the T.C.A. overhaul maintenance base in Winnipeg. He knows the efforts he and his colleagues have made to stretch out the life of that base. I hoped that the base would not be transferred, but at the very least a stretch out program is essential when the lives of people are affected.
With such experience behind us why can the management of C.N.R. not adopt that principle? The minister has said the management must be given freedom to run its own affairs. Everyone is familiar with the answers we get to questions about crown corporations. A minister replies, "I will direct the attention of the crown corporation to the hon. member's observation or question." We get this all the time with the C.B.C., and over the years we have had the same experience with the C.N.R.
When crown corporations are dependant upon parliament for grants of money, and for modification of legislation that affects their operations, there must be a quid pro quo. We are justified in saying, "In return for the things we are doing for you, you must do something for us and our constituents, because we are dealing directly with the lives of people." The problem before us this afternoon affects the lives of people in a community that has been thriving for some considerable time.
On September 14, as recorded at page 7982 of Hansard for that date, the Minister of Transport expounded the philosophy that should prevail, and I quote:
It is our view that it is of great importance that we should give the railways an opportunity to operate as efficiently and as economically as possible and avoid adding unduly to fixed charges that are imposed upon the taxpayers and that inevitably have to be paid for and are therefore a minus factor in the economy. At the same time we must remember that the railways are large employers of labour; that the interests of the employees of the railways, our fellow citizens, must not be overlooked, and that, though change is essential in this field if the railways are to compete and receive a reasonable share of the traffic which will enable them to maintain their services out of 
their revenues, we must at the same time see that we do not, because of changes for which they have no responsibility whatsoever, visit hardships that are not reasonable and bearable upon a large section of the Canadian population.
That was a good expression of the philosophy that should be kept in mind when we are dealing with this type of problem. We should strive for economy and greater efficiency, but not at the expense of the people operating in the industry. Without people an industry just does not exist. It finally comes down to the human factor, and sometimes we tend to overlook the fact that the employee is a vital segment of industrial development. The employees of the railways are absolutely essential and their interests must be protected. As changes occur, those changes should be stretched out.
I question whether the management of the C.N.R. has lived up to an agreement which it signed on May 1, 1926. I am informed this agreement was signed by a representative of the C.N.R. and by representatives of the brotherhood of locomotive engineers and of the brotherhood of locomotive firemen and enginemen. It is known as the Montreal agreement, and I am told has been effective ever since. Section 9 of it reads as follows:
Nothing in this agreement shall be taken to permit the company without prior conference with representatives of the employees to change existing home terminal stations of the employees affected thereby

The action which it is proposed to take tomorrow interferes with that provision. It will change the existing home terminal station of the C.N.R. employees living in Nakina, and I ask the minister whether a prior conference took place between the C.N.R. management and the representatives of the two brotherhoods who were party to this agreement?
A few minutes ago the minister said he did not have the terms of the Montreal agreement in front of him.
Section 10 reads as follows:
This agreement will become effective when signed by the representatives of the Canadian National Railways, the brotherhood of engineers and the brotherhood of locomotive firemen and enginemen and shall continue in effect until 30 days notice of a desired change is given by either of the parties to the other.
I take it there are two requirements here -consultation and then formal notification from officials to officials, that is, from management to officials of the brotherhood, and it has not been clear this afternoon whether or not these two steps were taken. The suggestion has been left with us that unilateral

action was taken by the management of the C.N.R. If this is the case I suggest to the minister that an immediate phone call should be put through to the head of the C.N.R. with a recommendation that a postponement should take effect and that the status quo should remain tomorrow night. Then let the minister and railway management and the representatives of the brotherhoods get together and discuss whether or not this agreement of 1926 has been abrogated, and reach some *conclusion with regard to it. I think a definite responsibility rests on the minister in this regard. I am making no charges. I am asking for information. But it has been suggested to me that the steps to which I have referred, the steps contained in the agreement, have not been carried out. Parliament should know. If those steps have, indeed, been carried out, then the management of C.N.R. would not be under attack on that ground. If they have not been carried out, the management of the C.N.R. would, I think, have to give an accounting to parliament. We have some responsibility to the people of Canada for the way in which the railways are operated, and this is one matter I should like to see cleared up. Until it has been cleared up, I suggest the only reasonable approach is to postpone the action proposed tomorrow night.
I do not think the minister can put us off by saying: This is no concern of ours; it is up to management to carry on its affairs and we should not interfere. I say the management of C.N.R. should tell parliament what it is up to. I refer again to the statement by the Minister of Transport which I read a few minutes ago, the statement which says that hardships or burdens which are not reasonable should not be imposed upon a large section of the Canadian population.
Why this great haste with regard to the operation at Nakina? Why cannot suitable notice be given? Why cannot there be a stretch out program as suggested by the hon. member who spoke before me? Why cannot this operation be postponed until the spring of the year? How much difference would this make to the railway? Would it seriously inconvenience the railway? I doubt that very much. Will the people directly concerned be seriously inconvenienced, now that we are approaching the winter season? I think this is likely, and these are factors which I hope the minister will taken into account.
Other matters affecting the railways will be before parliament soon. Legislation concerning railway line abandonment to permit
Interim Supply
greater economy and efficiency of operation will be a major subject for discussion. The railways will be expecting concessions and benefits as a result of the actions of parliament. In return we must say to them: Your employees and their families must be given a fair break. This is a good time to start, right now with regard to the problems which have come to our attention today. Let the management of the C.N.R. say right out: We will postpone our proposed change in Nakina, and subsequently give to the Minister of Transport, or to the acting minister, and through him to parliament, our proposals over a long period of time-so that parliament shall not be faced with isolated cases such as the one with which we are dealing today, but will have the general picture of what is proposed as a result of automation and the various changes considered necessary for efficient operation.
Are we to be faced next month with a similar situation in some other railway centre, and then in January with another and in February with yet another? Why can we not have the whole plan put in front of us so that we may understand the general picture. And if railway management thinks we are presently unsympathetic, this is the way to cure that attitude. Give us the information, and then we shall be able to deal with these matters on the basis of accurate knowledge. We should not be faced with such a situation as occurred today-a motion for adjournment of the house on a matter of urgent public importance, raised because of a proposed action by railway management affecting the lives of people in Nakina whose protests had apparently been rejected. What recourse is open to them? Their only recourse is to appeal to members of parliament to raise the matter in the house, to bring it to the attention of the public and to urge the government to take some action.
This is, of course, what has happened today. We just happened to be dealing with interim supply when the subject could be discussed. May I say, in conclusion, that the minister himself is not unfamiliar with the activities of the government in connection with the railways, and employees of the railways, at various times over the years when strikes have occurred or when strikes have been threatened. The government has had to intervene. It has been obliged to consult and confer with representatives of both employers and labour. The minister has, I think, been through this process himself in the past. He will certainly remember the special session of 1950. I have vivid recollec-

Interim Supply
tions of being up all night long, when we were in office, until 4 a.m. in the east block conferring with management and representatives of labour with regard to a proposed rail strike.
The government cannot avoid becoming involved in these problems which affect the citizens of this country. Why not take steps to head off trouble before it occurs? In this particular instance, action taken now might well forestall trouble later, though of course I do not know what other steps may be taken by those concerned. But in order to avoid a protracted dispute-and I gather this might happen from v/hat I have heard today-is this not an opportunity for the minister to take appropriate action immediately, to contact the head of the C.N.R., apprise him of the feeling of members of parliament, and to say to him: "Cannot we get a postponement of this?" Let us get all the facts assembled, if we have not already got them at our disposal, and see whether this matter cannot be cleared away without unnecessarily stirring up a hornet's nest. The minister can say to the head of the C.N.R.: "You are waiting impatiently for railway legislation to go through this house. If you proceed with this action you are not going to put the members of the House of Commons in the proper frame of mind to meet some of your requests in the future." I do not suggest that as a threat, but we are all human beings and we understand how these things operate. It is a quid pro quo. I make one final request to the minister to do his level best to get a postponement of the situation at Nakina.


Mr. Regan:: Mr. Chairman, I shall just take a few moments of the time of the committee to speak on this subject of railways. First of all, I should say, in general reference to rail abandonment, that while in some circumstances conditions certainly exist where rail abandonment cannot be avoided and is in the national interest, it has always seemed to me that wholesale abandonment of rail lines indicates a lack of faith on the part of the railways in the future of this country. The fact that our growing population is now nearing 20 million means that in the future in all these areas more rail service will be required because these people will provide more rail traffic than has been the case in the past.
My primary purpose in rising this afternoon, however, is to discuss the question of the attitude of the Canadian Pacific Railway with reference to their policy of curtailing passenger service, specifically as it applies

to service by dayliners into and from the city of Halifax through the Dominion Atlantic run via the Annapolis valley to Yarmouth. As members of this committee will know, earlier this week the board of transport commissioners intervened to rule that the proposed curtailment of such service, which would have cut down the number of day-liners and the hours of service in that area for residents of the valley coming into and out of the city of Halifax, should be postponed until public hearings on the matter could be held. This occurred only after there had been widespread public protest. I am confident that when public hearings are held on this matter there will be very strong submissions, and well reasoned ones, against the curtailment of this service.
The only point upon which I wish to comment this afternoon is the fact that it appears to me, using this instance in Nova Scotia as an example, that the Canadian Pacific Railway is interested in getting out of passenger traffic rather than trying to make it pay, and that they are prepared to use whatever guise is necessary to make some of their runs unprofitable so that they can be abandoned. I can come to no other conclusion as a result of what is being done with this dayliner service in Nova Scotia.
Despite the fact that from Hants county and Kings county, which are areas served by the dayliner, as well as from other surrounding counties such as Lunenburg and Colchester, over 1,000 people drive their cars in all types of weather to commute to work in Halifax every day, people who would much sooner travel, particularly in the cold weather, in the comfort of an efficient commuter service, and despite the fact that these dayliners are very comfortable and satisfactory to the people who do have occasion to travel on them, the railway has never found it worth while to attempt to run dayliners during hours which would serve the commuting public in any manner, shape or form.
To give an example, the city of Kentville is about 69 miles from Halifax. All this summer and fall the dayliner service has been leaving Kentville in the mornings at something like 8.30 a.m. and arriving at Halifax at a quarter to eleven daylight time, which is the time in force in Nova Scotia at this time of year. I think you can readily see, Mr. Chairman, that this service cannot attract any but those who wish to travel in leisure at whatever hour they like and who are not working on that day. Now, if that train were

to leave Kentville at 6.45 in the morning and arrive in Halifax at a quarter to nine, although that might be a little late for people in the labouring class who start work at eight o'clock it nevertheless would be of great service to those who work in offices, banks, etc. who start work at nine o'clock in the morning. It does not take a great brain to see that the railway company could have much more in the way of traffic on that train if that were the case.
In addition, the train which leaves the city to go back to Kentville in the evening, the one they want to take off, has been leaving Halifax at a quarter to seven in the evening and arriving at Kentville a couple of hours later after passing through Windsor, Hants-port, Wolfville and other towns. I think it is obvious that if this service left downtown Halifax at, say, ten after five in the evening and made a stop on the outskirts of the city, particularly during the winter months, there would be a lot of people who would travel on the train.
However, I do not mean to suggest that at the present time this train travels empty or that the C.P.R.-D.A.R. application to curtail this service is justified. In the last couple of weeks and while this matter has been under consideration I have made a point of travelling on the train twice. I know that on a Saturday night coming from Halifax-I presume most people who leave the city for the week end leave on the Friday night-there were 38 people on board, which I am told is more than ample to justify its operation. On the week ends the service between Halifax and Kentville is very crowded. Acadia University students, and people at other educational institutions such as King's College, Edgehill and Haligonians going to the valley for one purpose or another, have patronized the service to the point that it has been extremely crowded at week ends. On another occasion during the past two weeks I travelled on the train when there were 140 people on board and I had to stand the whole way from Kentville to Halifax. I think this is a demonstration of the fact that the Canadian Pacific Railway is interested only in getting out of the trouble of running passenger service.
Mind you, they are still talking of curtailment despite the fact that they are particularly busy on week ends and could make what I would call a continuous service at week ends when it pays handsomely. They arrange this service throughout the week and
Interim Supply
bring about a situation where, if a person goes out of or into the city he has no alternative but to stay overnight at his destination and return the next day. This type of commuter service could, I think, be a very efficient and profitable one if ran at the proper hours.
I think there is a responsibility somewhere to provide an efficient service. If the railways are not going to accept the proper responsibility, then it is the responsibility of some level of government-and I know of no other government than the one here- to work in co-operation with municipal officials in areas where rail service is run as part of a commuter service and is the only efficient commuter service serving the area concerned. The railways should consider the interest of the people in the cities. So much for the situation at Halifax.
I have brought this matter up this afternoon so that it receives some public attention before the hearings to which I have referred are held on this proposed rail curtailment, either later in the fall or early in the new year. I think the railways of this country are the foundation of our national existence.
The only other matter regarding the new rail legislation on which I should like to comment at this time is this. I hope I will be reassured by the officials of the government that when this legislation does reach the committee stage for consideration it will contain protection for the maritime interests, and the maritime interests I might add will not be protected as a result of leaving the Maritime Freight Rates Assistance Act as it is. That act, as some hon. members are aware, applies only to domestic cargoes. We are still faced with problems in respect of export and import cargo rates, if the ports of Saint John and Halifax are to remain in business, and that is something I am sure will be discussed in coming days.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Always.


Donald MacInnis: To avoid the necessity of making a correction in Hansard on Monday, would the hon. member when he is checking his speech change his reference to the cities
of Windsor, Wolfville and Kentville?


Gerald Augustine Regan: I should have been very happy to make a similar generous appellation with regard to Glace Bay, and since the hon. mem-

Interim Supply
ber has made reference to the correction, those are incorporated towns, not cities.


Mr. Nasserden:: Mr. Chairman, I should first like to congratulate the hon. member for Port Arthur and the hon. member for Melville for referring in the first instance to this matter. The fact that we have to discuss it during our consideration of interim supply is, of course, one of those things that happen in parliament. I am not going to refer to a decision that was made in this house today, particularly because I noted the chairman looking in my direction as soon as I referred to it, but I do not think there is any more important matter to be discussed by the members of the House of Commons at the present time than the subject we have been considering, and particularly its application to Nakina.
The railroad development that has taken place in this country is one of the most dramatic stories in Canadian history, as well as one of the most controversial. The minister today in his quiet way made some devastating revelations. After all, the matter that has been discussed is part of a larger problem in respect of automation, not only as it affects railways in this country, but as it affects other industry. The remarks placed on the record today indicate some lack of action and appreciation by those who sit opposite and who are charged with the responsibility of dealing with these matters. Railroad development in this country called together not only those men who formed the working unit of our railways, but the necessary resources to make our national railways system the utility it is today.
What has been suggested by the management of the C.N.R. in respect of Nakina is a modification of long term plans which were placed not only before the people of the various communities concerned, but the employees who were taken on as part of this organization. When we consider the extent to which the proposed action will affect many of these employees and communities, and the absolute lack of consideration for those who will ultimately be squeezed out, we cannot help but think that the House of Commons at this time could serve no better purpose than discussing this matter and impressing upon the government and the minister their responsibilities in this regard.
It has been said today that this matter is not directly part of the administrative responsibility of the ministry or government. That may be true in a narrow sense, but every one of us will agree that transportation

and railway problems, and problems associated with automation, must be of immediate concern to the ministry which sits in those seats across the way.
There are those individuals who will say that the railway officials have indicated to some that they will do certain things to help lessen the load, but there are others who ultimately will be squeezed out by this contemplated action. I have yet to note any contemplated action which will protect their interests in this matter.
When we consider interim supply we usually look for a grievance as the subject matter of our speeches. Today we did not have to look very far. Many things could have been referred to, but I think it is fitting today that we are discussing this subject which is related not only to personnel abandonment, which is one of the real problems facing the country today, but also to contemplated rail line abandonment. Without getting into a discussion of that aspect of the situation, as has been indicated by several members here today parliament itself should give an indication to the officials of the railways of the determination that the rights and privileges of their employees will not be forgotten. Nor will the future and welfare of the various communities concerned with rail line abandonments be forgotten.
We are told by the minister that there is complete flexibility, but it seems to me there is only flexibility so long as the C.N.R. is allowed to proceed on its chosen path, a path which the minister pointed out today is one which allows certain employees to bump others along the line. This is a procedure which will within less than two years affect the great percentage of the population of the town of Nakina.
The consequence of automation is one of the problems that everyone in the House of Commons and across this country is thinking about today. Every one of us realizes that with new techniques developed there will have to be a readjustment of our working force. We realize at the same time that in any readjustment, not only the companies involved but the government should move very carefully. What is taking place is an upheaval of our entire industrial process in Canada. With such an upheaval most families will necessarily find themselves in a new environment. The question we must ask at this time, and it has been asked by members of the opposition today, is whether or not those directly concerned and

affected by the action contemplated will indeed suffer a measure of inconvenience and loss out of proportion to what any citizen should be asked to shoulder.
The minister referred to the law. May I say to him that there is a law known as the law of common sense, and perhaps that is the kind of law that should govern in a case such as the one under consideration at the present time. A few months delay in this matter is of no great consequence to the C.N.R. but it is of great consequence to the men and their families, particularly having in mind, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, the season of the year when the railway proposes to take this action. Indeed, sir, one would almost think that the management of the railway has forgotten entirely the inconvenience that will be suffered by their employees.
I do not want to take any more of the time of the committee this afternoon. I hope the minister will impress upon the officials of the C.N.R., particularly the president, the necessity for taking action to alleviate this situation, and I look forward to an announcement along that line, at least to the effect that the minister has tried. After the debate we have had today I suggest we have every right to expect that the minister should try to do something in this connection even at this late hour.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to express my complete support of the protests and pleas put before the house and the minister by the dozen or so members who have dealt with the proposals of Canadian National Railways, which will affect the lives of a good many of its employees and the welfare of certain communities. There is no necessity for me to repeat what they have so eloquently, forcefully and in some instances lividly stated.
I also want to express my complete support of the remarks made by the member on the government side of the house from Nova Scotia with respect to the Canadian Pacific Railway and its proposals for the abandonment of railway services and lines. I can see that the persons he represents are experiencing, shall I say, the same set of circumstances that the constituents I have the honour to represent experienced over a number of years. In my opinion the hon. member was quite correct when he said that in the first instance the C.P.R. does all it can to discourage passenger service and then uses the small numbers using the service as a
Interim Supply
reason for abandoning it. That is exactly what happened on the Kettle Valley railway.
For two or three years the C.P.R. did everything it could to decrease passenger service on the Kettle Valley railway by splitting the service at Penticton, by reducing the service and by making it as inconvenient as possible for the over 150,000 people served by that railway in the southeastern interior of British Columbia. While the C.P.R. has been successful in getting the board of transport commissioners to grant its application to withdraw passenger service on the Kettle Valley railway, in view of the fact that because of weather conditions and other circumstances numbers of people in the interior of British Columbia depend on railway travel primarily for good service in the winter, I suggest to the minister that this whole matter should be reconsidered and reviewed. I am not going to go into it at greater length now.
I want to take this opportunity to bring to the attention of the acting minister that this railway abandonment fever has again spread to the Kootenay district and is causing concern to the residents of the city of Rossland, and other people in my constituency. An application has been made by the C.P.R. to abandon some 7.1 miles of railway line between the village of Warfield and the city of Rossland. That is not a very long piece of railway line but it is an important one because it travels over a heavy grade into one of the highest cities in British Columbia, a city with a population of something over 3,000 people, a prosperous city which is mostly inhabited by persons employed by the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company, or persons who find their occupations in providing services to these employees. This application came out of the blue, as it were, and it has taken the people of Rossland by surprise.
I cannot understand the attitude of the C.P.R. first of all with respect to the Kettle Valley railway, which was and is a very profitable railway, although of course the C.P.R. insists on dividing freight receipts and passenger receipts, when presenting the company's costs. Second, I cannot understand the company's attitude now with respect to the abandonment of the line between Warfield and Rossland in view of the fact that the Canadian Pacific Railway makes the bulk of its profits out of its operations in the Kootenays. I think the officials of that company completely fail to recognize their responsibility to the persons who are producing the greater part of

Interim Supply
their profits, and I am sure there are a good many members of the house who will agree with me. I can see by the expressions on the faces of a number of members on the Progressive Conservative benches and on the government side of the house that I have a great deal of sympathy in respect of the plea I am making this afternoon.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I should also refer to the mutterings of approbation and so on expressed by Social Credit members to my rear. In this connection, Mr. Chairman, I now read a letter I received from the city clerk of Rossland. It is dated October 2, 1964, and reads as follows:
Dear Sir:
Re:	C.P.R. application for abandonment of
rail service Warfield to Rossland
Sorry for the delay in answering your letter of September 18 with regard to the above subject. After considerable study city council arrived at the decision that they would not object to the removal of the majority of track within the city limits-
See how reasonable they are.
-providing rail service is maintained from Warfield to the vicinity of the Rossland southerly boundary.
It is felt that in view of the renewed mining activity in this immediate area and in view of the fact that coal, flour and feed and a certain amount of oil and heavy equipment are supplied by rail the rail service should not be terminated to this city. There is 1.78 miles of main line and 1.21 miles of sidings within the city boundaries. Council would consent to this removal.
As a result of the correspondence I have received from the city of Rossland and other sources I have taken the matter up with the board of transport commissioners and I understand that an inspector has been sent to the district to interview the municipal authorities of Rossland, the major shippers in the district and all other persons who might be affected by this railway abandonment. I understand that after the inspector has reported to the board they will then come to a decision whether the circumstances are such as to warrant a hearing in the district with respect to the C.P.R. application to abandon this portion of their lines.
I urge the minister that in the first instance every opportunity be given to business people and other interested persons in the district to present their views at hearings of the board of transport commissioners, that a thorough study be made of the question and that there be no haste in coming to a decision. Here we have a very important industrial centre, the most important industrial centre in south-

eastern British Columbia, having to suffer once again from the railway abandonment fever which has seized the senior officials of the C.P.R. in recent years, and once again they have failed to recognize their responsibility not only to Canada as a whole but to the various employees and communities so seriously affected.


Mr. Pascoe:: Mr. Chairman, we have had a very interesting discussion of this very vexing problem. When the hon. member for Port Arthur and the hon. member for Melville attempted to adjourn the house to discuss this very urgent matter their motion was not allowed, but still we have spent the whole day on this question which indicates just how important it is and how much it concerns most members of the house. This is the value of interim supply, that we can bring up these questions, as was pointed out by the Acting Minister of Transport when he argued against adjourning the house to discuss this matter. At that time he asked us to present our views and that is what we are attempting to do.
The acting minister gave quite a lengthy explanation of the railway company's attitude regarding the possible easing of the impact of the new policy upon the employees. It was quite a clear statement, but I do not believe it will allay all the fears of the railway workers. I should like therefore to join with others in congratulating the hon. member for Port Arthur and the hon. member for Melville for the introduction of this question, almost on the eve of what could be the adoption of this run-through policy. I do not want to repeat all the arguments because I believe most of the arguments concerning the impact of this policy on railway workers and communities have been advanced. However I feel I should take some part in this discussion, at least to the extent of pointing out that the main line of the Canadian National runs through my constituency of Moose Jaw-Lake Centre. Since I will be referring to it a little later, I may point out also that the main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway also runs through Moose Jaw-Lake Centre in the southern area. The Canadian National is in the northern area. It is for this reason I am joining in this debate to point out that many of my constituents are vitally concerned.
One of the main towns in my riding on the main line of the Canadian National is Watrous. There are a large number of railway employees there. I am sorry that the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar is away just now on official business, but I should like

to point out that a town in his constituency, Biggar, is also vitally concerned with this situation. I have received letters about it, Mr. Chairman, but I will not read them. They are from union officials, and although I have a few of them I should like to refer to some comments made in one letter. It deals with what is called the announced intention of Canadian National Railways to implement a change in operations which would require train crews to be on duty for double the length of time usually involved in making a run over twice the usual distance they have been required to operate. I quote:
We in the railway running trades, being most familiar with train operations, are very concerned over the unsafe condition that will result to both operating personnel and to the public if such a practice is permitted-
I just read that as an example of some of the letters I have received concerning this matter. The hon. member for Meadow Lake, as well as others, have made some reference to railway line abandonment. This is a matter of greater concern to western Canada perhaps, Mr. Chairman, because of the greater impact over a larger area. Now there is the added concern over this proposed policy of run-through. I agree with other speakers that technological advances cannot be stopped. We must advance, the railways must advance, the whole economy of Canada must advance and all industries must adopt technological changes.
However, I believe there are other considerations to offset considerations of railway efficiency or economy of operations. I am thinking of the effect of this run-through policy on individual workers as well as on the communities in which they now reside. The Acting Minister of Transport made a statement concerning the offer of the railway company to buy the homes of workers who are affected by the run-through policy and may have to move. This offer, I imagine, is appreciated to a certain extent, but it certainly is not the whole answer to the concern of railway workers. As others have said there is the disruption of home life, and as one earlier speaker said the attachment to the community is part of the home life. I repeat, Mr. Chairman, that the effect on the communities, should the railway workers have to move, is one of the main concerns in connection with this problem. I do not know the situation in Nakina too well, to which the hon. member for Port Arthur re-ierred. However, I do know the situation dn my home city of Moose Jaw, which is
Interim Supply
on the main line of the Canadian Pacific.
I think I should refer to it briefly, as I know what can happen.
The main line of the Canadian Pacific came through Moose Jaw in 1882. According to records there certainly was a great celebration when that first locomotive reached the small settlement of Moose Jaw. The city was established as the main divisional point on the main line of the Canadian Pacific between Winnipeg and Calgary. So many employees in the city were on the railway payroll that the city was referred to for many years as "Moose Jaw, the railway city". The main roundhouse was built there to service the steam locomotives, and a large proportion of the population was employed by the C.P.R.
The picture changed greatly with the advent of diesel locomotives. No longer was the roundhouse of use. The diesels could go right through without being serviced, and for the last three or four years the roundhouse was used for the storage of wheat. Many of the railway employees were moved to Winnipeg or Calgary, and the city is no longer known as the railway city.
Some years ago a large depot was built which is still in use. Right beside it was a big railway office filled with administrative staff, but now that building is nearly empty, except for the ground floor where the telegraph office is situated. I mention these things to indicate what the hon. member for Port Arthur is referring to when he forecasts conditions in Nakina.
However, during the last three years, due to the huge exports of wheat negotiated by the previous government, many railway employees were brought back to Moose Jaw. Also there is now the great potash development in Saskatchewan, and three or four of the big potash mines are located in my constituency. This development will create more business for the railway and bring more of its employees back to work in Moose Jaw. As a nostalgic gesture commemorating Moose Jaw as a railway centre, a public subscription was recently taken up to purchase a steam locomotive that used to operate out of Moose Jaw. It is now stationed in the city as a reminder of the older days before the big diesels and automation changed railway policy.
The employees are concerned about this policy of run-throughs because it is one more step in changing the mode of railway operations. We should consider the situation carefully, and I thought the hon. member for

Interim Supply
Winnipeg South Centre used a very apt term when he said this policy should be stretched out. The terms run pretty well together: Stretch out the run-throughs.
We should impress upon the government and the railways that no precipitate action should be taken. The run-through policy is supposed to go into operation on October 25, but I point out that Bill C-120, previously referred to, is designed to establish a rationalization authority, and I wish to emphasize the word rationalization. I might mention in passing that I could not attend a meeting today which dealt with Bill C-120, as I was waiting my turn to speak on these estimates. I have attended previous meetings in connection with that bill and the attendance at them indicates the great interest in the bill. In closing, Mr. Chairman, I believe the C.N.R. should be asked not to take this action until Bill C-120 is finally dealt with by parliament, at which time the house can take a look at the complete railway picture.


Eric Alfred Winkler: On the occasion of interim supply members of the opposition have an opportunity to raise complaints about specific actions of the government, and in dealing with the subject matter being discussed today I wish to say it seems peculiar that the C.N.R., in a unilateral way, should be taking action against the town of Nakina. It is particularly peculiar when we consider some other aspects of government spending.
On this occasion interim supply involves something close to $800 million, and I would point out that the taxpayers of Canada support the C.N.R. to the tune of about $80 million a year. They also support the C.B.C. to the tune of about $100 million a year, and in view of these amounts it is most peculiar that the C.N.R. would take action practically to eliminate a town of some 400 wage earners and their dependants in an isolated part of northern Ontario, and this to save a few thousand dollars. It is even more peculiar because we know that in the not too distant future, if Bill C-120 is passed, it will implement an over-all pattern of operation for the C.N.R. We think this is quite justified, but having read the brief presented to the government by the delegation from Nakina I have come to the conclusion that it contained very strong arguments.
It is also worth noting that towns in the immediate vicinity also concerned with the functioning of the C.N.R. are in agreement with the terms of the brief. One of the towns which would probably benefit a great deal

as a result of this particular change is supporting the brief which was presented to the government. We must consider the social and human effects such a proposal is likely to have, even though the population directly involved might be considered small. It would be another matter entirely if we had the feeling that an over-all plan or policy was being introduced. But all we are getting are bits and pieces of policy. I must add that this is something for which the government itself has long been noted. Hon. gentlemen opposite try to tell us that this is a crown corporation, not subject to direct parliamentary authority, but we do not accept this view entirely because we know that in the interest of the people whose lives are affected the government could, if it wished, play a determining role.
I referred just now to failure to produce an over-all policy, and I would point in this regard to the present session of parliament, the longest I believe in Canadian history. We have witnessed one area of confusion after another. I see the Minister of National Health and Welfare in her place. We all know how many times she has tried to bring her pension plan before the house. Maybe she will be able to do so within a few days; I hope so. But one could examine any phase of government legislation during the present session and find confusion all the way. I referred earlier to the budget of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Here we find a creeping burden on the taxpayer. We find that increases in the expenditure of the C.B.C. have been very great, and undesirable to the people of Canada in many phases, though not in all phases, of the operations of the corporation. I must be fair in saying this criticism does not apply to all phases of the corporation's activities. The expenditure of money seems to mean nothing. I understand from my own research that the expenditures of the C.B.C. are now away beyond even those which are apparent; that the corporation uses methods to spend money in ways which have not been approved by parliament. We cannot get at this authority.
For the greater part of our discussion today the committee has been considering a proposal which would have an adverse effect on the people of Nakina and on the economy of that part of northern Ontario, and we must do something in this parliament to see that the rights of these people are fully protected and that they do not suffer as a result of the harsh policy which the C.N.R. is now adopting. The people who live in these railway towns are not the only ones who are uncer-

tain about their future. We need look no further than the Department of National Defence under this very government, and the uncertainty which prevails within that department at the present time. In addition to those in the Nakina area directly affected by the railway proposals, there are of course the small business people, the people who offer service in the stores and elsewhere, the police department, the school teachers, and so on. All these people are affected. It is all very well to offer a monetary return, but this does not really solve the problem. Does the C.N.R. intend to cut out these smaller towns right across the country, making all those concerned feel they do not know where the axe will fall next? I suggest that for once the government should take a decision. Let us take a small community of this kind and show the people of Canada that we intend to act in a democratic fashion. Let us not say: This affects only a few people so we do not need to worry about them; throw them out the back door. It is time we got down to serving the people of this country. If there is to be an over-all pattern, let us have it expressed in Bill C-120.
I was disappointed that only one hon. member opposite rose to support the views expressed by the opposition. I am referring to the hon. member for Halifax. I think sometimes that he should be over on this side of the house, but I will allow the hon. member to remain there as an outstanding member of the Liberal party, who can at least rise on occasion to criticize the policy being followed by his own government when he knows it is wrong.
In concluding these few remarks may I express the hope that the minister in charge of the Department of Transport will take another look at this situation affecting Nakina and take action to postpone or cancel the decision which the company has reached until at least such time as the house is able to consider Bill C-120.


Mr. Barneti:: I gather that most of the speeches made today have been directed to the minister who is piloting interim supply through the committee, the Acting Minister of Transport. I should like to direct a few remarks to him in his position as President of the Privy Council. May I say I am glad to see his colleague the Minister of Public Works present because the subject I am about to raise is of concern to his department, too.
I think the most expeditious manner in which I can place this question before the
Interim Supply
house-it is one which involves several departments and for that reason I raise it on interim supply-would be by reading the following letter which came into my hands today.
Dear Mr. Barnett:
I am sorry to have to call upon you once again. I hope this will be the last time.
My purpose in dealing with this letter is to try to ensure that it will be the last time, because I have had to do some troubleshooting before in this connection.
Last January we came to an agreement with the Department of Public Works regarding payment for land expropriated by the Department of Justice a year ago in August. To this date the agreement is all we have. Actual money does not seem to enter into their scheme of things.
To begin at the beginning:
1.	In February, 1963, we came to an agreement with the Vancouver office (of the Department of Public Works) regarding terms of sale of our land bordering the French Creek boat basin. Our offer was fully endorsed by the Vancouver office and forwarded to the Minister of Public Works in Ottawa. However, we received neither acknowledgement nor reply to our letter.
I might say that the project undertaken in connection with the sale is now proceeding. It is a good project, and I am happy to see it go on. Nevertheless, I think the other party concerned should not be left out in the cold. The letter continues:
2.	In August, 1963, without any previous warning, the Department of Justice expropriated our property and informed us after it had been re-registered. We had been assured by the Vancouver office that under no circumstances would this be done. You will understand our indignation, especially after we had been led to believe that our offer would be accepted.
3.	In January, 1964, our offer of February, 1963, was accepted and a cheque was received by Mr. Bruce Brown, Qualicum, solicitor for the Department of Justice. Naturally, we believed that interest was owing for the time lapse since expropriation and Mr. Brown withheld the cheque pending further word from the Department of Public Works.
4.	In February, they agreed to the payment of 5 per cent interest up until the time we received the money.
5.	In June, having heard nothing further I wrote to Mr. Walkey in Vancouver and his department assured me that our cheque had been mailed to Mr. Brown on May 26. By July, neither Mr. Brown nor I had received word of it. Again I wrote to Vancouver. This time they informed me that the Department of Justice had to get word from the department of the treasury before the cheque could come through. Mr. Brown wrote the Department of Justice immediately and they did not acknowledge even his letter. At the end of August he wrote again and this time the Department of Justice replied. They stated that they were waiting to hear from the Department of Public Works.
In September our lawyer in Vancouver was assured by the Department of Public Works that the delay had been caused by the E & N Railway rights

Interim Supply
but that everything was now cleared and that our cheque would be here within a few days. That was a month ago.
You will understand now why we have come to regard any statement made by any of the departments with distrust. My husband maintains that they should set up a department for activating other departments.
This matter is all tied up with my mother's estate. We are a family of five and we all think the situation has passed the ridiculous. Our lawyer agrees with us. What private individual or company would be allowed such inefficiency and actual dishonesty?
We would be grateful if you could take up the matter with the appropriate department-treasury, justice, public works? It is obvious that any individual's letter is beneath the notice of all of them.
Yours sincerely,
Mrs. M. Urie
I have put this letter on record in the hope that it may save the writing of another 20 or 25 letters on the subject, and also in the hope that the departments of justice, public works and the treasury will take due note of its contents. I also hope some immediate action will be taken to unsnarl this administrative tangle so that I will not have to follow through with the idea of proposing a motion to set up a department to activate other departments.


Mr. Coates:: Mr. Chairman, as the hour is almost up now for the day, I should like to say a few words on this subject and possibly conclude my remarks on Monday. First of all I should like to say that I am shocked that it has been necessary to bring the situation which exists in Nakina up in this manner. We have had on the order paper since September 14 Bill No. C-120 which outlines the action planned by the government to provide for the country a national transportation policy. This bill has been on the order paper now for more than a month but still no action has been taken by the government to see that it comes before us for debate and the policies outlined considered so that we can determine whether or not it is good and helpful legislation and legislation which will be of benefit to the country.
Only recently in this house the Prime Minister, in answer to questions posed by the hon. member for Saint John-Albert, assured us that the railway bill should be of assistance to the maritime provinces and that no detrimental action as a result of the bill would be forthcoming. However, I may say that the hon. member for Halifax indicated today that he was not anywhere near as optimistic about the legislation as was the Prime Minister. He is concerned about the Maritime

Freight Rates Act and the effect that this legislation will have on our area of the country. I may also say that Premier Stanfield recently indicated in a release that he was not anywhere near certain that the railway legislation was going to be of as much benefit as the Prime Minister would have us believe. Premier Stanfield indicated that a hike in freight rates for the Atlantic provinces would likely result from the new freight rate legislation now before parliament.
In view of the conflicting comments relating to this legislation, I am wondering whether or not it is the policy of the government to withhold any consideration of this matter until after November 9. I say this because a very important by-election is taking place in a very important railway centre in the maritime provinces. The city of Moncton derives a great deal of its livelihood from the operations of the C.N.R. and there is no doubt in my mind that there is a good possibility that what has happened at Nakina and what is possibly going to happen in Wain-wright might very well happen in Moncton.
This government does not want the constituents of Westmorland who will be putting their ballots in the box on November 9 to learn that this is going to happen in their area; to learn that there will be unemployment and people thrown out of work who now feel they have security and steady employment. No, this is not the type of thing this government wants those particular people to know about, so the government are leaving this legislation sitting on the order paper and taking no action on it in the hope that the people of Westmorland are not going to know anything about this, and that it will come as a great shock to them after they cast their ballots. This is done in the hope that if these people know nothing about it they will cast their ballots in favour of the Liberal party.
Well, Mr. Chairman, I think the Liberal party is going to get a shock because it is not going to get the benefit of the railway vote in the way hoped by pulling shoddy tricks like this, and not telling the people in the Moncton area that there is a very good chance, if this legislation is passed in the way it is presently framed, that they are going to be without jobs in a very short while. I think that the honest approach would have been for the government to bring this legislation before the house, to inform these voters what is actually going to happen in this area, and then let them decide what action to take at the polls on November 9.

This government will derive nothing but the deep distrust of the voters of Westmorland, and I certainly hope the voters react in the only way they can, and that is by showing this government on November 9 that this type of shoddy treatment is not what we in the maritime provinces expect, even though it is what we have been getting ever since this government has taken office.
May I call it five o'clock.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. It being five o'clock, and in order for the house to proceed to the consideration of private members' business, it is my duty to rise, report progress and request leave to sit again this day or at the next sitting of the house, as the case may be.
Progress reported.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: It being five o'clock the house will now proceed with the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely public bills, private bills.


POST OFFICE ACT
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, October 16, consideration of the motion of Mr. Orlikow for the second reading of Bill No. C-43, to amend the Post Office Act (hate literature).
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I was not in the house when my colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) introduced Bill C-43 a week ago. However, I have read the debate and I wish to make a few remarks to urge the house to give second reading to this bill, or at least preserve the principles of it by adopting the suggestion made by the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Klein), that this bill and others of a similar nature be referred for careful study to a committee of this house.
Mr. Speaker, I read very carefully the interesting speech of the Postmaster General (Mr. Nicholson) on this bill. He pointed out in his remarks the dilemma that faces anyone who is considering how to deal with a problem of this sort, and that censorship may be an evil greater than the disease it is supposed to correct. I myself as a lawyer, who has been interested over the years in civil liberties, think that we should not rush headlong into this suppression of freedom of
Post Office Act
speech or right to disseminate information merely because some material appears particularly odius or objectionable to us. I agree with the minister when he says that the courts are, generally speaking, the best places to determine what is legal or illegal and whether or not some particular publication goes beyond the boundary of tolerance. Although I share the hesitations of the minister, and I think these hesitations if I may say so are creditable, I think this particular bill deserves our support.
I believe it is necessary for us to have a balance in these matters, and I do not believe that the public or postal services of this country need be a vehicle for the hateful, dangerous and disruptive phenomena that we have seen in respect of this so-called hate literature. I think the evil is palpable as well as vicious. Even the most ardent champion of freedom of speech will recognize that a man who in a crowded theatre shouts "fire" has to be suppressed.
The minister himself told us he had found it possible to act under the Post Office Act in respect to scurrilous publications by proceeding under section 7. Can anyone doubt that in a shrinking world the most dangerous and most disruptive thing there can be in a human society is a matter which is calculated to bring into hatred, ridicule or contempt a person or group of persons by reason of their race, national origin, colour or religion-and I take those words from the bill introduced by my colleague. Nor do I think this language is too vague, or so broad as to invite interference with the rights of normal and healthy criticism. There is no real danger that just because on occasion one criticizes an individual or group of individuals there is likelihood of a postal ban being applied, if this legislation is adopted. I point out to the house that the ban applies only when the minister has reasonable grounds for believing that an attack contained in material is calculated to bring an individual or group into contempt by reason of race, national origin, colour or religion.
The minister told us that in the particular cases with which he had to deal he was able to conclude that the material in question offended some provision of the Criminal Code. I know, as do other members of this house, that the language of the Criminal Code is often necessarily very vague. In the field of sedition, for example, the classic definition uses language very similar to the language used in the bill before the house.

Post Office Act
The minister, quite rightly in my opinion, was hesitant about exercising the jurisdiction to decide what is offensive and what is scurrilous. I point out to the house that that duty is already imposed on the minister by the terms of the Post Office Act. All that Bill C-43 does is clarify what is offensive and what should not be allowed the use of the mails, by referring to that which creates hatred and contempt by reason of race, religion, and so on. There is nothing here to interfere with or stop in any way legitimate criticism of other groups. What is interfered with is something which must be calculated to bring individuals or groups into hatred or contempt.
There is nothing wrong with criticizing other groups of people, but it is when that criticism is based upon the fact of race or religion that it becomes disruptive of the society as a whole. Most of us in this house know what the effect has been of tolerance or indifference when this sort of poison is permitted. I see no reason why the public mails of this country should be allowed to be used for this type of very definite, very calculated and very real, if I may say so, menace we have seen at this time.
While I am speaking on this subject I should like to refer, without detail, to the sort of thing I mean. A distinguished member of the community from which I come, Rabbi Fein-berg is referred to in a pamphlet issued by a man named Stanley, as the "red rabbi". This pamphlet is published by the world service of Birmingham, Alabama, and distributed by Canadian publications. It refers, in tones that are definitely anti-Semitic, to a man who has rendered great service to his community. I must admit that he is a controversial figure, but the basic statements are without foundation. Why is it that on the back of this pamphlet the protocols of learned elders of Zion are advertised? This is something I think all hon. members of this house will know was used as almost a symbol of hate literature and violent racial poison. This advertising in itself attacks this distinguished rabbi of the community from which I come. We do not all happen to agree with Rabbi Feinberg, and he is a controversial man, but we know this sort of thing is scurrilous and insulting not only to him, not only to the particular race that he happens to represent, but to the whole community which he has served with distinction.
As I have said, I believe that while we should not jump headlong into more areas of censorship, and I would be the last to sug-

gest that should be done, I believe this particular bill defines, in clear enough terms, a clear and present danger, and that in all jurisdictions-in the supreme court of the
United States as well as others-the right of the community to deal with clear and present danger has been conceded as a proper exception to that general respect that we have and should have for freedom of speech.
The minister in this respect has no absolute discretion. His discretion is only in respect of making an interim order, and informing the people concerned, who have a right of appeal to a board of review. There are many other cases in respect of which we in this group have urged that ministerial discretions should be subject to a board of review. Under the Post Office Act they are. The minister was right in being hesitant about assuming this responsibility. I suggest he would discharge his responsibilities much better because he is hesitant. However, as he himself has said, he has had occasion already to deal with scurrilous literature. I do not see why this house should not strengthen his hands by passing this legislation.
I should like to conclude by saying that if the house feels that the actual wording of this legislation requires further study, if it feels there are implications about putting such provisions in the Post Office Act rather than in some other legislation which members wish to review, this can be done without our carrying on the spectacle of futility that sometimes happens when we merely talk out a bill of this sort. If the house is not ready to deal with this matter and give second reading to the bill I would hope we would accept the proposal made by the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Klein) and preserve the basic idea on which I think we are all in agreement, that we must use what powers we have and can have to stop this hate literature. Therefore I hope this measure will be referred to a committee of the house, together with other bills that affect the same subject, so it will be clear that we are concerned and that we do realize the clear and pressing danger and propose to do something about it.


Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, everyone without exception detests this hate literature which is spread about the country by various means-through the mails or otherwise. I do not know anything more pernicious than this literature which reaches us through the mails, through newspapers, and which criticizes Jews, Protestants, Roman Catholics and other organiza-

tions because they do not entertain the same beliefs as the writers of such literature.
I think this is something we should abhor, something which should be removed from our statutes and our organizations, but this would be difficult because the mails are still secret. We have not yet come to the point of examining letters sent through the mails with a view to detecting hate literature, as is the practice in certain totalitarian countries. Furthermore, our postal employees, who are sometimes well-meaning, may not be quite qualified to examine seriously and thoroughly this literature which is addressed to us through the mails.
Many letters are sent from various post office boxes, various homes, various parts of the country, from the United States and elsewhere, and that literature is always as detrimental as the previous or the next one. It would be difficult for the post office and its employees to study and examine that literature and decide whether or not it should be intercepted. It would be difficult for the department to ask its employees to act in a totalitarian manner.
In my opinion, it would be preferable to examine this matter more thoroughly, and to obtain legal advice which would enable us to stamp out that literature. Those organizations are known to change their names and their postal boxes, and when reached in such and such a place, they are elsewhere and keep on sending us the same literature. If we were to amend every Canadian piece of legislation, we would not be any more able to prosecute the writers of such literature.
For the most part, this literature comes from the southern United States where Jews, Negroes and Asiatics are hated. I wonder whether it would not be advisable to refer this bill to a committee for careful and serious consideration, in order to see if there is some means of remedying this situation.

I know it has been very hard for the Postmaster General (Mr. Nicholson) and the postal officers to find the exact way to deal with this problem. It is an onerous one. It is one of the worst problems we have now or have had in the past, and I do not think we can find any easy way to deal with it. It is not that we do not hate this practice. We hate it just as much as anybody else does, but human nature being what it is there are only a few such crackpots throughout the country. They are crackpots in some ways, but 20220-595
Post Office Act
in other ways they know how to change their postal addresses and how to move from here to there. When we just about reach them here we find they are over there and we cannot reach them. So it is a difficult matter unless we can find some way to catch up and deal with all of them at one time. We cannot change the law every time they change their postal box number, so I think we need a committee to deal with the subject matter of such bills having to do with hate literature.
The government is most anxious that the whole subject of hate literature and all its ramifications be subject to the most searching scrutiny by a committee of the house. I believe that all parties in the house have at some time implied their agreement with such a proposal. When Bill No. C-21 dealing with genocide and group libel was before the house a government motion to refer the subject matter was turned down by certain opposition speakers. Since that time the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) himself has suggested in the house that the government should set up a committee to look into hate literature.
In view of all the public speeches purporting to be in favour of action in this regard, I now ask for unanimous consent to allow Bill No. C-21 to be dealt with at the same time as the bill now under discussion. To achieve this purpose I move, seconded by the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai):
That Bills C-21 and C-43 be not now read a second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the standing committee on external affairs.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wonder
whether I might offer a suggestion. I think the house does wish to do what the hon. member for Hull has suggested. The fact is that Bill No. C-21, which is No. 64 on today's order paper, already has lying against it an amendment to refer its subject matter to the standing committee on external affairs. I think what the hon. member proposes could be accomplished if his amendment were to the effect that the subject matter of my hon. friend's bill, Bill No. C-43, be referred to that committee, and then the house would perhaps agree to move immediately to order No. 64 and do the same thing with Bill No. C-21. I think this is what we want to do and I am sure those of us who are here would be glad to agree to this.

Genocide


Alexis Pierre Caron: That is what I wanted to do but I went too tar. It appears that we can only deal with Bill No. C-43 now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: I think it would be far better procedure if we were to deal at the moment with the bill which is before the house. If it is the desire of the house to have Bill No. C-43 referred to a committee-


Stanley Howard Knowles: The subject matter.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: -the
subject matter, I think it would be much better if we were to deal with that individually.
Am I to assume now that a motion is moved by the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron) that Bill No. C-43 be not now read a second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the standing committee on external affairs?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I so move.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Is it the
pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?
Motion (Mr. Caron) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Does the house give unanimous consent now to proceeding with order No. 64 on today's order paper, namely Bill No. C-21?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


GENOCIDE
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, July 24, consideration of the motion of Mr. Klein for
the second reading of Bill No. C-21, respecting genocide, and on the motion proposed thereto by Mr. MacNaught.
Mr. Walker:: Let us put the question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: I am
advised that there is already before the house a motion to refer the subject matter of Bill No. C-21 to the committee on external affairs. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?
Motion (Mr. MacNaught) agreed to.


BUSINESS OF HOUSE
David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, having accomplished the two matters relating to public bills, I would suggest that we await the arrival of the house leader in order to ascertain where we go from here. So far as this side is concerned, we have no other bills with which to proceed at the moment, unless somebody on the other side has one.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We could take up the resumption of my bill to abolish the Senate.


David James Walker: There is another alternative; we could call it six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Does the house give unanimous consent to calling it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What is the business for Monday?


Gordon Minto Churchill: We will carry on with interim supply.


Mr. Robichaud:: As was stated we will carry on with interim supply on Monday.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday. October 26, 1964