1966-08-31

THE LATE ALEXIS CARON


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the House will be saddened to learn, as I was saddened and distressed to learn, of the passing this morning of our colleague the hon. Member for Hull, Alexis Caron, a friend and valued comrade over the years and, for a time, my Parliamentary Secretary.
Mr. Caron, as we all know, was a man of kindness and generosity with an alert understanding of human nature, its weaknesses and its strength. He was a very great individualist, an unyielding and eloquent fighter for those causes and principles in which he believed; a man of sturdy independence, a man who served his country and his party well; he was whip of our party in the House for some years, as hon. Members know. He served his city as Mayor. He served his province as a member of the legislature to which he was first elected, I believe, in 1935. And he served his country as a member of this Parliament, always with diligence and honour, over many years.
He will be very greatly missed. We knew he was in indifferent health but his death came both as a surprise and a shock, and I should like to extend to his wife, Mrs. Caron, and to his family our very deep and heartfelt sympathy.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, it is on occasions such as this that we in the House of Commons, separated by party considerations, realize we have so much in common; a relationship that is only possible in a democracy, a relationship between those who disagree with each other politically that does not cause our friendships to be limited by the places in the House in which we may sit.
I join with the Prime Minister in the expression of deep sorrow on the passing of Alexis Caron, a man who, as was stated by the Prime Minister, served in all fields of public life; as Mayor of his city, as a Member
of the Provincial Legislature, and as a Member of the House of Commons for many years. He was a man of strong personal feelings, one who expressed himself in a way that could be understood and with equal facility in both languages on those matters about which he felt keenly. The Prime Minister said he was a man of independent thought and action. I think that describes him very well. He regarded his position as a party follower as not inconsistent with a degree of independence when decisions were made with which he was not in full agreement.
On behalf of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition we join with the Prime Minister in extending our sympathy to the widow and members of the family, as well as to the Prime Minister and the associates and confreres of Mr. Caron for so many years in this Chamber.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, it is always a matter of regret when we learn of the passing of one of our colleagues, irrespective of the party to which that colleague may belong. In the New Democratic Party we got to know well the hon. Member for Hull, Mr. Alexis Caron. We knew him particularly when he was government whip and came to respect him for his independence and for his strong sense of conviction. As a man who had a long and useful public life I am sure he will be missed by his constituents and by the political party to which he belonged.
The members of this party would like to associate themselves with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in extending our deepest sympathy to Mrs. Caron and the members of the family, as well as to Mr. Caron's colleagues in the House.


Mr. Real Caouelle (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, like all the hon. members in the house, I was most surprised at noon to learn that the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Caron) had suddenly left our group, our assembly and his family.
Even though we, on this side, did not share his ideas and convictions, we witnessed the courage with which he expressed his opinions frankly and sincerely. Even toward his own colleagues and his own party, Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
August 31. 1966
Business of the House Caron never feared to state his ideas publicly and intimately, wherever he was.
So we must extend to Mrs. Caron and the family, our deepest sympathy in their great loss. I think all the Members of Parliament will keep a lasting memory of the late, lamented Alexis Caron.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, we in this party wish to associate ourselves with the expressions of sympathy and regret which have been uttered by the right hon. Prime Minister, the Leader of the Official Opposition and the leaders of the other parties. We were shocked to hear of our colleague's passing. We had learned to know him as a man of convictions, and a champion of his constituents and those causes which were dear to his heart. We will miss him from our midst.
Our sympathies are extended to Madame Caron, her family and, yes, to the Prime Minister and the members of his party. We share with them their sorrow at the passing of the Member for Hull.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE HOUSE


Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to standing order 6(2) I move that this house continue to sit after six o'clock on this day.


Mr. Speaker:: I should like to remind all hon. members of the terms of standing order 6(2):
A motion that the house continue to sit after the hour specified in section (1) may be made at any time without notice. If any member objects to the motion, Mr. Speaker shall request those members who object to rise in their places and if ten or more members then rise, the question shall not be put on the motion.


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, last Monday, at the beginning of this session and the consideration of this important legislation, we in this party offered to sit without regard to time until consideration of the bill was completed. Unfortunately this proposition was rejected. At ten o'clock last Monday night when the right hon. Leader of the Opposition was speaking it was suggested he continue until he had completed his remarks-


Some hon. Members:: Order.
[Mr. Caouette.)


Michael Starr: I am talking about this motion which has been submitted here, and it is relevant to what has transpired.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member knows the motion is not debatable. It will be embarrassing and will cause difficulty if the hon. member is allowed to make a statement or explanation at this point. I am wondering whether this might be done after the motion has been put. Since this standing order was adopted by the house it has been the practice that there should be no comment on the motion. Certainly the rule provides that there should be no debate.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I presume the minister in asking for this permission is serious in his request. I therefore ask for a clarification as to what he intends to do, because I think it will make some difference. Is it the intention that the hours of sitting tonight be the same as last night or the same as on one of the other days, and if so would he specify which day so that a decision can be made? In my opinion it is not possible to make a decision with just this request.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, it was my intention that we should continue to sit continuously after six o'clock to finish this bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
o (2:50 p.m.)


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, in view of what was said yesterday during this debate as to the time at which we should reject or approve the measure before us, there was some misunderstanding which I think needs clarification. I rise at this time on a question of privilege in view of the fact that on Monday evening when the right hon. Leader of the Opposition on behalf of this party offered to sit until we had completed the bill-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understand the hon. member is now rising on a question or privilege.


Michael Starr: That is correct, Mr. Speaker. At ten o'clock, during the remarks of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, a representative of the government proposed that the house sit until he had concluded his remarks. In view of the fact the government had rejected the proposal that we sit until the bill was completed, there seemed to be no point in sitting longer than the regular hours at that time.
August 31. 1966

Criminal Code
Only one member of this party spoke yesterday during this debate whereas four Liberals and two members of the N.D.P. took part, with another one having the floor.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is my suggestion that the hon. member is now manoeuvring around the rule which specifically states that there shall be no debate on the motion now under consideration. Obviously the hon. member is now debating the motion proposed by the minister, in an attempt to explain why he either supports or disagrees with it.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I shall now outline specifically my question of privilege. We are happy that the government has now accepted the suggestion we made on Monday, and we are prepared to sit until this bill is completed.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair is put in a difficult position when an hon. member makes a statement such as the hon. member has just made because in effect he is debating the motion, and the Chair must then recognize other members who wish to take part or make other comments. With the co-operation of all hon. members I will consider that a question of privilege has been raised by the hon. member, although perhaps he has no prima facie case of privilege.
Let us now return to the motion which has been proposed. If ten or more members do not rise at this time the motion carries.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to ask the minister to consider a supper recess for one hour, and at the same time some cut-off hour? Perhaps we could discuss the latter suggestion at ten or eleven o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am not suggesting that the minister agree to a cut-off hour at this time. Perhaps a conference could be held later, at which time we could agree to a cut-off hour, rather than allowing the debate to continue all night.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I am content to agree to a one hour adjournment for dinner, perhaps from six to seven. I will also agree that at midnight we should consider a possible adjournment hour if we are not making good progress at that hour and it appears that we will be unable to finish within a reasonable time. I hope, of course, that we will have completed the business now before us before that hour.
Let me make it clear that the motion I intend to put will not be varied except as to the provision for the dinner hour. I will give an undertaking to consider a cut-off hour at a later time.


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganlic):: Mr. Speaker, unless I am mistaken, when this house is grieved by the loss of one of our colleagues it is customary to adjourn for the remainder of that day. In view of the desire on the part of everyone to have the measure now before us passed as quickly as possible I am wondering whether the house will agree to take all the votes immediately and then adjourn out of respect for the late hon. member for Hull. I might add that we in this party are agreeable to this procedure.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the Chair could be advised by the government house leader what the motion is that should now be put to the house.


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I move:
That this house continue to sit after six p.m., subject to an adjournment for a dinner recess from six to seven p.m.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, let it be recorded that I stood, anyway.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-233, to amend the Criminal Code (preventive detention).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to amend the Criminal Code by deleting from it section 660 dealing with habitual criminals. I am sure that when this section was enacted it was considered that its provisions would be used very sparingly. The fact is that in recent years in Vancouver, to mention one city, in the neighbourhood of 50 or 60 people have been sentenced under this section to what is in effect life imprisonment. I think this section should now be removed.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
7864

August 31. 1966
Questions



EXPORT CREDITS INSURANCE ACT


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved: 
[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Tucker: Is the government giving consideration to having members of the Newfoundland overseas forestry unit, who served in world war II recognized as war veterans as were the Newfoundland and other Canadian foresters who served in world war I?


Hon. Roger Teillet (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Yes.


CATTLE USED FOR EXPERIMENTAL PURPOSES
Mr. Horner (Acadia): 1.	Has the federal government any cattle being used for experimental purposes on private ranches or farms?
2.	If so (a) how many head of cattle (b) on whose farms (c) what has this program cost the federal government to date (d) what was the average cost of wintering these cattle last winter?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. Yes, the Department of Agriculture does own cattle used for experimental purposes and which are located on a private farm. [Mr. Orlikow.)
2. (a) 65; (b) George D. Brown, Pakenham, Ontario; (c) Operating costs for period January 4, 1965 to July 4, 1966-$25,000; (d) $92 per head, approximately.


IMPORT PERMITS FOR CHAROLAIS CATTLE
Mr. Fulton: 1.	Since July 1,	1963, how many permits or
licences to import Charolais cattle into Canada have been issued by the government?
2.	What is the name and address of the individual or organization to which each such permit was issued, and how many cattle of each sex were covered in each permit?


John James Greene: 1. None. Permits issued for the importation of cattle specify the country of origin but not the breed of cattle. However, since July 1, 1963, 67 permits to import cattle into Canada have resulted in the importation of 109 Charolais cattle from France.
2. The names and address of individual permit holders is considered by the department to be confidential information. The sex of animals to be imported is not prescribed on permits to import. The permits referred to in 1 above were for a total of 122 cattle.


ARDA PROJECTS, WATERLOO SOUTH CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Salisman: 1.	Have any projects been approved under ARDA affecting the electoral district of Waterloo South?
2.	If so (a) what are they (bl what was the objective of each (c) what was the cost of each?
3.	Are there any projects affecting this electoral district now under consideration?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry):: 1. Yes.
2. For an area of 7,000 sq. miles including the electoral district of Waterloo South-air photography for present land use mapping approved with a federal contribution of $12,250. This project approved under the Canada land inventory will provide federal ARDA with air photos flown in 1966 for interpretation of present land use in preparation of present land maps for Ontario.
For two areas of northern Ontario and the counties of Waterloo and Brant-agricultural soil capability inventory for 1966-67 approved with a federal contribution of $56,330. This project approved under the Canada land inventory will provide information on agricultural soil capability in Ontario for use in our national land capability inventory and
August 31, 1966

Questions
as a basis for land use planning decisions in our ARDA programs.
A farm enlargement and consolidation program for all agricultural areas of Ontario has been approved with a federal contribution of $3,600,000. This project is to acquire land as it becomes available on the market, for consolidation and development into larger economic farm units, either by sale or lease to farmers who have demonstrated good managerial ability in their present operations and require additional land for a more viable operation. Land not suitable for agriculture will be used for forestry, wildlife, or placed in conservation reserves. It also contains provision for the retraining and re-establishment of some of those displaced by the program.
3.	No.


PUBLIC WORKS EXPENDITURES, LONDON, ONT.
Mr. Irvine: What amount was spent by the Department of Public Works in the city of London for each of the years 1963, 1964 and 1965?


George James McIlraith: 1963-64, $466,038.17; 1964-65, $343,269.88; 1965-66, $465,148.35.


STUDIES OF GREAT LAKES POLLUTION
Mr. Irvine: 1.	What research projects is the government and its agencies undertaking with regard to pollution studies and surveys, and causes of and remedies for pollution in the great lakes?
2.	What other bodies, corporations or agencies are studying this problem?
3.	What sums (itemize) has the government considered for the above projects?
4.	What boards or commissions have direct or indirect control or interest in pollution in the great lakes and what are their programs?
5.	Are any of the following techniques contemplated by the government to encourage industry to curb pollution (a) special research grants for studies to avoid pollution (b) tax incentive to build or counteract pollution control systems on industrial work beds (c) civil action against industries discharging pollutants?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: 1. There is a coordinated plan of research, by agencies of the Canadian government and government of the province of Ontario, concerning pollution of the great lakes. In general, the federal government is directing its studies toward the body of the lakes and the cause and distribution of pollution that does or may cross the international boundary. The Ontario agencies are
primarily concerned with the origins of pollution on land, their effects in the great lakes and their control.
Specific federal government studies include the circulation of the water; properties of the water including chemical impurities, their concentration and probable destination; rate of mixing and diffusion in the lakes; the effect of nutrient chemicals (phosphates, nitrates, etc.) on the excessive growth of algae (eutrophication) and means of alleviating such eutrophication; study of the health hazards from domestic sewage and other wastes originating on land or in boats and means of its control.
2.	The Ontario Water Resources Commission is the body primarily responsible for water pollution control under Ontario laws. It conducts research to define the sources and kinds of pollution entering the lakes from industry, municipalities, agricultural drainage and small boats, the distribution of this pollution and the properties of such pollutants and their control. Under the International Joint Commission reference this work has been expanded with financial aid from the federal government.
The Great Lakes Institute of the University of Toronto is conducting surveillance surveys and special research studies of the great lakes under contracts and grants from the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, the Fisheries Research Board, National Research Council, and the Ontario Water Resources Commission. It is provided with transportation in the ship Port Dauphine by the Department of Transport.
Other agencies: In the United States, many federal and state agencies and universities are conducting programs on the lakes, related to pollution and other scientific studies. Among them, major activities are in progress by the department of the interior, federal water pollution control administration; the U.S. lake survey; and the U.S. bureau of commercial fisheries. The University of Michigan, Great Lakes Research Division is a major contributor among the universities. Activities by the individual states are increasing but are somewhat limited, as yet.
Through direct contact with the above agencies, by liaison through the International Joint Commission and by scientific meetings, exchange of information and program planning are ach;eved on an international basis.
3.	During the current fiscal year the funds supporting great lakes investigations are: Department of Mines and Technical Surveys.

August 31. 1966
Questions
$800,000; Fisheries Research Board, $250,000; National Health and Welfare, $300,000; International Joint Commission, $308,000.
Under cost sharing, the Ontario Water Resources Commission is reimbursed through the Canadian section of the International Joint Commission for approximately 50 percent of their costs. Expenditures for subsequent years have not been critically considered by the government and itemized sums are not available. It can be anticipated, however, that sharply increased amounts of money will be required in both the operating and capital votes to meet federal responsibilities.
4.	The International Joint Commission. The governments of the United States and Canada referred the following questions to the International Joint Commission for investigation and report:
Are the waters of lake Erie, lake Ontario and the international section of the St. Lawrence river being polluted on either side of the boundary to an extent which is causing or is likely to cause injury to health or property on the other side? If so, to what extent, by what causes and in what localities? What remedial measures would, in its judgment, be most practicable and what would be the probable cost?
The International Joint Commission established the international lake Erie water pollution board and the international lake On-tario-St. Lawrence river water pollution board to undertake, through appropriate agencies in Canada and the United States, the necessary investigations and studies. Canadian members of the boards are officials of the Departments of National Health and Welfare, Mines and Technical Surveys, Fisheries and the Ontario Water Resources Commission. United States members similarly are federal and state officials. The boards drew up a coordinated program of the investigations, surveys and studies required to answer the questions referred to the International Joint Commission, together with an allocation of the work among the several participating agencies to avoid duplication of effort. This program was approved by the commission and, in Canada, is being carried out by the individual agencies and departments as described herein. Co-ordination of activities in both countries is achieved through these boards, which report periodically to the International Joint Commission.
[Mr. Pepin.1
Federal government agencies having an interest in pollution in the great lakes, and their programs are:
Department of Mines and Technical Surveys: Three branches of this department, the marine sciences branch, the water research branch and the geological survey branch are co-operating in the current year's program. This department is concerned with studies of the main body of lake Ontario and to a lesser extent lake Erie, concerning the physical and chemical characteristics of the water. This includes investigations of circulation, and current patterns, mixing and diffusion of pollutants, temperature distribution, bottom sediments-water interface relations, air-water interface phenomena, seismic and airborne geophysical techniques.
The Fisheries Research Board of Canada, under the Minister of Fisheries, which is conducting research on eutrophication of lakes (i.e. the changes brought about by enrichment from pollutants) and means of controlling it.
The Department of National Health and Welfare is conducting research on the health hazards of various pollutants, their sources and distribution in natural waters, and the means whereby they can be suitably treated or otherwise controlled.
The National Research Council through its associate committee on water pollution research is promoting research in universities on specific water pollution problems and the means of improving abatement measures and assessing the significance of pollutants in water; is encouraging training of people in pollution control technology, and is encouraging industry to conduct research and control of pollution from industrial sources.
The Canadian committee on water pollution, formed in February, 1966 by direction of the Privy Council office, provides a forum where federal and provincial agencies can exchange information, co-ordinate their efforts and ensure that all necessary research is being properly planned.
The United States-Canadian great lakes study group is a committee of United States-Canadian engineers and scientists who meet semi-annually to review and co-ordinate all programs dealing with studies in the great lakes.
5.	(a) The National Research Council has given a grant under the industrial research assistance program for this purpose. The associate committee on pollution research of
August 31, 1966
the National Research Council has the matter under active study, (b) The question is not understood. The government does grant concessions on income tax for special research purposes and gives assistance and loans for sewage disposal purposes, (c) Such action is the prerogative of the province.
Questions
It follows that no appointments of delegates have been made. The minister responsible for this subject is the Secretary of State who, as a lady, I am sure will take fully into account the opinion of women and women's organizations in such matters.


GUIDE LINES RESPECTING POLICE INTERROGATIONS
Mr. Diefenbaker: Is the government giving consideration to enactment in the Criminal Code of guide lines respecting police interrogation of suspected wrongdoers and the enunciation of revised principles to be applied in determining the admissibility of confessions?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the question of guide lines respecting police interrogation of suspected wrongdoers is within the terms of reference of the Canadian committee on corrections which will report thereon in due course and the government will carefully consider the committee's recommendations. It should be noted that in the meantime guide lines are continuing to evolve from the decisions of the provincial courts of appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada. The principles to be applied in determining the admissibility of confessions are also continuing to evolve from such decisions, and while the government is not giving immediate attention to a legislative revision of such principles the question of such a revision is on the list of matters to be studied in the Department of Justice.


APPOINTMENT OF FEMALE DELEGATE TO HUMAN RIGHTS CONFERENCE
Mr. Irvine: 1.	Has the Secretary of State for External Affairs received representations from the National Council of Jewish Women requesting the appointment of a lady delegate to the Canadian conference on human rights scheduled for 1968?
2.	If so, when were such representations made?
3.	What procedure will the government follow?


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to 1 is yes. The answer to 2 is on June 7, 1966.
The answer to 3 is as follows. The matter of holding a Canadian conference on human rights in 1968 as part of Canada's celebration of the international year of human rights is under active consideration, but no decision has yet been taken to hold such a conference.


MARITIME ENGINEERING TRAINING
Mr. Allard: 1.	What is the system of maritime engineering training put forward by the Department of Transport?
2.	Does this system attempt to eliminate stokers and oilers on diesel powered motor ships and steamships?
3.	Do Canadian maritime regulations require only one man to be on duty in the engine room?
4.	Does the Department of Transport issue permits to non-qualifled and non-certificated sailors to allow them to work as engineers and, if so, how many such permits were issued in 1964 and 1965?


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. Apart from the Canadian Coast Guard College, the Department of Transport has no direct system of maritime engineering training. The several maritime engineering training schools throughout the country are conducted by provincial authorities and assisted through the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act, administered by the Department of Labour. The Department of Transport supplies these schools with technical advice and guidance when required.
2.	No.
3.	Section 115 of the Canada Shipping Act requires one certificated engineer in the engine room at all times. Section 407 of the act requires ships to be manned with a crew sufficient and efficient from the point of view of safety of life; and, pursuant to this provision, it may be necessary that more than one man be on duty in the engine room at any time.
4.	When a ship is exempted under section 137 of the Canada Shipping Act from the full requirements of section 115 of the act, such exemption is always conditional upon there being employed a designated individual to whom a permit has been issued by the department after an oral examination has satisfied the department he has adequate experience and knowledge to perform the duties.

August 31, 1966
Questions
The numbers of permits issued lows: -
are as fol-1965
Permits issued to uncertificated engine room personnel	371
Permits issued to certificated engineers to act in a higher capacity	245
288


'OPERATIONAL STRENGTH, DESTROYER ESCORTS
Mr. Bower: Are Canadian destroyer escorts maintained at full operational strength at all times and, If not, for what reason?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: The complement of Canadian destroyer escorts in peacetime is established by taking into account the tasks which they may be assigned in the performance of their role as operational units of the fleet. All Canadian destroyer escorts in commission are manned at this complement level at the present time with the exception of H.M.C.S. Terra Nova which has a reduced complement during the period that her operations are restricted to the conduct of trials on new ASW equipment. When destroyer escorts are taken out of commission for protracted refits or conversion they are not manned. In addition, certain destroyers may be placed in reserve and manned at reduced levels or unmanned.


'ABILITY TO FULFIL NATO COMMITMENT
Mr. Bower: Is Canada In a position to fulfil her commitment to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to provide a complete division in the event of an emergency in western Europe?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is yes, Canada is in a position to provide the balance of a division to NATO in the event of an emergency, in accordance with the terms of the commitment.


'R.C.A.F. PILOTS IN NON-FLYING CAPACITIES
Mr. Bower: Are any qualified R.C.A.F. pilots employed by that service in non-flying capacities and, if so, how many?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The answer is yes, 659. Employment of a number of pilots in ground positions is 
necessary in order to meet a requirement for pilot qualifications in certain staff positions and to facilitate individual career development.


CONSIDERATION OF ALLEGATIONS RESPECTING QUEBEC COURTS
Mr. Fairweather: 1.	Is consideration now being given by the Department of Justice for an independent investigation to be held into certain allegations made by Edward J. Sommer of Montreal, P.Q. as to the dipsosition of certain actions by the Quebec Superior and Appeal Courts?
2.	If the answer to part 1 is no, was the question of holding such an investigation ever considered during the past two years and, if so (a) who was asked to conduct the proposed investigation (b) for what reason was the proposed investigation not proceeded with?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: 1. No.
2. No. (a) Not applicable; (b) The complaints are outside federal jurisdiction, relating as they do to property and civil rights and the administration of justice within the province.



WATER SUPPLY, MIDDLE RIVER INDIAN RESERVE, N.S.

['1. The number of people affected\nAugust 31, 1966', 'is not known; however, the number of parking spaces has been reduced from 667 to 339. 2. See Part 1.']
Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: 1. The Indian affairs branch of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources plans to repair or replace the existing unserviceable hand pumps on the 12 drilled wells, to proceed with an engineering study and cost estimate for a water distribution system, and to request the necessary funds in the estimates following the completion of the engineering study.



Mr. Bell (Carleton): 1	Who are the members of the statute revision commission appointed pursuant to chapter 48 of the statutes of Canada 1964-65, and who has been designated as chairman?
2	What progress has been made by this commission in the arrangement, revision and consolidation of the Statutes of Canada?
3.	When is it anticipated that the report of the commission may be completed?
August 31, 1366

4.	Is it the intention of the government to attempt to bring the new Revised Statutes of Canada into effect as from the 1st day of July, 1967?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I.	The Minister Justice, Chairman; E. A. Driedger, Q.C., Deputy Minister of Justice;
J.	Miquelon, Q.C., Deputy Registrar General; R. Bedard, Q.C., Associate Deputy Minister of Justice; D. S. Thorson, Q.C., Assistant Deputy Minister of Justice; J. W. Ryan, Senior Advisory Counsel, Department of Justice.
2.	All the current public general statutes have been consolidated in manuscript form in both the English and French versions except for a few chapters enacted during this session of which separate printed chapters are not yet available.
Preliminary revision work has been done on over 350 public general statutes in both languages in manuscript form up to, but not including, the enactments of the present session.
3.	The commission is attempting completion for 1968 but this will depend on factors not under the control of the commission, for instance, the number of amendments and new acts enacted by parliament at the resumed 1966 session and the 1967 session.
4.	The commission is attempting to complete its report to include 1967 enactments so that the revised statutes can be cited as the revised statutes, 1967. The 1st day of July, 1967, is not a practical date for that purpose.


* PROSECUTION OF COMPANIES UNDER COMBINES LEGISLATION
Mr. Orlikow: Regarding the answer to starred question No. 1,229, will the Department of Justice recommend to the court that the same Arm measures applied to the Tilko picketers be also applied to the officials of the four companies who pleaded guilty on March 1, 1965, to violation of the anti-combines legislation and who were also convicted under the same law in 1958 when a prohibition order was granted?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, the order referred to in the hon. member's question was granted in 1958 and applies only to acts or things done after the time it was granted. In the shipping containers case, in which the four companies referred to pleaded guilty on March 1, 1965, the charge covered a period ending in 1954, which is prior to the date of the order. In these circumstances there would be no breach of the order.
Questions


ENTRY POINTS OF COMMONWEALTH CARIBBEAN GOODS
Mr. McCleave: 1.	By what places of entry have goods from the British West Indies, or Commonwealth Caribbean countries, entered Canada (a) by categories (b) by value, in (i) 1955 (ii) 1960 (iii) 1965?
2.	Did the recently concluded conference in Ottawa result in changes or concessions as to the means of transportation by which these Caribbean countries could place their products and goods in this country and, if so, what changes or concessions?


Robert Henry Winters: 1. Information requested is not available as import statistics by customs ports for 1955 and 1960 are in toto only, and are not broken down by countries or by categories. These data are not available for 1965.
However, the following information may be found in the Dominion Bureau of Statistics publication entitled "Trade of Canada Summary and Analytical Tables, Volume I", (#65-201), copies of which are located in the Library of Parliament or any public library: Table 13-lists total imports by customs ports-for calendar year 1955, see pages 60, 61, 62 and 63 of the 1955 edition; for calendar year 1960, see pages 74, 75, 76 and 77 of the 1959-60 edition. Table 19-lists imports by main commodity groups, by country, (including Bermuda, British Guiana, British Honduras, Bahamas, Barbados, Jamaica, Leeward and Windward Islands, Trinidad and Tobago)-for calendar year 1955, see pages 74 and 75 of the 1955 edition; for calendar year 1960, see pages 102, 103, 104 and 105 of the 1959-60 edition.
2. The protocol to the 1925 trade agreement signed by the government of Canada and the governments of the Commonwealth Caribbean countries at the conference provides for the waiving of the requirement that goods must be shipped directly from the Commonwealth Caribbean country to a port in Canada in order to qualify for preferential tariff access.


PUBLIC SWIMMING POOLS, NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. McLelland: 1.	Has the government a policy governing the construction of public swimming pools in our national parks?
2.	Has the government considered construction of a heated, regulation-size, swimming pool at Waske-siu in the Prince Albert national park?

August 31, 1966
Questions


Arthur Laing: 1. The National parks policy states that: Swimming pools are acceptable in parks which are listed in category (a) or (b), except where there is adequate natural swimming. In each case their acceptability should be determined by the nature of the park, how it is to be used or intended to be used and the need.
(a) Parks which are basically scenic and nature parks. This includes Banff, Jasper, Yoho, Kootenay, Glacier, Mt. Revelstoke and Cape Breton Highlands, (b) Parks which are basically family holiday parks with a variety of activities in addition to their natural features. This includes Waterton Lakes, Prince Albert, Riding Mountain, Fundy, Terra Nova and Prince Edward Island.
2. Yes.


COST OF ADMISSION TO SWIMMING POOLS, NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. McLelland: What regulations govern the price of admittance which can be charged the public at swimming pools in our national parks?


Arthur Laing: 1. The National parks general regulations.


BANANA IMPORTS FROM WEST INDIES
Mr. McCleave: 1.	What has been the amount of the banana imports from the West Indies into Canada during the last 10 years, by years?
2.	What is the approximate percentage of the values of such imports brought to Canada through (a) ports directly (b) overland across the border, during the last 10 years, by years?


Mr. Jean-Charles Cantin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Trade and Commerce):: 1. Imports of bananas and plantains from the West Indies into Canada during the last 10 years are as follows:
Imports from the West Indies
Calendar	Quantity	ValueYear	Lbs	$'0001956	-	1957	76,800	41958	-	-1959	-	1960	-	-1961	-	-1962	-	-1963	1,891,652	961964	189,554	61965	64,124	32. (a) and	(b) No statistics	available.


MUNICIPAL PARKING FOR HOUSE OF COMMONS PERSONNEL
Mr. Caouette: Is the federal government at present negotiating with any Ottawa parking lot owners or with the municipal authorities of the national capital for the construction or reservation of a parking lot for the use of House of Commons personnel, and (a) if so, which companies are concerned (b) if not, does the federal government intend to do so immediately?


George James McIlraith: No.
(a)	Not applicable.
(b)	No.


CONSTRUCTION OF PARKING LOT FOR HOUSE OF COMMONS PERSONNEL
Mr. Caouette: Is the Minister of Public Works at present negotiating with any companies or contractors for the construction of a parking lot for the use of House of Commons personnel (members and employees)?


George James McIlraith: No.


PARKING ADMINISTRATION, PARLIAMENT HILL
Mr. Caouette: 1.	Who is explicitly and implicitly responsible for the administration of parking areas on parliament hill?
2.	What are the functions and duties of each of these people?


George James McIlraith: 1 and 2. The Department of Public Works designates the areas to be used for parking purposes by each of the following: The House of Commons, The Senate, The Privy Council and the Department of External Affairs. The Speakers of each House, the Clerk of the Privy Council and the Under Secretary of State for External Affairs administer the particular areas designated for the use of the Houses and these departments.


PARKING PERMITS, PARLIAMENT HILL
Mr. Caouette: 1.	How many people are affected by the latest decision about permits for parking on Parliament Hill?
2.	How many permits have been cancelled as a result of the aforementioned decision?


George James McIlraith: 1. The number of people affected
August 31, 1966

is not known; however, the number of parking spaces has been reduced from 667 to 339. 2. See Part 1.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr, Orlikow: 1.	What was the cost of advertising placed by the federal government, department by department, in each of the past five years?
2.	How much of this advertising was placed in daily newspapers, magazines, radio, television, etc.?
3.	What advertising agencies handled this advertising in each of the past five years, and what fees did they receive?
4.	Were a number of advertising agencies asked to tender bids on the proposed government advertising and, if so, which ones?
5.	What standards were used in deciding the choice of the advertising agencies actually used in each of the past five years?
Return tabled.


SUBSIDIES TO TRANSPORTATION AGENCIES
Mr. Reid: 1.	What direct subsidies have been granted to Canadian transportation agencies by the federal government since 1945?
2.	What was the reason for each of these subsidies?
3.	What is the reason for continuing them?
4.	How much has been paid out in total under these programs?
Return tabled.


COMPLAINTS ON TELEVISION PROGRAM RESPECTING MOTOR CAR SAFETY DEVICES
Mr. Scoit (Danforih): 1.	Did the government or the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation receive any representations, communications, complaints or otherwise from the automotive manufacturers or anyone on their behalf concerning the program carried by the television show "This Hour Has Seven Days" dealing with the question of the installation on motor vehicles of safety devices?
2.	If so (a) what was the nature of the representations, communications, complaints, etc., received by the government, and in reasonable detail what was the government's response, if any (b) what was the nature of the representations, communications, complaints, etc., received by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and what in reasonable detail was the reply of the corporation to them?
Return tabled.
Motions for Papers


REPRESENTATIONS RESPECTING MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY SPECIFICATIONS
Mr. Scott (Danforih): 1.	Has the government or any of its agencies received representations from trade unions involved in the automotive industry, or anyone on their behalf, with regard to the question of safety specifications for motor vehicles?
2.	If so (a) how many government departments received representations and what were the names of such departments (b) who made such representations and what, in reasonable detail, were the form and substance either written or verbal of such representations including the identification of the persons making them (c) in reasonable detail, what was the nature of the government's response, if any,, to such representations?
Return tabled.


GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS SUPPLIED TO SCHOOL LIBRARIES
Mr. Gregoire: 1.	Do the Queen's Printer and the federal government send free copies of their publications to universities, colleges and school libraries?
2.	If so, to how many universities, colleges and school libraries do the Queen's Printer and the federal government send them?
3.	Do the Queen's Printer and the federal government send their publications to the colleges and school libraries of Lapointe county?
Return tabled.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion No. 144 is acceptable to the government
Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notices of motions Nos. 126, 146 and 155?
I ask that the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand.



CONSTRUCTION OF COLUMBIA RIVER DAMS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 126-Mr. Herridge:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all notes or other documents or correspondence exchanged between the government of Canada and the government of the United: States with respect to the building of dams on the Columbia river in violation of article 2 of the Oregon treaty of 1846.
Donald Stovel Macdonald: To the best of our knowledge no

August 31, 1966
Motions for Papers
documentation of the kind referred to in motion No. 126 exists.


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder whether the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) heard the explanation given by the parliamentary secretary?


Mr. Herridge:: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.
POLLUTION OF RED RIVER Motion No. 144-Mr. Schreyer:
That a humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of any communications exchanged in the last five year period, between the government of Canada or any agency thereof, and the government of the United States or any agency thereof including the International Joint Commission, with respect to the problem of water pollution of the Red river and particularly with respect to any testing that may be carried out to determine the degree of pollution.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 146-Mr. Flemming:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all letters, telegrams and memoranda of telephone conversations between the Prime Minister and/or any other minister, and the Canadian High Commissioner in London, which authorized the High Commissioner to raise objections, successfully, to the showing of a 1964 Canadian film depicting the cruelties of sealing in Canada which the newspaper the Observer had included in the wildlife exhibit it was sponsoring.
Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I am advised that no communication of any kind was exchanged between the minister, the department, and the high commissioner in London requesting or authorizing the latter to raise objections to the showing of a film on seal hunting at the Observer wild life exhibition.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.



CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN INDUSTRY MINISTER AND R. M. WHICHER

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 155-Mr. Loney:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence dated since November 8, 1965, between the Minister of Industry and Ross M. Whicher, M.P.P. Bruce.
Hon. C. M. Drury:: This motion is acceptable.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the interviews carried by the C.B.C.
last evening by Mr. Gordon, president of the C.N.R. and Mr. Sinclair, president of the C.P.R, were to the effect that no provision had been made under either the legislation now before the house or the legislation to come for the payment of extra amounts in so far as they are retroactive, is the Prime Minister in a position to say whether the statements were correct?
Will he tell the house at the same time whether these recommendations or similar ones were made to him by these two gentlemen and what is the reaction of the government thereto?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in my view there was nothing said on the program in question which interfered in any way with the desirability and the possibility of implementing the legislation now before the house, if the house adopts that legislation.
The railway representatives, when they
called on me yesterday, did indicate they might have some difficulty in carrying out this legislation because of revenue considerations. They outlined their position to me, Mr. Speaker, and I said I would look into it.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Further to Mr. Sinclair's remarks wherein he stated that the second bill before the house does not provide any extra money for the railways that they do not already possess, does the Prime Minister wish to revise his opening remarks about the relationship between the two bills, and state whether he still intends to proceed immediately with the second bill?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to revise my remarks. I suggest to Mr. Sinclair that he read the bill a little more carefully.


Michael Starr: That applies to Mr. Gordon, too.
August 31. 1966	COMMONS


Thomas Miller Bell: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker; I am sure Mr. Sinclair is noting these remarks. Is it still the intention of the government to proceed immediately with the second bill?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, immediately after we can get passage of the bill before ns.



RAILWAY STRIKE-UNION REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF LEGISLATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether he has received from the representatives of the railway unions a letter dated today, a copy of which had been sent to each of the party leaders as well as to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) asking for a reconsideration of the legislation before the house in order that the members of these unions might comply with whatever action parliament takes? May I ask the Prime Minister whether he has received such a letter and whether he is prepared to make any statement regarding the question contained in it?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the letter in question was left in my office shortly after 2.20 p.m. At that time I was in conference with some of my cabinet colleagues. The letter was delivered to me just before I came into the house, and I understand it was made public before I was able to read it. I will naturally, without delay, give it the consideration which the importance of the subject matter and the positions of those who signed the letter warrants.


David Réal Caouette: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
The Prime Minister seems to have read those letters, one of which comes from Mr. McLoon, chairman of the strike committee, in New Brunswick, and the other from Messrs. Smith, P. Kelly and T. W. Read.
Does the Prime Minister not feel that both letters mean about the same thing, that is they constitute an anticipated defiance of the act which may be passed by parliament and of public order in this country? It is blackmail of a sort. Could the Prime Minister tell
DEBATES	7873
Inquiries of the Ministry us what action he intends to take with respect to that blackmail or that invitation to break the law of the land?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not recall having received such a letter as that to which my hon. friend refers. It was not delivered to me. The first letter referred to by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, as I have just indicated, was put into my hands just before I came into the house. I am going to study it immediately.



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question that relates to another crisis confronting the Commonwealth and particularly the countries of Africa. Will the Prime Minister tell us whether he has been in communication with the Prime Minister of Great Britain or the President of Zambia, and whether the situation that may be created by the action of the President of Zambia is to be dealt with prior to the meeting of the prime ministers next week?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have been in communication with the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom with respect to the forthcoming conference during the last two or three weeks. I have been in communication also with the head of the government of Zambia during that period. As a matter of fact I wrote him the other day urging him to attend the conference, where I think his presence would be most important and valuable. I had hoped that he would be there. I have not heard from him since his decision was announced yesterday not to attend the conference.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: I have a question I wish to direct to the Minister of National Defence, Mr. Speaker. Will a court of inquiry be convened to investigate the circumstances concerning the lack of performance and subsequent emergency repairs prior to and during the
August 31. 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry flight of the service aircraft transporting military cadets from Winnipeg through intermediary points to Vernon, British Columbia and return?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I will take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker.


John (Jack) McIntosh: May I ask a supplementary question. In view of the fact the minister is taking the last question as notice, would he inquire into whether there are sufficient qualified service personnel to service and maintain DC-6 aircraft presently used by the R.C.A.F. in a manner conducive to highest standards of air safety?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I do not believe we have any DC-6 aircraft.


John (Jack) McIntosh: They are used to transport troops.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The Yukon is not a DC-6; it is a modified version of a British aircraft.


John (Jack) McIntosh: The aircraft used presently by the R.C.A.F. to transport personnel.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Graffiey (Brome-Missisquoi):: My question is based on a reply the Minister of Finance gave yesterday to the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, when the minister stated that the federal government has no intention of proposing a set of wage and price controls at the forthcoming meeting of the provinces. I should like to ask the minister if the federal government is considering proposing a set of wage and price guide lines at that meeting?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: When, as I hope will happen soon, an opportunity occurs to debate the general economic situation and inflationary pressure which now exists, I hope I shall have an opportunity of expressing a view on this matter.


William Heward Grafftey: I simply ask the minister, apart from the forthcoming debate, if at the present time the government is considering a set of wage and price guide lines.


Mitchell William Sharp: This subject has, of course, been under consideration by the government over quite some period. It has been referred

also to the Economic Council of Canada, and the fact that there has been such a long delay in that report being presented is perhaps the best indication of the very serious difficulties involved in applying the principles of guide lines in Canada.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. He is apparently looking into numerous solutions to the inflation problem. Has he thought or is he thinking about applying the same methods used by the labour government in England to check inflation in that country?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That question is not in order.


Mitchell William Sharp: I hope we do not have to deal with such a situation in this country.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: desire to direct a question to the Minister of Finance of which he has knowledge; and with your permission, sir, I am advised he is prepared to answer at this time. If a request is made, will the province of British Columbia be granted a long term federal loan at the government borrowing interest rate and the provision for delayed repayment, for the construction of a bridge and approaches across Vancouver harbour, under provisions similar to those granted by the federal government for the construction of a bridge and approaches at Saint John, New Brunswick?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Although the minister may have expressed his willingness to answer the question, it is purely hypothetical and is not in order.



INQUIRY AS TO TAXATION COMMISSION REPORT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack Irvine (London):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In light of the fact that a federal-provincial conference has been called for September 14, has the Prime Minister received the report of the Carter commission in either official language?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, it has not been received yet, Mr. Speaker,
August 31, 1966

but we have been pressing the commissioner to get it before us with the least possible delay. I do not know whether the Minister of Finance has had any word in the last few days.


John Alfred Irvine: May I ask a supplementary question. In view of previous statements made by the Minister of Finance, that he or his officials have seen certain chapters of this report, may I ask if those chapters have been made available to the provincial treasurers?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am glad the hon. gentleman has asked this question because there was a reference in a newspaper column the other day to the suppression by the Canadian government of the Carter commission report. I was very happy that Mr. Carter clarified the position in a letter published in the Globe 2nd Mail, in which he said:
It is only fair to point out that there is no suppression by the government and in fact there continue to be a few chapters which are not entirely completed . . .
I write this letter only because I consider it quite unfair to charge the government with withholding a report which they have not yet received.
Even if we wanted to show the report to the provincial governments, we do not have a report to show them. I think it would be quite inappropriate to show those draft chapters which, for the reasons I have given the house, have been seen by my officials.


John Alfred Irvine: I am wondering, then, if the minister would like to enlarge further upon his statement of January 24, Mr. Speaker?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. MacEachen:: I am sure the procedures that have been followed in the past will be followed in this case.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: I should like to direct a question to the
Secretary of State, as the minister reporting to this house for the centennial commission. I am wondering if the minister is aware that the centennial commission has approved a grant of $2,000, under the commission's centennial publication assistance program, to one Stanley B. Ryerson of Toronto, reputed editor of the Marxist Quarterly, as a centennial project for a book on Canadian history on the theme of "Canada, the Unequal Partnership"? If so, is she satisfied with the propriety of such a decision?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: In answer to the first part, yes, I am aware of it. In answer to the second part, no, I am not very happy about it.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: May I ask a supplementary question. I am wondering if the minister would be prepared to table a statement outlining the criteria used by the selection committee in assessing applications under this whole program?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I would be happy to do that if the rules so provide, Mr. Speaker.



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: I should like to ask the Minister of National Health
and Welfare if, under the circumstances with which we are confronted, he has made provision for the delivery of the old age security pension cheques.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I do not understand the import of the question, Mr. Speaker.


Eric Alfred Winkler: It is simply this. If the strike with which we are dealing in any way inhibits the distribution of those cheques, has the minister made provision for their distribution?



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: wish to address a question to the Minister of National Revenue based on correspondence from members of local 12 of the letter carriers union of Vancouver, British Columbia, from Ontario members, and other members of this union in Canada. Mr. Speaker, I need not tell you that the minister is just dying to answer.
Can the minister inform the house when the special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on employer-employee relations in the public service of Canada will resume its sittings? Can the
August 31, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry minister inform the house whether opportunity will be provided for the postal workers to make representations to be excluded from Bill C-170 and to be included under the provisions of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As I would not want to be responsible for the minister's untimely demise, I will allow the question.


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I am not certain I shall die if I do answer, but I may if I do not.
With respect to when the committee will meet, it is of course up to the chairman and the members of the committee as to when that committee will be called together again. With respect to the other part of the question, as to whether postal workers will have an opportunity of making the representations mentioned, this again is up to the joint committee of the House and the Senate. I understand, however, that all civil service organizations will be given full opportunity to make representations to this joint committee.



PARLIAMENT HILL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Raymond Langlois: In the
absence of the Minister of Public Works may I address my question to the Prime Minister. My question pertains to a strike which may take place among newspapermen, members of parliament, House of Commons staff, employees, and anybody else concerned with respect to parking on parliament hill. It is to prevent such a strike that I draw this matter to the Prime Minister's attention. Will the Prime Minister look into the restrictions which have been imposed in this matter and see whether an equitable solution may not be found, which could be satisfactory to all persons concerned?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very glad to set up a conciliation board.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Prime Minister not take into account the views of many who feel that the parliament grounds have never looked better?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I certainly will, Mr. Speaker.
[Mr. Herridge.l



THE MINISTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can he say whether Bill C-178, having to do with government organization, under which ministers and departments get new names, has yet been proclaimed? If not, can he say when it will be proclaimed?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it has not been proclaimed, but that has not interfered with the implementation of the bill. When the Governor General returns to Ottawa shortly we hope to be able to proclaim this bill formally. That will be in a few weeks.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS QUEBEC-REQUEST FOR RETURN OF ALL INCOME TAXES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Finance concerning the forthcoming federal-provincial conference on taxation.
Can the minister tell us whether he has received a request from the Quebec government asking that 100 per cent of the revenue accruing from the personal income tax be handed over to that province? Does the minister intend to comply with this request of the Quebec government?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker, I have received no such request.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. In view of the fact that the Yukon territory has been without a commissioner since June, can the minister inform the house when an appointment will be made and whether the appointee will have the local
August 31, 1966	COMMONS
authority and autonomy desired by the citizens of the Yukon territory?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, it is quite true that no appointment has been made to the commissionership since the retirement of Mr. Gordon Cameron. I expect that an appointment will be made at an early date.
I had noted the recent visit of the hon. member, in which he suggested that nothing had been done in the Yukon since 1952. I want to tell him that a number of things have been done, including the payment of a large number of bad debts incurred during the time he was in charge of the department.
We hope that an appointment will be made in the matter of a very few weeks. I think no harm whatsoever has been done in the interregnum.


Michael Starr: Who is going to pay your bad debts?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I am wondering whether the minister was accurate in mentioning 1952 as the date. I think he must have drawn that particular year out of a hat. Could he not answer the latter part of my question, which I think is most important, as to whether the appointee, when and if he is appointed, will have the local authority and autonomy which is very urgently requested by the citizens of the Yukon territory.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I quoted 1952 from the press. I was not responsible for the confusion of the hon. member.
The second point of the hon. member's question deals with additional responsibilities with respect to the territories, which I anticipate will be undertaken in amendments that we intend to bring before the house as soon as possible.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister indicate when we might expect the Carrothers commission report.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I am now in possession of a copy of the report on the government in the Northwest Territories-the Carrothers commission report. It would be my intention to table it in the house at once, if we had the French translation. We are making inquiries as to how long that will take, and if it should take an undue period of time I shall ask permission of the house to table the English version, with the commitment of having the French version tabled as soon thereafter as possible.
DEBATES	7877
Inquiries of the Ministry ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE



BAR ASSOCIATION REQUEST FOR COMPULSORY BREATHALIZER TESTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: have a question for the Minister of Justice which has to do with the traffic death toll on our highways. Will the minister give consideration to the appeal made yesterday by the Canadian Bar Association, with respect to the establishment of compulsory breathalizer tests for impaired drivers?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the department has given this matter considerable consideration in the past. Among other things, it has been following quite closely the work of the Canadian Bar Association in this matter. At one period it was rumoured that the bar association had withdrawn the resolution because of some technical difficulties. It was only this morning that I saw in the press report that the resolution had been accepted. I can assure the hon. member that we will look into the resolution very carefully.



BILINGUALISM AND BICULTURALISM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
Can the Prime Minister tell the house when he expects to receive the Laurendeau-Dunton report on bilingualism and biculturalism?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, but I hope before the end of the year.



ROYAL CANADIAN MINT

[Stage Direction]
REASONS FOR REDUCTIONS IN STAFF On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance.
Could he inform the house whether the announcement that 25 employees of the Royal Canadian Mint are to be laid off at the end of September is the result of the government's tight money policy?
August 31, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mitchell William Sharp: Not quite. The reason some workers are toeing laid off from the mint is that the mint has caught up with the demands for currency.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Dean Howe (Hamilton South):: My question is addressed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has consideration been given to the regulation and control of the drug LSD.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I should like to ask the
Prime Minister whether later this week, and before he leaves for the prime ministers' [DOT]conference in London, the house might have an opportunity for two or three hours to hear from him regarding various matters which will come before that conference and, in particular, what will be the attitude of Canada toward the situation in Rhodesia.
He will recall that when embargoes were imposed and sanctions applied, we took the stand they would never be effective, and the government held the other view. I ask this question because of an article by Mr. Edmonds, at one time I think a close associate *of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) who contends that only the use of force will bring about a settlement in Rhodesia. That is a serious suggestion to make and one which I think parliament would not accept.


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: That is the view I stated the day before yesterday.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, I wish it had been stated to Mr. Edmonds, who occupied a very close relationship with the minister and was often his lead. I would ask the Prime Minister whether something along these lines might be achieved.
[Mr. Laprise.l


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will discuss the matter with the government house leader and he will perhaps meet the other house leaders to see whether it could be arranged. I myself would welcome the opportunity of discussing these important questions, though I would point out, as the right hon. gentleman knows, that a final decision on such an important international policy could only be reached by the government in light of the reports we get from the sanctions committee of the commonwealth in London, and also in light of the statements made and the policies put forward by other members of the commonwealth. Subject to that, I would welcome the opportunity for a discussion of this matter.
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South
Centre): In view of the interruption I heard from him I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he will give a clear answer to the question he was asked on August 29. The question was put in these words by my hon. friend from Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt): "Is it now the policy of the government to employ force if necessary to dislodge the present government in Rhodesia?" In reply the minister gave this vague answer: "I know of no basis for that question."
Never mind talking about the basis of the question. Let the minister tell the house whether it is government policy to advocate the use of force in Rhodesia.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I
think my reply was very appropriate.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. L. Chatlerton (Esquimalt-Saanich):: address this question to the Prime Minister. Can the right hon. gentleman say when the federal-provincial conference to deal with education is to be called?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am not sure of the exact date. Perhaps the Secretary of State will be able to tell me the exact date of that meeting-whether it has yet been fixed. She will inform me and I will inform the hon. member tomorrow.


George Louis Chatterton: In view of the general expectation of students that the government's
student loans and scholarship bill will be available in September, can the Prime
August 31. 1966	COMMONS
Minister say whether consideration will be given to introducing that bill at the earliest opportunity?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I shall be glad to give consideration to that.
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of
the Opposition): Further to that, there is the matter of legislation dealing with increased per capita grants to the universities as announced by the Prime Minister in his letter to the premiers dated January 17 last' and printed as an appendix to Hansard on February 10. Since that legislation will cover among other things the university year 196667, and with the opening of the universities close at hand, is this not a matter of very great importance and urgency?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I certainly appreciate both the importance and the urgency of the matter, but as the right hon. gentleman knows this was a subject on the agenda of a federal provincial meeting which was to have taken place in Victoria, British Columbia, in July. For reasons which the Leader of the Opposition will appreciate, that meeting had to be postponed. I cannot remember the exact date when it will be held, though I have been asked the question; I think it is toward the end of September. But I will check on that immediately.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Halifax):: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister and ask him whether it is the intention or aim of the government at this time not to refer the events which have taken place since June 23 to the standing committee on defence for futher review.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The Minister of National Defence dealt with this matter yesterday, and I think it is highly proper that these questions should be referred to the committee on defence.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question period has expired.
DEBATES	7879
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters [DOT] (3:40 p.m.)



MAINTENANCE OF RAILWAY OPERATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, August 30, consideration of the motion of Mr. Pearson for the second reading of Bill No. 230, to provide for the resumption of operations of railways and for the settlement of the existing dispute with respect to terms and conditions of employment between railway companies and their employees, and on the amendment thereto of Mr. Diefenbaker.
Mr. Norman Fawcett (Nickel Belt):: In rising today to take part in the debate on the bill now before the house I hope I can make some small contribution toward a solution of this serious problem which is facing the country today. I hope that perhaps in some small way I can influence someone on the government side to take a second look at the measure which is before us and make some reasonable changes in it.
As I speak today, I am not speaking, as the phrase goes, off the top of my head. I am speaking as a railroader with 25 years of active experience on the railroad. I am also speaking as a representative of one of the unions involved in the strike today-the operating union, the Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen. I was a representative for them for 15 years, and their representative in matters of legislation for four years. I have been closely associated with the railroads and with the unions throughout my period of service in the industry, so I think I can speak with some authority on the railroad problem and on what the railroaders are thinking today.
I shall be a little kinder to the railway companies than was my colleague, the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) who stated, in effect, I believe, that the railway companies did not negotiate. I would say that I deplore the very negative approach they take toward collective bargaining. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that in making this statement I am being very kind to them.
There is clear evidence of this negative approach in the fact that this is the fourth time the government has had to intervene in railroad labour-management disputes. It is also proof that the railroads are not approaching collective bargaining in the same manner as collective bargaining is generally carried on between industry and labour. This
August 31, 1966
7880	COMMONS
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters has been my experience both as a railroader and as a union man.
I listened with great interest to the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey) last night. He spoke with sincerity. I would have to agree with a good part of what he said, but I cannot be as optimistic as the hon. member in respect to the railroads sincerely getting down again to negotiations with the unions in order to bring about a better settlement. This legislation contains no hope of that. I am satisfied the railroad companies are going to stand pat and take their chances on arbitration. This may be a personal opinion, but my experience with the unions gives me a good foundation for making that statement.
I would also like to tell the hon. member for Verdun that it is not a matter of the railroaders not properly understanding the provisions of Bill C-230. Rather, it is a case of their understanding too well the attitude of the railway companies in the matter of collective bargaining. This is the problem. They have no faith in the companies resuming negotiations and giving them any more than is outlined in this bill.
The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) said one of the problems in the railroad industry concerned the lessening gap in the pay structures for skilled and unskilled workers. I am quite sure my colleague did not intend no imply that the so-called unskilled workers are overpaid. The point he was trying to make was that the pay differential between skilled and unskilled workers was not enough. In this connection I do not think the railroads are fair in classifying skilled and unskilled workers. I feel certain many unskilled workers could be classified as highly skilled workers.
My experience lay in the operating field, but my sympathy goes out to the non-ops because I believe they have suffered more discrimination in the matter of inadequate pay. The problems of the operating groups are numerous, but they are different from those of the non-ops.
The section foreman is one of the most important people on a railroad, yet in a sense he is looked down upon, even though there is no more hard working man in the industry. He must acquire a good understanding of basic engineering. He is responsible for the proper elevation of tracks and other work which, if not done properly, could contribute to accidents, injuries and possibly death. Yet his take-home pay is a national disgrace. All through the years these people have been


deprived of a proper income. Many of them are now being pensioned off and because of their low rate of pay their pensions are totally inadequate.
Railroad bridge and building crews are also highly skilled workmen. They build bridges. They do all the heavy work in the construction. They maintain them. They build houses and even do cabinet making. I believe their services are not recognized in the proper manner.
I can give an example of their wage rate. One constituent of mine was with the C.N.R. bridge and building section. He took his pension two years earlier than required and got a job in construction which paid him $1.78 more per hour than he was paid when working on the railroad, plus $2.60 a day travelling expenses. This is adequate proof that the railroaders are underpaid. Freight and express workmen are another group which is badly underpaid. I can cite the case of an express clerk who is married and is trying to rear his family on take-home pay of less than $300 a month. Another clerk with 15 years seniority has take-home pay of approximately $280 per month, and he is a marrried man with five children. Is it any wonder that such people are hostile when they think the government would consider such a measly increase as is offered in this bill?
I quite understand that hon. members on the other side of the house have said that this is an open-end formula, that it involves only an interim payment; but from my experience in negotiations with the railroads I have a strong feeling that, if the bill passes unamended, it will be many months before the workers get an additional raise. The increase offered by the bill is meagre and does not alleviate the position in which railroaders find themselves today.
Railroaders are the most maligned of people. No others in industry have been criticized so much for feather-bedding; yet it is rather odd that railroaders are being made redundant and can still be responsible for a national crisis because they walk off their jobs.
I do not wish to take the time of the house to explain the pay structure of the operating crafts. No one would be much the wiser if I did because it is one of the most complex formulae to be found anywhere. In it there is real inequality. I agree that many of the operating people, if they hold good positions in freight or passenger service, can make a reasonably good monthly wage. But by the
August 31, 1966	COMMONS
same token there are many more who, due to the complex wage structure, are subject to very low wages if they do not have the seniority required in order to hold a decent job.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Just as an example, while these men work on a mileage basis, if they are working on jobs where mileage does not accumulate and where there is less road mileage than 100 miles involved, their rate is $2.09 an hour. Under circumstances where a man is forced on a job, I think this is a very unrealistic wage in this day and age. If he works on a run of over 100 miles, he is paid by the mile and receives $16.35 for every 100 miles. This inequality does not exist because the men want it. It does not exist because the unions have not tried to do something about it. It exists became every time the unions attempt to have something done about it the company will go along with the discussion but will not do anyth ng about it. They do not want to bring the poorly paid man up to the rate of the better paid man: They want to bring the better paid man down to the level of the lower paid man. This is the only time they want to negotiate on this.
Time after time our unions have tried to do something about this inequality and bring about a more simplified pay structure. The companies are more concerned with trying to cut the wages of the higher paid workers, and therefore they never get off the ground so far as this particular subject is concerned. The yard conductor switchman always works on an hourly basis. His rate is $2.66 an hour. I would say that on the average a yard conductor's service with the company would be anywhere from 20 to 40 years. When a man has put in 20 to 40 years on a job, has the skills required to perform that job properly and is required to take the responsibility for the involvement of machines worth hundreds of thousands of dollars and goods worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, I think $2.66 an hour is absolutely outrageous. When you add the 6 per cent on to that it is hardly worth mentioning.
Last night I listened with interest to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. He too seemed to be optimistic that when the chips were down the companies would sit down to negotiate. I should like to remind the Minister of National Health and Welfare that at the time a unanimous report of a conciliation board was more or less forced down the
DEBATES	7831
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters company's throat, this was government intervention too. Even though the conciliation board was unanimous in recommending a formula for settlement, the company would have no part of it, and at this time too it almost resulted in a crisis.
Therefore, I must reiterate what I said before. I am not optimistic that if this bill is passed there will be any very decided improvement for the workers for a great time to come. I can see months of delay and frustration while the men get more bitter all the time.
I should like to refer also to what the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) said with regard to the Freedman commission report-that is, that the recommendations of the Freedman commission report should be referred for negotiation between the companies and the unions. I am not criticizing the hon. member for Red Deer, because as is the case in respect of a majority of people, I am quite sure he does not understand that the only reason there was a wildcat strike on the Canadian National Railways is that the unions for years have tried to have written into their contract the same things that are recommended by the Freedman commission report. In this regard they have not met with any success. This is the only reason there was a wildcat strike on the Canadian National Railways.
This time again, when the unions and the company were trying to negotiate there was a proposal from the unions that the recommendations of the Freedman report be part of the contract. The company turned thumbs down on it; they absolutely will not negotiate. The only way it is going to be put into effect is by government legislation; make no mistake about that.
Like all union members I am opposed to compulsory arbitration. I do not think it solves anything. If we ever get to the point where all these disputes go to compulsory arbitration, management will not settle at any time; they will sit back and gamble in the hope that when it goes to compulsory arbitration they will get the best of the deal. Without criticizing arbitrators, our people do not have confidence that when the company goes to arbitration it does not get a little the best of the deal. This is another thing which is bugging the railroaders today.
The point I wish to make most clear is the fact that it is not because the railroader does not understand Bill C-230 that he is so upset today. It is because he does understand how
August 31, 1966

Legislation Respecting Railway Matters the companies have been negotiating for the past 16 years since the strike of 1950. It is my opinion that never since 1950 have the companies sat down and negotiated in good faith. Perhaps there has been some token negotiating, with the understanding in the back of their minds that eventually there would be government intervention and that if there is government intervention they would have the government on the spot; either the taxpayers would have to pick up the tab or the government would have to step in and relieve them of some of the burden which they find, or pretend to find, too heavy to bear.
I am not going to argue the point about inability to pay. I recognize the fact that railroads perhaps are not in as favourable a position as is most industry when they have to provide additional wages. I should like to say very strongly, however, that I do not think the Canadian Pacific Railway has a good argument in respect of inability to pay. So far as the Canadian National Railways are concerned, if they were not burdened with an unrealistic debt which I think costs in the neighbourhood of $60 or $70 million a year in interest, I feel they could not plead inability to pay either.
To a great extent the position the railways find themselves in today is their own fault. It is only in the past few years that the railways have got off their behinds-if you do not mind my saying that-and have tried to modernize. They wanted to sit there and let somebody else carry the burden for them. I do have a little optimism. In the past few years I think they have tried to get back into the transportation field and have tried to compete on a fair basis. However, I still suggest that the railways can blame themselves to a great extent if there is inability to pay today, so far as railroad operation is concerned.
Mr. Speaker, from the start I never intended to take up too much of the time of the house. I should like to say something in conclusion, and if this gets out to a lot of the union men I might not be too popular with them. I should like to have it clearly understood, however, that I do not in any way subscribe to defiance of the law, under any circumstances.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Norman Edward Fawcett: I say this very sincerely, and I say this having in mind my own experience. I was involved in an illegal strike two years ago. The issues at that time were not as great, perhaps, as they could be in this case if
the situation were to get out of hand. Our defiance was token defiance against our employer and not against the government in that particular instance. It was very forcibly driven home to me at that time that there is a very thin line between sound reasoning and unreasonableness. There is a very thin veil between democracy and anarchy, and the lack of a few sensible people in the right places at the right times may lead this country into difficulties which may take months to resolve.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
For the reasons I have outlined I should like to go on record as one of many who implore the railway employees to obey the law regardless of circumstances. On the other hand I should also like to implore the government to change Bill C-230 to make it more acceptable to those involved, because as it now stands it is not acceptable. I hope when this bill reaches committee consideration the government will be prepared to accept certain reasonable amendments.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to take part in this debate at the very beginning, but as it apears that it will be longer than expected, I will take a few minutes to state part of my views and also add to the sauce offered to us by the government as well as the opposition. I would like to add some spice to the main speech delivered by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker). After hearing the voice of those two parliamentary leaders, we finally have a rather tasteless and stale sauce. Perhaps another cook might improve the taste.
The more I consider the attitude of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and that of the Leader of the Official Opposition, the more I find they are the same.
When we take the time to read carefully the speech delivered by the Prime Minister in favour of the bill before us, we are carried back a few years when a similar situation occurred and the argumentation of the government in office to settle the problems at that time was put forward.
As for the Leader of the Opposition, he does exactly the same thing. He gives us a history lesson, the conclusion reached is that what the other has done at the time he was either in the opposition or in power. After the history lesson, the conclusion reached is that when they are on the government side, they are both the same, and when they are on the
August 31, 1966	COMMONS
opposition side, they are also both the same. To protect the rights of the workers, their interests, their welfare, both were better in opposition. Mr. Speaker, why do we not take these two parties and put them where they would be most productive, both in opposition, and bring to power a third party that would come up with a settlement once and for all, since both of them are better in opposition and since, when they change sides in the house, they also change their argument as easily as they change their shirt.
That is the problem and it never changes, but that will not truly solve the problem facing the country today. It was bypassed in the past and there will be more pussyfooting about without a final settlement. If the necessary measures, if effective and essential measures were taken to settle the problem of the railroad workers' strike, the same formula could possibly be applied to settle the many other strikes with which the country is faced at the present time. Such, Mr. Speaker, are my observations not only as concerns this discussion, on this particular bill, but ever since I have had the opportunity of sitting in this house.

The railway strike affects all spheres of the Canadian economy and productivity. We must ask ourselves why this strike is taking place and why the many other recent strikes have taken place. We must realize that more strikes are imminent because we are travelling a vicious circle. As salaries are increased the cost of living increases, and this is inevitably followed by more strikes for higher wages to compensate for the rise in costs. This cost of living is spiralling higher and higher and we have no idea when it will stop.
Provincial governments are not happy about the situation. I am sure that if this situation existed 50 or 60 years ago counterparts of men like Mr. Ross Thatcher would have come to Ottawa with six-guns to settle these problems with the prime minister. Housewives all over the country would like to go after the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) with rolling pins because of the high cost of living.
Why does the Prime Minister not have solutions to these problems? Perhaps it is because he spends his time looking for more peace prizes. I do not know what the Prime Minister intends to do to correct the existing situation, but I do know something has to be done. Let me add my grain of salt to this sauce in the hope that it will gain some

DEBATES	7883
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters flavour. Let me express my opinions in the hope that the government will pay attention and find in part at least some answer to the difficult problems which now face us.
Let us consider what the railway employees think about the bill now before us. Apparently it does not satisfy them to any great extent because it does not grapple with the problem. Some of the men on strike do not particularly want an increase in income, but would like an improvement in working conditions and facilities. Another group does want an increase in salary and is not particularly concerned about working conditions. Perhaps part of the reason for this difference of opinion relates to the various classifications in which groups of railway employees find themselves. No one can convince me that the means and needs of the presidents, vice presidents, executive vice presidents and managers are the same as the means and needs of the common section workers, station agents, ticket collectors or switchmen. They are in different categories. They might not have the same needs. We have not distinguished between these two classes of workers. There is the labouring section, part of which needs higher wages. We are offering these men 6 per cent, which is probably not enough. But if this 6 per cent were applied in the right quarters, it would be enough and the cost to the government would not be any greater. In this event 6 per cent would probably be sufficient and would satisfy the workers who need better working conditions but not necessarily higher wages.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I have in mind the trainman sitting in the caboose at the back of a freight train. Do you realize, Mr. Speaker, that these men still have the same living quarters that they had when the first train was run in Canada? They have not any toilet facilities, except the open air; the back end of the train is used for this purpose. If it is too cold and these men have to use whatever facilities there are inside the caboose, I do not know what they do.
Coal-oil lamps are used on these trains; the companies will not tolerate any kind of generator being used. The lamp is taken out to work by the trainman and he takes it back when he returns to the shop. On some of the super continental trains the cook is running around in a little space perhaps 5 feet wide and 15 feet long for 8 or 10 hours a day. He is preparing 700 or 1,000 meals a day. Where are his sleeping quarters? He sleeps on top of
August 31. 1966
7884	COMMONS
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters a dining-room table or in the baggage compartment with a couple of hens or pigs to keep him company, and the pigs are grunting all night.
These are examples of the working conditions of some of the men employed on the railways. Another type of railway worker leaves the station with his packsack, overcoat, flashlight and lantern. If he had to carry all this equipment once or twice a year, it wouldn't be too bad; but he does this two or three times a week over a period of perhaps 30 years. When these men are working around the station they are not able to walk between the cars; they have to crawl underneath the train. The cars are not separated, and as a result this worker has to crawl underneath them carrying all his gear. It would not be too much trouble to separate them and allow the workers to walk between the cars.
This is what I mean when I refer to bad working conditions; and these conditions can be improved. A raise in salary will not improve the working conditions of the man working on the freight train who is forced to use open air toilet facilities at a temperature of perhaps 40 degrees below zero, in broad daylight. If there were a reclassification of jobs, and working conditions were improved, you could give an increase in salary to the men who need it, and better working conditions to those who need them. In my opinion more railway workers would be satisfied if this were done. This is one aspect of the problem that the government and the commission provided for in the bill, if it is ever passed, should stress, namely improved working conditions and equitable, just remuneration.
I am worried about this 6 per cent because, as always, this money comes from the Canadian citizen in the form of taxes. The government may well be worried about inflation at the moment because every time they increase wages to settle a strike, whether it be on the railroad or anywhere else, the cost of living immediately increases. If the government is worried about inflation, why do they not take other measures to solve the situation? If one course can only lead to disaster, why not take another? Good grief, Mr. Speaker, there must be other measures that could be taken. There must be men in the government capable of working out a more satisfactory course. When hon. members opposite go around the city, they change direction. Why don't they do the same thing in order to solve our economic problems,


whether they be connected with operating a railroad or a country. It does not surprise me that we have strikes, because this government cannot even operate the parking area on parliament hill. If this is so, how can we expect them to run a railroad?
Instead of giving just 6 per cent to workers who need a higher increase, and hollering and yelling to the country that they cannot give any more because of inflation, the government should have considered this result when they came out with the 11 per cent tax on building materials. The cost of living went up as a result of that tax, and it will probably go up after we have dealt with the bank legislation this fall. In the minister's bill there is no limit on the interest rate chargeable on loans. The government raise the ceiling on interest. These things increase the cost of living, but we have not as yet had a strike in the banks. I know railroad men who work in shacks, but every bank manager I know has a big office in which to work. If the money obtained from increased interest were used to raise the salary of bank employees, I would not say a word; but I know where this money is going.
Raising the ceiling on interest rates has increased the cost of living, but the government does not talk about inflation when dealing with the financial sector of the economy. However, to the worker they say, "Be satisfied. Don't complain too much, because a salary increase will cause inflation." This is the sing-song we have been listening to for years, and it is about time the government changed its attitude in this respect. They should try shooting with the right arm instead of the left. If they did this they might hit the target sometimes.
To improve our economy in the future the government will have to divide the public part of the economy from the private. Until they do this they will be faced with a wall of trouble every day. Our interest on our national debt is about $1 billion a year. Doesn't this contribute to inflation? What does it add up to per capita in Canada? The government should finance the public sector of the economy interest free, or at operational cost. This might very much reduce the tax paid by Canadian citizens. Every time the government imposes a tax, the cost of living goes up.
The job of this government is to see that the needs of every individual are met. Not only must we improve production but we must improve the ability of the individual to
August 31, 1966	COMMONS
purchase that production. In my opinion the government has failed to realize this aspect of the problem. They must see that the purchasing power of the Canadian people is at all times not more or less than the goods we are producing. If a proper balance is not maintained in this regard you will have either inflation or deflation. If you have inflation, you are off-balance, so get back into balance and take measures to achieve this end.
When I speak of the public sector of the economy I refer to the financing of bridges, railroads, schools, roads and projects undertaken by municipalities and provincial governments. When any level of government wishes to undertake a public project, it should be financed interest free because these governments are providing a service to the country. This is not production but it is a service from which the producing, private sector of the economy benefits.
After a road has been built it begins to depreciate, but we pay interest on the total amount of money originally borrowed to build the road. This is what causes inflation. You build a road; it costs $1 million and you commence repaying the loan. Immediately after the road has been built, it depreciates. You borrow $1 million to build the road, you pay interest at perhaps 5 per cent for 20 years and at the end of that period you have, in effect, paid for two roads because you have repaid the original loan of $1 million and the interest has amounted to $1 million. That is $2 million for the basic value of a $1 million road. There is inflation there and by the time the road is paid for it has outgrown its usefulness. To whom is the interest paid? I would like the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) or the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) to get up and tell us to whom this interest is paid. We may then start on the road to success and not on the road to bankruptcy, which is so often the case-or the road to credit restriction.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
On May 31 of last year when I told the Minister of Finance, when he reduced the reserves in the chartered banks from 8 per cent to 7 per cent, that he was the originator of the restriction he called me a prophet. I would like the minister to refer back to the words I said on May 31, 1965. Maybe I was a prophet; but he was a fool. This may not be parliamentary language but it is still common sense. All we have here is common sense, and I think we realize that very well.
DEBATES	7885
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters
Now, Mr. Speaker, we have the other matter regarding the private sector of the economy. I believe that the government should assist private companies which are borrowing money with interest, because that service is being paid for.
If I were to go to a bank to borrow money so as to continue the production of my company, the interest would not be included in the cost price. There will be salaries, depreciation of machinery, basic goods prices and interest. That is why the government could counterbalance the difference between national productivity and purchasing power so that the Canadian people at all times can make the best use of purchasing power.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in view of what I have said I wish to present to this house the following subamendment, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):

That all the words after "That" be struck out and the following substituted:
The government is neglecting to undertake the necessary measures so that at all times the railway employees and all Canadian citizens may have incomes according to the national productivity of this country by using the facilities of the Bank of Canada as may be necessary.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, in view of this subamendment I counsel the government to look attentively at the dual economy existing in this country, because national productivity is increasing at a rapid pace and should be given due consideration. It is logical that the capital of the public sector in our economy should be used to finance the production of the private sector, and it is just as logical to invest private capital in the public sector of the economy. They should be financed totally and entirely one from the other. Until the government has given thorough consideration to these points we are doomed to face more strikes, more credit restrictions, more uneasiness and unhappiness in Canada.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: With reference to the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Langlois) I would like to refer the house to citation 203, subsection 1 of Beauchesne's fourth edition, page 171 which reads as follows:
203 (1) It is an imperative rule that every amendment must be relevant to the question on which the amendment is proposed.
Division

August 31, 1966
This may be read as also applying to a subamendment. The reference made in the subamendment to national productivity and the use of the Bank of Canada is not at all relevant to the amendment now before the house.
May I also refer the house to citation 202 subsection 3 at page 169 of Beauchesne's fourth edition. It reads as follows:
Since the purpose oi a subamendment is to alter the amendment, it should not enlarge upon the scope of the amendment but it should deal with matters that are not covered by the amendment; if it is intended to bring up matters foreign to the amendment, the member should wait until the amendment is disposed of and move a new amendment.
This is so, provided of course that it is relevant to the bill.
I suggest to the hon. member for Megantic that the subamendment which he moved is not relevant to the bill and brings out matters which are not included in the amendment now before the house. I therefore declare the subamendment out of order.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?
Those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Those against will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.
The house divided on the amendment (Mr. Diefenbaker) which was negatived on the
following division.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
++YEAS
Messrs:
Alkenbrack
Asselin (Charlevoix)
Baldwin
Ballard
Barnett
Beaulieu
Bell (Carleton)
Bell (Saint John-Albert)
Bower
Brand
Brewin
Cadieu (Meadow Lake)
Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands) Cantelon Chatterton Churchill Clancy Coates Code Crouse Danforth Diefenbaker Dinsdale
Douglas	McQuaid
Enns	Madill
Fairweather	Mandziuk
Fane	Martin (Timmins)
Fawcett	Mather
Flemming	Monteith
Forbes	Moore
Forrestall	Muir (Cape Breton
Fulton	North and Victoria)
Gilbert	Muir (Lisgar)
Grafftey	Nasserden
Grills	Nesbitt
Gundlock	Noble
Hales	Nowlan
Hamilton	Nugent
Hees	Orlikow
Herridge	Ormiston
Horner (Acadia)	Pascoe
Horner (Jasper-Edson)	Peters
Horner (The Battlefords)	Prittie
Howe (Hamilton South)	Pugh
Howe (Wellington-Huron)Rapp	
Irvine	Regimbal
Jorgenson	Ricard
Keayes	Rynard
Kennedy	Saltsman
Kindt	Schreyer
Knowles	Scott (Danforth)
Korchinsky	Scott (Victoria (Ont.) >
Lambert	Sherman
Lewis	Simpson
Loney	Skoreyko
MacDonald (Prince)	Smallwood
MacEwan	Smith
Maclnnis	Southam
(Cape Breton South)	Starr
Maclnnis (Mrs.)	Stefanson
(Vancouver-Kingsway)	Thomas (Middlesex West)
MacLean (Queens)	Valade
Macquarrie	Wadds (Mrs.)
McRae	Watson (Assiniboia)
McCleave	Webb
McCutcheon	Winch
McIntosh	Winkler
McKinley	Woolliams-110.
NAYS	
Messrs:	
Addison	Chretien
Allard	Clermont
Alim and	Comtois
Andras	Cote (Dorchester)
Asselin	Cote (Longueuil)
(Richmond-Wolfe)	Cowan
Badanai	Crossman
Basford	Davis
Batten	Deachman
Bechard	Dionne
Beer	Drury
Benson	Dub6
Berger	Duquet
Blouin	Emard
Boulanger	Ethier
Brown	Faulkner
Byrne	Favreau
Cadieux (Terrebonne)	Forest
Cameron (High Park)	Foy
Cantin	Gauthier
Caouette	Gendron
Cardin	Godin
Cashin	Gordon
Choquette	Gray

August 31, 1966	COMMO
Greene	Nicholson
Gregoire	Nixon
Groos	O'Keefe
Guay	Olson
Habel	Orange
Haidasz	Otto
Harley	Patterson
Hellyer	Pearson
Honey	Pelletier
Hopkins	Pennell
Hymmen	Pepin
Isabelle	Pickersgill
Johnston	Pilon
Klein	Prud'homme
Lachance	Racine
Laflamme	Reid
Laing	Richard
LaMarsh (Miss)	Rideout (Mrs.)
Lamontagne	Rinfret
Langlois (Chicoutimi)	Robichaud
Langlois (Megantic)	Rochon
Laniel	Rock
Laprise	Roxburgh
Latulippe	Ryan
Laverdiere	Sauve
Leblanc (Laurier)	Sharp
LeBlanc (Rimouski)	Simard
Leboe	Stafford
Lefebvre	Stanbury
Legault	Stewart
Lessard	Tardif
Lind	Teillet
Loiselle	Thomas (Maisonneuve-
Macdonald (Rosedale)	Rosemont)
MacEachen	Thompson
Mackasey	Tolmie
Mcliraith	Tremblay
McNulty	Trudeau
McWilliam	Tucker
Marchand	Turner
Martin (Essex East)	Wahn
Matheson	Watson (Chateauguay-
Matte	Huntingdon-Laprairie)
Mongrain	Whelan
Morison	Winters
Munro	Yanakis-138.
Neveu	
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.


Some hon. Members:: Question.
DEBATES	7887
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters house spoke. I hope to be treated with the same politeness during the few minutes I shall take of the time of the house.
Mr. Speaker, it is perhaps normal, and the contrary might be difficult to explain in view of my past involvement with the unions, that I should at least make some remarks before such important legislation is passed by parliament.
The bill now under consideration, Mr. Speaker, involves problems of great importance for the labour world and even for society as a whole.
This is not the first time that railway disputes finally come before the parliament of Canada. This has been discussed at length; there have been at least four such disputes and it is the fourth with which we are dealing here in parliament and which will have to be settled more or less directly by the House of Commons. Yet this procedure is not normal, since we have to pass legislation to settle the dispute. The railroad workers, the employers in the railway industry are covered by the Industrial Relations Act just like all the other employers under the jurisdiction of the federal law. This law established the procedure for the settlement of disputes.
This procedure applies to the railways as to all the other industries covered by the law. It provides for a negotiation period, and also makes other provisions. It also provides for a conciliation board or a mediator if the dispute is not settled directly. When this legal procedure is exhausted, the law stipulates that a legal strike may be declared. What the rail-men are doing now is exactly what the law allows them to do. Not only does the law allow them to do this, but they have no other recourse in a dispute.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question on the main motion?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
How is it that in their case, Parliament is always forced to intervene? The obvious reply is that the Canadian economy is seriously hampered. It is quite true.


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.


William Heward Grafftey: You will have a lot to explain, my friend. You will have to explain the unexplicable.


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, one is not always paid back in the same coin, since I have always listened in silence when the hon. members from the other side of the
Other strikers also use their right to strike and thus affect the public weal. There was a postal strike that affected the public interest and Parliament was concerned with the postal strike. There was the longshoremen's strike and there was concern too, over this strike, its consequences, and intervention by Parliament was asked for. And if, tomorrow, our airlines were paralysed, the people and, possibly, the members, would probably call for the intervention of Parliament. That is to say that, on one hand, the Canadian people through their Government, recognize that
7888	COMMONS
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters railroad workers, longshoremen, Seaway employees have the same rights as others and that, having the same rights, these workers may organize and may also strike.
But in all these areas, and in a growing number of areas, strikes affect the commonweal.
Now if the fact that public interest is involved becomes grounds for Parliament intervention, I say that Parliament will have to intervene constantly more and more.
In the case of the railroads, it seems clear to me and every one is agreed, even those among us who are closest to the labour unions have agreed that a railroad strike cannot last indefinitely. It had to be settled; that is to say the workers could not be allowed to extend their full economic strength to achieve an agreement. As soon as this is admitted, and I believe that our friend from York South (Mr. Lewis) admitted it yesterday, and rightly so, and I shan't take him to task for it, as soon as it is admitted that workers in an industry cannot go to the utter limit of their rights and their strength, it means that the right to strike is being questioned in this particular area. This means that such employees do not have the same rights as others. Normally, as it was mentioned in this house, I think, a strike is not simply the fact of going out on strike, to act jointly it is going to the very end of our strength in order that at some time, the balance of economic pressures brings about an agreement between the parties.
Everyone appears to be denying railwaymen the right to strike. This is an extremely serious problem. And when reference was made on a few occasions in this house to my speech in Nicolet-Yamaska, and rightly too, the fact is that I was not surprised that the government did not take action any sooner. I would have been surprised that a responsible government, seeing that the fundamental rights of hundreds, thousands and eventually hundreds of thousands of workers were at stake. Let the government take the time, try by all possible means to get the parties to come to an understanding, so that none of their rights be restricted, limited, or denied altogether. It seems to me that this is normal procedure. To be sure, there were those who cried out, as soon as they saw their interests being threatened, their own interests,-they often confuse this with the public interest- they cried out: "Good grief, stop the strike, stop the very threat of a strike. Why does parliament not convene before the strike occurs?"
DEBATES	August 31. 1966
One thing must be made clear, Mr. Speaker, and this is that the power of negotiation of a trade union does not lie only in strike action, but also in the threat of strike action. You know that more contracts are negotiated through strike threats than through strike action itself.
Therefore, if we were all to decide upon intervention in the railway strike, we could at least, Mr. Speaker, have given the railway-men a chance to make use of this strike action threat as a means of negotiation. By what right should we have denied them even this? Criticism of government action, Mr. Speaker, on the basis that it did not take action soon enough, in view of the problems that a strike may cause, has no serious foundation; any strike brings forth problems, Mr. Speaker, I know of no strike that does not cause trouble. But if we must draw the line, where should it be drawn if we want to respect the fundamental right of workers, which is the right of association?
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Between us, Mr. Speaker, people do not associate for association's sake; they do so to strive for a common aim and in labour unions the pursuit of such an aim implies a certain bargaining power. When a labour union is deprived of the right to strike and of every means of action, the fact that union members are grouped together does not confer them any power. Their only power is that all union members can at a given time deprive their employer of their services. This is their only power, otherwise let them group themselves in leagues of mutual contemplation, but not in labour unions. The right to strike is closely related to the right of association. That is why any intervention in this field should be very cautious and we should refrain from intervening hastily because a few people feel threatened. There is no doubt that the railway strike is hurting the workers. There is one thing, however, that the Canadian people should learn. The public will learn that if all citizens are to be on an equal footing and to enjoy the same rights, it will have to do like any other employer and suffer the consequences. If the Canadian people are unable to do so, a special piece of legislation will have to be passed in order to protect the workers to ensure that in no circumstance they will be placed in a more unfavourable situation than the population as a whole.

August 31, 1966
COMMONS DEBATES	7889
Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that if the buses or rather, eventually, the subway were to stop running in Montreal, all the people would be annoyed. Hospital services were interrupted in Quebec and everybody was annoyed. I could not say to what degree the packers' strike could affect the Canadian market, but I know that it can annoy a lot of people. It becomes a question of determining at what point rights are curtailed because their exercise becomes a public nuisance.
That, to some degree, was the meaning of my remarks. I did not state that we should not act fast enough. Indeed, suppressing the strike. On the contrary. I am one of those who claim that in as vast a country as Canada, it is probably impossible for a railway strike to paralyse the whole economy. Yet, if we decide to take action along those lines, we must know how we can protect the rights of those who will be affected by the restrictions we want to impose. That is the price of democracy, the price of freedom.
Some people come and tell me that we did not act fast enough. Indeed, supressing the rights of workers by a stroke of the pen, that is not serious. It can be done overnight because all those who are economically "in" do not suffer from it. It is easily done, the thing is settled, even if at the expense of others and following improper negotiations, but that does not matter.
I think the people of Canada can and do understand under the circumstances the attitude of the government which sought to allow for a maximum of freedom and for a maximum use by the employees of their right of association. That is what we tried to do.
I have another remark, Mr. Speaker. I have realized-indeed, hon. members did that much earlier than I did-that it is impossible to negotiate a collective agreement in a parliament. I realized that. We have here only a few items and you can see what takes place. If we had the whole collective bargaining with the provisions and the wages, the hours of recall, time and a half, shifts structure, there would be no way out.
I do not think anyone considers that seriously. At a given time there may be an unusual intervention as the present one, but that cannot become normal practice.
Mr. Speaker, that is why, without being requested by anyone, neither by the government nor others, I believe we will have, at
23033-499 J
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters a given time and as soon as possible, to consider together that labour relations legislation, especially in the vital sectors of the nation to find out how those conflicts can be settled regardless of government intervention while respecting as much as possible the rights of the workers.
I believe it is essential that we come to that; otherwise we will always be in a situation such as the one which confronts us now.
We were told yesterday, Mr. Speaker, that the negotiations were not carried out as far as the conflict between the railway companies and their employees. That is quite possible; I was not present; and I do not have the experience in the operation of railways that certain of my colleagues have. I understand that that is not done; because when you are always under the threat of parliamentary intervention, it is certain that the parties will try to evade their responsibilities and leave the decisions to a third party. Then that is an irregular method. Now, which is the right one? There are many methods we can consider but it is obvious that it is not when there is a conflict and in a hurry that we should decide what will be the legislation in that field and how we consider together the settlement of conflicts in the fields I just mentioned.
We were given yesterday a few examples of countries where that seems to be well organized. Reference was made to Sweden. I believe the leader of the Ralliement Cre-ditistes (Mr. Caouette) said that in Sweden the government intervenes in every strike. Obviously, when he went to Sweden he did not waste his time studying labour legislation, because undoubtedly nowhere are government interventions rarer than in Sweden. There is practically no labour legislation in Sweden. The only regulation there is is the one established by a very powerful employers' association and by a trade-union association, also very strong.
Therefore, it is a very special situation. The labour union, which is called the LO in Sweden, has an extremely powerful influence on its affiliated unions. Most of the time negotiations are conducted on a national scale; LO in Sweden, that is the labour union, has to deal with an extremely powerful management organization which not only speaks for the employers but which can make decisions binding upon them. LO even has a strike fund to resist and to help an employer when the latter is engaged in a dispute and has the
7890	COMMONS
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters support of the organization. There is nothing like that here in Canada. First of all, over there the powers are centralized, here they are decentralized; over there they have a management association representing employers; here there is no such thing, or rather there are too many of them.
Therefore, in Canada, if you want to talk to management, you have to talk to ten, 15 or 20 management associations. On the other hand, you have a labour movement which is unified and also highly disciplined, not only in its structure but also so far as the authority given to the central organization is concerned. And if I had to find fault with the Swedish labour union, it would be precisely that it wields too much control over its affiliated locals. In any case, the example of Sweden, which was given by one in a very appropriate manner and by the other, of course, in a very inaccurate manner, cannot help us very much unless conditions in Canada change completely.
In any case, with regard to that intervention in the exercise of the right to strike or the right of associations, I understand that it is a delicate matter, and I hope it is the last time that parliament is called upon to do what it is now doing. I hope that we will find a way to allow the labour unions, even within the public service, to exercise their rights without Parliament having to intervene, because there are so many considerations which have to be taken into account then. I am not saying that it is dishonest; it is normal because what is more normal than for a political party to think of politics? What is more normal than for the opposition parties to think of taking over and for the government to want to stay in office? There is nothing unusual in that. Therefore, if the interests of the workers and the employers are caught in that network of conflicting interests, it means that we will be forever living in anarchy. Allow me to give you only one example.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) spoke yesterday of 25 per cent. I have not made up my mind whether it is fair or not at this time and I use his figure; another party, even the government, could simply say, to put the hon. member for York South on the spot: we will offer 27 per cent. He will look like a reactionary. But negotiation on that basis makes no sense at all. I think a more rational basis than that must be found and
[Mr. Marchand.l
DEBATES	August 31, 1966
that we must avoid mixing what must not be mixed.
What are the formulae? There may be some. In public services, especially where the government invests money, should the government, for instance, at a given time, attend the negotiations and play a more active part in them? Are there any other approaches to this problem? I hope we will have an opportunity to discuss them.
We have before us a bill the effect of which is to ask, indeed to order, the railway workers on strike to go back to work. Surely, this is a very serious decision for any parliament to make. This is the fourth time that the same thing is being done directly or indirectly.
We were told that this bill provided for an average increase of 6 per cent, that is 4 and 4, or 8 per cent at the end of the year, but this averages out to 6 per cent over the year. This is true and perhaps I am one of those who insisted that provision be made for that increase in the bill. And I will tell you why; we could have proceeded in two different ways; in view of the fact that, as the hon. member for York South indicated, the strike cannot be allowed to last indefinitely, we will have to find a solution and this is one. The solution he proposed himself is not a solution, since it can be assumed that even with his administrator failing agreement, the matter will be referred back to parliament. Something must be decided; either we legislate directly, that is that we negotiate in the place of the parties, or we refer the dispute to arbitration. Now, negotiation is impossible in parliament. There remains that second alternative.
Then in what spirit was that done? It was done not in a negative spirit, to try and limit what the railway workers could obtain. On the contrary, it was to give at least a first guarantee, and at the same time an indication that the government wanted the majority report to be implemented. For it could have been done as it was done in the past, by referring the whole dispute to arbitration. I believe that was done under the Conservative government. I have no particular grievances in this connection. I do not know under what circumstances that was done. It can be done that way, but we thought that in view of the fact that we restricted the workers' right, they should at least have a guaranteed increase, as recommended by Judge Munroe for the year 1966.
August 31, 1366

Only, let me tell you one thing. Mr. Speaker, it could and would be serious if I were convinced that the inclusion of the 6 per cent figure in the bill means that employees will be limited to 6 per cent and will not get at least what Judge Munroe recommended, that is 18 per cent. I would be against the bill, yes indeed.
Rightly or wrongly-Pardon me but I cannot hear-


Mr. Lewis:: Where is the guarantee?


Jean Marchand: One minute, Mr. Speaker, I will answer the hon. member for York South. Where is the guarantee? There are various kinds of guarantees. You can have a legal guarantee in which case a provision is inserted in legislation specifying that such and such a thing is to happen. That is a legal guarantee. But you can also have a moral guarantee which is often stronger than a legal one.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Jean Marchand: Anyhow. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for York South can protest if he wants to but he knows just as well as I, or any person who has been involved in negotiations, that when a precedent has been set or when an arbitration report has been submitted concerning a public service and that the government indicates that it accepts the report and has tried to do so in such a way as to leave the people the greatest degree of freedom possible, that is a guarantee.
Let me say to the hon. member for York South that if I happen to be negotiating with Price Brothers in Kenogami, after the International Paper has agreed to a 15-cent increase, it is strange but I feel I am in a better position than if I had a guarantee written into the law.
Mr. Speaker, it is certain that if an 18 per cent wage increase is granted the Canadian National Railways employees, that the employees of any railway which is not affected by the strike will get the same increase. This has always been the case in the trade union world, and I hope that those who are aware of this will not question a reality which is a fact of life in the trade unions.


Gilles Grégoire: Does the 18 per cent guarantee in the case of the seaway set a precedent? Does it constitute a moral guarantee?


Jean Marchand: Then, Mr. Speaker, there is no guarantee. There is a contractual
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters guarantee given the seaway workers, since they negotiated for a 30 per cent increase. Another was given to the dock workers. This constitutes a guarantee for these people, no doubt about that. However, there is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that this sets a precedent for those who are in the same position, a precedent which may be invoked and which carries considerable weight. All union members know this is so, as long as things are compared on the same basis. Such is the world of labour and that is the reason why I was in favour. The situation is surely more serious and I understand this point; it may be the point I understand best. When we are faced with a moral pledge such as that one, at a union meeting, and a union member asks the union delegate the question: "Is it sure that we are getting our 18 per cent increase under that bill?" The delegate may well answer, in complete honesty: "That is not spelled out in the bill." And he would be right, because it is - not clearly stated in black and white, surely.
So then, it is a question of good faith. One needs only to see how those who are responsible for the legislation interpret those terms. That is all. I am simply telling you without insinuating that those who interpret it in another way are dishonest-that, by interpreting it in this way we are being honest. And I know what that means. I am convinced besides that, that time will show the member for York South that this is what will happen.
So this is the problem, Mr. Speaker. I believe that we have in this bill all that is needed for the settlement of the railway worker conflict. The interpretation of the terms is surely simpler for the union members; this is to be considered, and if union members are apt to be misled, union leaders will not be in a position to state, without fear of being wrong, that this is so.
Now then, if we are really of good faith and if we believe in those who make the pledge, then union delegates may well assure railway workers that the 18 per cent increase mentioned in the Munroe report is provided for in the bill, and that they will get it.
It is absolutely wrong, Mr. Speaker-and I am trying to speak as moderately as possible-to interpret the bill or to let it be interpreted as it now is in some circles, in other words as limiting the raise of the rail-waymen to 6 per cent.
I have received dozens and even hundreds of telephone calls from railwaymen who said: How come we will only get 6 per cent for 2
7892	COMMONS
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters years? Where did they get this? Who told them so? Perhaps newspapers, television, union representatives who did not want to take that responsibility, but anyhow, quite a few railwaymen in Canada think this bill contains a maximum increase of 6 per cent. And that is false.
If all sorts of speculations are going to be made, all I can say is what I have understood of the bill. Since I have participated in this debate and I made this statement in public, you can check all those things, and as we will probably meet again, let us say my statements can be checked.
Anyhow, Mr. Speaker, I am still sorry parliament had to reconvene in order to settle a specific dispute.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
As soon as this dispute is settled, I feel it is urgent that we attempt to look into the whole problem of industrial and labour relations in the public sectors where the public interest is directly involved. It will be impossible to evade the issue by trying to find excuses.
As I said earlier, even with the formula of the member for York South who suggested the appointment of an administrator, while I can well imagine that such an administrator may not succeed in settling the dispute, and since he said the strike cannot last very long in those circles, a solution will have to be found some day. Either it will last, or it will not, and if it does, by what means can it be definitely settled? I am not suggesting that this formula is ideal, but let us say that nobody has found an alternative, and I think that sooner or later, in view of the concentration of industry, in view of the fact that more and more groups of individuals, of workers, through sheer numbers, have a power in the strictest sense of the word, exert an exorbitant power in relation to other groups, the question will be to know how all this is going to be regulated. It is not a fact that all workers are miserable as far as their economic power is concerned.
The railway employees have surely a greater economic power than the textile workers. Mr. Speaker, 5,000 textile workers have been on strike for five weeks in Quebec. People who earn very low wages, much lower than the railroad workers. Parliament did not meet, no one tried to alert the members or the government to settle the dispute. They could die a slow death.

DEBATES	August 31, 1366
Other groups, because they are important, obviously, immediately alert the population. We will have to try to see how all this can be balanced, how the same approximate degree of rights can be given everyone in regard to the public good.
This is an opportunity, this could be an instance where an attempt should be made to discuss in a serene atmosphere, not to find out if what was done ten years ago is better than what is being done today or what will be done tomorrow.
One thing I know for sure, Mr. Speaker, whatever the party sitting on the right side of the house, when the same problems come up, the same solutions will have to be considered. In the United Kingdom, Mr. Wilson has to consider the very solutions other parties had to consider when they had to face the same problems and I do not blame him at all. I understand.
When the whole British overseas trade was paralysed, if the strike had lasted another month, which could have happened under the right to strike, the consequences for the British people can be surmised. It is well known that all kinds of means were resorted to in order to end the strike. There was no intervention by legislation as we are doing, I quite agree, but if all such means ever come up for discussion, it will be realized that there are means other than legislation which are strangely more effective than legislation.
So, from all angles, the problem is a serious one. It is unfortunate that it cannot be discussed in a more serene atmosphere. There will probably be such an opportunity, but this is not it. However, this is a real problem and no government can side-step it.
Now we may be asked why legislation was not passed earlier? Simply because in this field as in others, we must be guided by experience and we must have gone through certain things in order to avoid future mistakes.
It is normal for this country to go through such experiences. Others may yet be gone through. It is normal that the people become aware that some areas are vital for the population and that the whole population is concerned that everyone be versed in all areas, because one day the people themselves will otherwise suffer.
If we share the views of those who stated in this house that the relations between the railway companies and the unions were not normal, meaning that the negotiations were
August 31, 1966	COMMONS
not normal, then the established practices are obviously somehow paralysing negotiations in this field. The best course to take must then be found. I think, Mr. Speaker, that this fourth great railway dispute may teach public opinion in Canada not to be panic-stricken and, as soon as one group wrongs another one, say that it must definitely be deprived of its rights, but those rights should be restricted. The people must know to what extent they may affect people's rights for, as I said earlier, if we deprive a group of its rights, I do not see why, under the same principle, another group might not lose its rights the next day. And so, from one group to the next, we would eventually abolish the right of association itself. For the workers, Mr. Speaker, this right of association is not a luxury, but probably their most fundamental right in a democracy.
The right of association, Mr. Speaker, was the instrument whereby the workers managed to improve their lot to the extent to which they have, and whereby they managed to prevent, oppose or resist their being exploited. This is a basic right for workers. We were cautious. It took a long time. The government assembled and parliament reconvened. If the government had met 15 days ago to tell the railwaymen not to strike and if it had produced a settlement, it would have been called a strong and powerful government, but it would have restricted the rights of the workers. No, I am not interested in that kind of power. As for those who want to wield it and would have liked the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) to take this attitude-which, fortunately, I do not think lies in his temperament-I think they are wrong to ask this, because any member of the government or of the opposition who appreciates people's rights is a worthwhile person in public life. Such a man is important to us.
I shall not review all the labour disputes involving the railways, especially as regards the official opposition. First of all, it would be a serious tactical error, since it has already been done in a masterly manner and it would also be a waste of time for the house. But surely, this bill does not go further than any action taken by the present government, by any Canadian government.
On the contrary, it probably does not go as far, because special precautions are taken to settle the dispute. If ever an order in council were passed to establish compulsory arbitration, parliament itself would have its
DEBATES	7893
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters say and could vote to give an additional assurance that arbitration would not take place in the dictatorial manner a few people favour.
There is no doubt that this bill restricts the exercise of the right of association, since it asks the workers to go back to work. This bill restricts the right of association, since arbitration will eventually be necessary, if the house agrees, but in this field it is probably the most sensible bill ever brought before the house and the most respectful of the rights of the workers. I am convinced that after the committee stage, all the workers represented by the Canadian railway unions will accept the decision of parliament with the feeling that they have been treated fairly and that their fundamental rights have been respected.
May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I should bring to the attention of hon. members the fact that the minister's time would end at 6.02. Does the minister wish to call it six o'clock?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I do not usually speak as long as this, and my text does not extend so far but there are nevertheless some points to be made. I think that in the area of labour relations, as in areas where, shall we say, the public good is at stake, I believe that there should be some way in this house to achieve unanimity on certain fundamental questions. I am thinking, for instance, of the questions arising out of the relationship between French and English speaking Canadians, which are basic questions. I believe that Canadian political parties, unless they learn to protect at least some basic factors, are not being helpful to the country.
In this area of disputes affecting the whole nation, there is no disparagement for a political party although opposed to the government on many a point to say: Public interest is at stake, we will agree so that the people may feel protected by their government and so that, in this case, the workers may feel that their rights are being preserved.
This does not mean that we should agree on all points. It means that, in a national emergency, a government may, by rights, be in a position to expect some support from all who have faith in the country.
7894	COMMONS
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters [English]


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It being six o'clock I now leave the chair pursuant to special order made earlier this day. The sitting will resume at seven o'clock.
At six o'clock the sitting of the house was suspended.



SITTING RESUMED

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed at 7 p.m.
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: I will be brief, Mr. Speaker. In speaking I am fully aware of the responsibility of the occasion and also of the breach my few remarks will make with customary tradition and parliamentary practice. But after cogitating for three days and listening to the debate in this chamber I have not been able to resolve my conflict of conscience with the consensus of my caucus.
Frankly, as a new member one of the pressures I have felt most has been the pressure to conform whereby independent judgment and objective judgment are subject to the pressure of the necessity of loyalty to party and party principles. I think the caucus is at times a collar around the necks of many members. It chokes the expression of independent thought and judgment. However, caucus and the solidarity of caucus are most necessary when dealing with the ordinary issues of party politics, the issues which make elections and party platforms.
We are not in that situation today, Mr. Speaker. We are in a situation which, as everyone in this house has admitted, is a national emergency. Having wrestled with my conscience for the last few days, appreciating and respecting the views of my colleagues who sit on this side of the house and realizing that my words will not find favour with them, I still feel that a national emergency transcends the ordinary customs and usages of this parliament, an institution which was here long before I came and which will be here long after I go. These words of mine will contribute but a ripple to the parliamentary process.
The merits of the bill have, I believe, been fully canvassed by speakers from all parties. There can be no doubt that the measure is inadequate. We in this party have tried to remedy those inadequacies by means of an amendment. Having voted for an amendment designed to bring home to the government the weakness of this legislation, I might be

DEBATES	August 31, 1966
accused of inconsistency if, the amendment
having been defeated, I were to vote in favour of the bill.
But I am not much concerned about the parliamentary ploy or about formal parliamentary logic in this chamber. As I say, I believe the bill is inadequate. I believe the workers have a right to be concerned. I can understand the union leaders saying it is not acceptable. On the other hand, the only vehicle we have left following the defeat of the amendment is the bill which is now before the house and I believe the people of Canada want that vehicle to move.
This is a government bill. There may be problems in implementing it. If there are, they will be problems which the government of the day will have to face. I do not think that for the purposes of this bill we should be greatly concerned about the implementation of certain portions of it, the outcome of the conciliation procedures and so on.
In the circumstances I suppose the easy thing for me to do would be to abstain from voting. Mr. Speaker, the charge which this government has to face time after time is that it has abdicated its responsibility. I do not believe that by abstaining when the vote is called I would be discharging my personal responsibility. That is why I rise tonight to say in a few words why I am supporting this bill.
It has been said that caucus is sacrosanct and that you cannot break its rules unless you cross the floor of the house. I suggest this is not the case. There is not a single member in that caucus who voted for the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings and very few members, I imagine, would want to vote for him after tonight. But the people of my riding have the right to know where I stand if, perhaps in a unique situation, I vote with the government on this occasion. I do not in this crisis as an opposition member accept the philosophy that the secrecy of caucus should shield my stand.
It has been suggested that the speaker tonight is playing Judas Iscariot to his party or to his leader. I came to this parliament as a party follower. But I also came here as a parliamentarian in my small way and I feel that the importance of this issue is such as to set aside these implications and transcend loyalty to party and to leader.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: What swayed me the most is something which happened today, the fact
August 31, 1966

that we all received letters and telephone calls from interested parties, including union members, who, before any bill has been passed, are suggesting there is a real question whether or not it will be obeyed. Mr. Speaker, either the rail bill goes through or we have anarchy. In my view-and this is one of the fundamental reasons I am speaking tonight-a divided parliament at this time is an invitation to divide the country and is perhaps sowing the seeds of internal dissension among those who will be affected by this bill when it becomes law.
[DOT] (7:10 p.m.)
There have been those who have said it will not work and will not be followed. So far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, that is the government's responsibility. This is the only vehicle they have brought before us for ending the strike. We have condemned it in many ways. In fact we moved an amendment to it. If the bill fails then the government fails in discharging its responsibility, and I suggest, as did the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr), in that event, and it would be most unfortunate to have such a chaotic situation in the country, that the government would have to resign for its failure to implement government policy.
There are others who are cynical and ask, "Why speak out? This is a bill that is going to pass anyway." But if speeches ever mean anything in this house this is one occasion when they should. If there ever was a time in a parliamentarian's life and, speaking personally, in my short parliamentary life, to speak from conviction and principle, it is now.
There are those who feel quite legitimately and very strongly that this bill usurps and negatively affects the workers' rights. There are also those who feel that the companies are too big. These are problems, but parliament in itself is not the collective bargaining forum. Mediation is to be established by virtue of the legislation before us. This is the course the government is following on this occasion, and with the conviction I have in my conscience I believe this is the time to speak out, to translate one's strength and courage behind the curtain to one's conviction in the chamber.
No one wanted the strike but we have the fact of a strike, and after all the wheat and chaff were sifted we were called here to resolve it. There are those who feel that the bill will not work and some have said, perhaps protesting too much, that union members may not be law-abiding. I think this bill
DEBATES	7895
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters leaves the workers as the underdogs. They have been the underdogs for many years, but I would hope the union leaders would be prepared to carry on for one more year or at least six months while conciliation and arbitration processes take their course as they have in the past.
I think that in many respects this parliament could be called a parliament of phantoms. In it there are potential leaders who shadow-box continuously, hesitant to take strong stands and lead rather than be led. I think the Munsinger, Spencer and other issues, which confused and confounded the public and brought disrespect on parliament, are but small seeds which grew out of the fact that all too often we are phantoms afraid to speak out.
In this strike situation this bill is the only vehicle we have to work with. I personally have resolved my conscience to the fact that there is a strike and that this is the bill with which the government hopes to settle the strike. We have the strike and we must resolve it, but my view runs counter to those who continually say parliament is supreme and who in the next breath worry whether this bill, when passed by parliament, will work and worry about what the men will do. In the light of the many telephone calls we are receiving with implied threats, and the letters, being placed before us before parliament acts, I suggest that those who, on the one hand, talk about parliamentary supremacy and, on the other, wonder whether parliament's decision will work are already admitting defeat. Surely parliament is still to govern even though at times its law, in the national interest, is unpalatable.
The principle upon which I stand tonight is that I still believe parliament is supreme, and when the chips are down, the dust settles and the debate ends, I hope the divisions will heal. I hope the responsible union men in this country will feel likewise, swallow yet another bitter pill and put up with another mediation process with the conciliation report as a guide which may bring much more to them than this bill provides.
It was for those few reasons, Mr. Speaker, that I felt I had to indicate why I am going
to vote for this bill.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, before the dinner hour I listened with amazement to the eloquent speech made by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Marchand). I was amazed at how
August 31, 1366
7896	COMMONS
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters quickly, in a period of less than a year, the tiger of the labour movement has become the tame pussycat of the Liberal party.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


David Orlikow: The former president of the C.N.T.U. knows very well that what counts in a union contract is not the words spoken by the union leaders or the promises made by management representatives. What counts in a union agreement is the words which are spelled out in writing in the contract, just as what counts in a law passed by parliament is not the speeches made by ministers explaining the bill, or by members of the opposition or government supporters, but what is written into the law.
For the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to stand in this parliament and tell hon. members and the railway workers of Canada that there is a moral commitment that the workers will get at least an 18 per cent wage increase as a result of the bill is nonsense. And the minister, before he came into parliament, would have known it was nonsense.
It would be easy to attend here this week and not say anything. It would be easy to let this bill pass second reading. It would be easy not to propose any amendments in the committee stage and let the bill pass, as no doubt it will today or tomorrow. But, Mr. Speaker, we have a responsibility to ask ourselves what will happen then, and I want to say that I believe this country will face the greatest crisis it has ever faced in its history in peacetime.
Hon. members can read the newspapers as well as I can, can listen to the radio and watch television as well as I can, and I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Dief-enbaker) the other night, will the railway workers of Canada obey this law and go back to work, has in fact been answered and answered very clearly. It is now obvious that the passage of this bill today, tomorrow or Friday will not mean an end to the work stoppage. It is obvious that the strike will continue.
I think all hon. members have received copies of a letter written today to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) by the four top spokesmen of the railway unions involved in this dispute. Because they are honourable, because they are respectable, because they have always co-operated with parliament, with governments and with the people of


Mr. Tardif:: Is that what you are hoping for?


An hon. Member:: Let them stay out.
[DOT] (7:40 p.m.)


David Orlikow: I resent that remark by the
hon. member for Russell because any member of parliament who knows how close to the margin these workers live and who knows anything about working people would not suggest that they go out on strike. If workers go out on strike it is because they have come to the conclusion they have no alternative but to defend their elementary rights. If the hon. member for Russell does not believe me, he should have listened to the high-sounding and flowing oratory of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration before the supper hour. When it came to specifics the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration did not say much, but about the general rights of workers the hon. member for Russell can learn a good deal from that minister, if he can learn from anything, and I have some considerable doubt about that.


An hon. Member:: He would not learn anything from you.


David Orlikow: We have here a bill which provides that by legislation the railway workers of Canada must go back to work. The railway workers asked in their negotiations for a pay increase and the bill provides for a pay increase of 6 per cent. I do not want to take up too much time in re-emphasizing
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters what other members of this party have said, but there was no real collective bargaining because both the C.P.R. and C.N.R. refused from the beginning to offer a single cent. They refused from the beginning to make a single concession to the workers whom they employ.
However, Mr. Speaker, there is a group of workers, 22,000 of them, represented by the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen who did not in their negotiations, and have not to this day, asked for a single penny more. They did ask that their collective agreements with the railway companies be amended to provide that there be written into those agreements clauses implementing the recommendations made by Mr. Justice Freedman with regard to the right of railway unions to have a say about material changes in the working conditions of the workers they represent. For those 22,000 workers who asked for implementation of the Freedman report there is not a single thing in this legislation except that under its terms they get a pay increase for which they did not ask. How ridiculous can this government be?
We heard some very fine words from the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) and the supposed Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson), who has been conspicuous by his silence in this debate, although one would think that in a matter of labour-management relations this minister should be speaking for the government. We have heard some excellent speeches-I could almost say some excellent sermons-about the wonderful principles enunciated by Mr. Justice Freedman. But as usual, as is customary with the Liberal party, all we get are words.
This is not a new matter, Mr. Speaker. This matter was discussed in great detail by a parliamentary committee which met several years ago and brought in a unanimous report recommending action. This matter was gone into in great detail by Mr. Justice Freedman in the hearings he held after the illegal work stoppages carried out by railwaymen across Canada. After very extensive hearings and receiving representations from management and labour Mr. Justice Freedman made a report which has yet to be implemented by the government. Many statements have been made that the government is studying the report, giving it active consideration, favourable consideration, sympathetic consideration, and we are told that we will get action in the near future. I have the feeling that we will get action on the Freedman report, if it

7900	COMMONS
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters is left to this government, about as quickly as the people of Canada have had action on the medicare promises made by the Liberal party in 1919.
Not only did Mr. Justice Freedman hold hearings and make a report but there was a conciliation board headed by Mr. Justice Little. That conciliation board brought in a unanimous report. What did the conciliation board say? They said it was time the government passed legislation to spell out the rights of the employees in the railway industry to be consulted and to have a say about changes in working conditions which affect them in a material way. What action has been taken in regard to that report? We are told again that action will come. I suppose the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration could have told us that there is a moral commitment on the part of the government to take action in respect of this report. But moral commitments are not part of labour-management negotiations and agreements. Moral commitments can be, have been and will be ignored by railway management in the future as they have been in the past.
This bill is deficient in a very serious way because the government has refused to implement the very clear recommendations of Mr. Justice Freedman. I should like to read just one paragraph from the official summary of Mr. Justice Freedman's report as contained in a press release. I quote from page 3, paragraph 5:
Assuming voluntary agreement between the parties is not possible for the purpose of giving effect to the commission's recommendation, legislation would be required. Either the Railway Act or the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act could be employed. If the latter were used it would be possible to provide, by an appropriate amendment, that any technological innovation, development, or change proposed by the employer which would materially and adversely affect the working conditions of the employees should either be deferred for negotiation at the next open period or be dealt with in the same way as if it were a provision falling within the scope of subsection (2) of section 22 of the act.
It would not be difficult, if the government had the will to do so, to include in the bill before us a clause spelling out these rights. But as usual the government, faced by the opposition of the railway companies, faced by the opposition of Mr. Gordon and Mr. Sinclair, has been afraid to act and has not acted. I said when I began my speech, Mr. Speaker, that in my opinion the railway workers of Canada will ignore this law and will continue their walk-out.


An hon. Member:: That is what you wish.
[Mr. Orlikow.I
DEBATES	August 31. 1966


David Orlikow: I have not said that I wish it.
I have said that in my opinion this is what will happen. I think it behooves the Prime Minister, and it is the responsibility of the government, to face up to this possibility which was spelled out pretty clearly, I think, in the letter to the Prime Minister I quoted earlier, signed by the leaders of the four railway unions.
If the railway workers stay out on strike, what can the government do? What will the government do? Will the government call in the troops? I see the former secretary of state nodding his head, apparently in approval and indicating that they will. Will that get the trains running? Will the government prosecute the workers? Can you send thousands of railway workers to prison? Is that what the government proposes? Is that what the government will do, a government in which we have the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration who was president of the C.N.T.U., and the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve) whose brother is secretary of the C.N.T.U.?
[DOT] (7:50 p.m.)
Less than two months ago the hospital workers of Montreal, who are affiliated with the C.N.T.U., were on strike. I suggest that that strike was as inconvenient and as serious for the people of Montreal as the railway strike will be for all the people of Canada. The Quebec government went to the courts of Quebec and got an injunction ordering the hospital workers to go back to work. That order was as much a part of the law of Canada as this legislation will be when it is passed today or tomorrow. The hospital workers of Montreal and their leaders in the C.N.T.U. ignored the injunction of the court until they got an agreement with which they felt they could live.
Now, Mr. Speaker, that is the problem and the crisis with which this government will confront the people of Canada by insisting on a bill whose provisions are considered by the railway workers of Canada as unfair and unjust, whose provisions they equate with class warfare and class injustice, and whose provisions I am sure they will ignore. I say that when that happens this country will be faced with mass civil disobedience.
I do not want to see that happen and I do not think it needs to happen. The railway workers of Canada have been law-abiding citizens. They want to continue to be law-abiding citizens but they are sick and tired of being second-class citizens. They want the same rights as every other worker in Canada,
August 31, 1966	COMMONS
the same rights about which the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration spoke so eloquently before the dinner hour. They want the same kind of wage rates that other workers in Canada have, and this bill, Mr. Speaker, completely fails to give them that.
I urge the Prime Minister and the government to amend this bill so that the agreement with which the railway workers of Canada are being asked to live by legislation will be an agreement whose terms and wage rates they can accept. If the Prime Minister does that, then there is still time to avoid what I believe will be the greatest crisis this country has ever faced.


Mr. Nicholson:: Mr. Speaker, will the hon. member who has just spoken permit a question in view of his references to the durable goods standard? May I ask him whether he has read the reports of Mr. Justice Munroe and hon. Mr. Cameron in connection with these disputes?


David Orlikow: I have read them. Let me begin by saying that it is good to see the Minister of Labour is still with us. He has been conspicuous by his silence during this debate. I have read Mr. Justice Munroe's report-


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: And also Mr. Justice
Cameron's report?


David Orlikow: -and Mr. Justice Cameron's report. I indicated during the course of my speech that I feel that what the railway workers of Canada are entitled to is not the durable goods standard about which Mr. Justice Munroe speaks and which he says would mean an 18 per cent increase but the adjusted durable goods standard referred to by the nominee of the railway unions on the conciliation board, Mr. Crow, which he estimates would mean a 25 per cent increase.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a second question? Has the hon. member forgotten that Mr. Cameron in his report cites as the authority for the durable goods standard the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), who spoke in the debate last night, and said on page 14 of his report:
Mr. David Lewis, the nominee of the unions on the board concurred in the report-
This is from the the 1958 report.
-of the chairman and in the report of his additional observations stated in part as follows:
"I do not ignore the evidence of the differences between the railways and durable goods industries,
DEBATES	7901
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters so fully and properly set out and commented upon by the chairman in his report."
I will skip a few lines. It then continues:
"In view of the history concerning the question of an appropriate standard of comparison it would be highly regrettable if the unions were asked or forced to abandon the durable goods standard."


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, 1 suggest to the Minister of Labour that that lecture should not have been given to me because I believe in the durable goods standard but should have been given to Mr. Donald Gordon who, having first proposed the durable goods standard, went away from it as soon as the conciliation board accepted it in principle. Since then he has been talking about every other kind of standard but the durable goods standard. I want to say that it was after 1958 and after the hon. member for York South sat on that board that Mr. Justice Munroe amended his concept of what constituted the durable goods standard.


Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-stoke):: Mr. Speaker, I intend to intervene only briefly in this debate and I rise on this matter because I come from a constituency which has a particular interest in this work stoppage as it seriously interferes with one of its main industries. The soft fruit industry has been fairly successful this year following a year of natural disaster in which the industry had a very poor crop. It would be a most unfortunate situation for those in that industry if in this following year they now had a man-made disaster that denied them a return on their work and their crop.
We have heard a great deal about letters that have been sent to the various members of parliament and I know that other representations have been made not only from my constituency but from other areas clear across this country that are caught in the same kind of squeeze. They are reminding us that the task for which we were called together was to see that the railways resumed operations.
I would like to remind some of the speakers who have participated in this debate that caught between the big unions, the big companies and big government are millions of small Canadians who stand to suffer a great deal if this strike is continued for any length of time. It is not only the soft fruit industry that will face hardship but also any constituency with an agricultural base or with a tourist or lumber industry.
The effects of the strike cannot be allowed to continue for any length of time. I know
August 31, 1966

Legislation Respecting Railway Matters that the railway workers have legitimate complaints. We have heard of them in many of the addresses that have been given. I know for example, that the inability, in spite of all the talk in this house, to restore the Dominion train on the C.P.R. has probably left them with less faith in this institution than they had before. Nevertheless I think the situation, bad as it is, has been made worse by the sort of misrepresentation of the terms of the bill which has taken place in this house in the last days. I think this is one of the things that the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) referred to, and I should like to congratulate him for having the courage to make the speech he did this evening.
[DOT] (8:00 p.m.)
I do not intend to take any great length of time. We in the Social Credit party are concerned about the economy of this country and the need to get the railways running. We feel that the figures mentioned in the bill are interim figures. We feel that the bill contains provision for mediation and, if necessary, for arbitration, and that the figures it contains by no means represent what will be attained when the dispute is finally settled.
Though we will vote for second reading of the bill we intend to move an amendment to clause 6 when we go into committee on the bill which will write into it the additional figures of 4 per cent, plus 6 per cent referred to in the conciliation report. We feel that the bill could spell out a little more clearly the moral commitment that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration expressed in his address earlier. It is our intention to support the bill on second reading and to move the amendment I have mentioned in the committee stage.
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-
The Islands):	Mr. Speaker, I am interested to find a number of people here who are greatly concerned about everybody else in the country except the railway workers. I realize that the people the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke (Mr. Johnston) represents are very likely to feel strongly about this matter. I also realize that the prairie wheat farmers are likely to feel the effect of the situation. But I should be much more impressed if representatives of those bodies of workers were to be found in Ottawa standing shoulder to shoulder with the railway workers demanding that this government

treat the railway workers with fairness, because they should realize that the railways of Canada are as much part of the equipment of their farms as the equipment used on their fruit farms-their combines or tractors-or the equipment used on prairie wheat farms. They have as much responsibility as anybody else to make sure that that railway equipment operates satisfactorily.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that no one who will look with an objective eye at the wage scales of the railway workers, which have been placed on record in this house and have been revealed in hearing after hearing, can have any doubt whatever that railway workers in Canada have not been getting an adequate living standard. What have they been offered? We were told today by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration that the government has a moral obligation to see that the workers will eventually get 18 per cent. What does this mean? Does this mean that the arbitrators who are mentioned in the bill are merely to be puppets of this government and that this government will tell them what they are to do? Or does it mean, Mr. Speaker, that the care exercised by this government not to include the 18 per cent in the bill was intended to make quite sure that 18 per cent should be the ceiling and not the floor? There seems to be no other interpretation that can be placed upon the matter.
We listened to an eloquent speech before supper. It was probably the most eloquent speech this house has ever heard. I wish I were capable of similar eloquence, but it was the saddest speech that I ever heard. Because, Mr. Speaker, what did we hear? We heard the great Minister of Citizenship and Immigration telling the railway workers to go back to work with 6 per cent-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: He was deciding that railway -workers could carry the load for the rest of the workers of Canada.


An hon. Member:: No.


Colin Cameron: It was the saddest thing I have ever heard in this house. I heard a potentially great man bogged down in the muskeg of the Liberal party. "There have been moral commitments," I heard, Mr. Speaker. "Moral commitments." As my colleague from York South pointed out when he spoke, the railways of Canada-
August 31. 1966
COMMONS DEBATES	7903


Jean Marchand: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I think that is a complete misrepresentation of what I said.


Colin Cameron: Mr. Speaker, is it possible to misrepresent the minister when he is standing up in support of a bill that says precisely that, and when he is saying what he is saying as a member of the government? Is that misrepresentation? I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the minister was trying to misrepresent what he said-


Jean Marchand: Read the bill.


Colin Cameron: We have read the bill, and we do not need any double-talk about moral obligations.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege affecting all members of this house.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Will both hon. gentlemen sit down, please. The Minister of Labour rises on a question of privilege.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I rise on a question of privilege that affects every member of this house. I would ask the hon. gentleman who has just been speaking to find anywhere in this act a reference to 6 per cent. He has been challenged on that. Six per cent is not mentioned in the bill. It begins with 4 per cent. It is 4 per cent and later it will be 8 per cent. I point this out because I think that the hon. member asked for the record to be kept straight.


Colin Cameron: I assume that the Minister of Labour is capable of doing simple arithmetic.


An hon. Member:: Are you?


Colin Cameron: If he will use simple arithmetic he will find that the increase over the year, with a 4 per cent increase starting in January and a 4 per cent increase starting now, more than half way through the year, comes, at a generous estimate, to 6 per cent. If he does not know that I suggest he had better learn his arithmetic again. Really, my life is too short; I have not enough years left to try to educate these cabinet ministers. That is a great undertaking anyway.
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters
My colleague from York South yesterday pointed out that the railways of Canada are a public service upon which every citizen in Canada depends. No one can disagree with that. But I want to put this to you, Mr. Speaker. Have you and I and other citizens of Canada the right to demand that this public service shall carry on at the expense of those who work in the operation of it? Because this is what we are asking today. Do you feel you are going to rest easily with your conscience when you remember what was told to you this afternoon by the only man in this house with personal experience of railway operations. You did not have the courtesy to listen to him, but he told you of workers, married men with children, who are getting less than $300 a month and whose wages will be increased by this formula by some $200 a year. Are you going to feel very happy about that? Will you feel very happy about that because of the great public need to have this transportation service in operation?
I am reminded, Mr. Speaker, of the story that is told of the bishops of the Anglican church in the House of Lords in Britain. They were trying to do away with child labour and with having children clean chimneys. The bishops said, "If we do away with this child labour, who will clean our chimneys"?
You are saying: "Let our railway workers starve; otherwise who will transport our goods?" That is what you are saying when you refuse to give them the sort of living standard that Canadian workers have a right to expect.


An hon. Member:: The new left Liberal party.


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowicfcan-The Islands):: I am sick and tired of economic illiterates standing in their places and prating of the dangers of inflation from wage increases. I am sick and tired of people with axes to grind who manage to use economic illiterates-and we have many of them reporting the proceedings of this house-to spread the idea that increases in wages cause inflation when, as anyone who has any knowledge of the subject knows, it is not increases in wages that cause inflation; it is the frustration of that intention to redistribute wealth which demands of wage increases amount to that causes inflation. If those who are in charge of our industries were prepared to allow real wage increases to take place, and
August 31, 1366
7904	COMMONS
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters not to frustrate them immediately by actions which depreciate the monetary value of those increases which are granted, there would be no danger of inflation. It is simpler to blame the worker, and for simple-minded people it is very simple to do that.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it is time we looked at the whole question of the relationship between the distribution of wealth in Canada and inflation. I suggest to you, sir, that while it is true that no wage increase ever yet caused inflation, on occasion perhaps some wage increases, I grant you, may cause a maldistribution of wealth. However, you cannot correct that until you have convinced the Canadian workers that everyone in this country is paying his full share into the national pot from which all of us draw our sustenance.
I want to suggest to hon. members opposite that when you are through with your panic, when you have stopped being frightened that the railroads might not run for a few weeks, you will have to sit at home and justify yourself for having forced these workers back to work at a miserly increase. This will have been done because you were afraid, because your government was frightened by the two big, fat gentlemen I saw in the corridor this afternoon. These are the people who have frightened the government and frighten the government much more than some poor little railroad worker getting $280 per month. He would not frighten anybody, even in the mass, until he decides to act in conjunction with others. Then he frightens everybody.
Everybody gets in a panic. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the time has come in this country when we have to deal with the whole question of the distribution of wealth and not deal with it on an ad hoc basis as each crisis occurs. We have to decide, for instance, about the railroads. They are a public necessity. I do not know what they would cost but I know that they can be operated only if those who work on them have a decent, living wage. I do not know what that would cost, but I am not concerned. If it is $200 million, $300 million or $500 million, that is the price we have to pay. I suggest that this government had better summon the courage to see that these funds are available. When they have done that, I suggest they take a further step and not leave it to the heads of the railway companies to handle these funds because they might find, for instance, that the Canadian Pacific's share had been shovelled


into that handy hip pocket known as Canadian Pacific Investments into which the directors pour so much that it is now the third largest in Canada and into which the directors of Canadian Pacific have poured the pension fund on which Mr. Sinclair has said the workers are not going to be allowed to draw.
I suggest this government should have the courage to take steps to provide the money to see that there is a decent livelihood available for everyone engaged in this essential public service. They should take further steps also to see that they have control of the way in which the money is expended. This is the only way in which you are going to persuade the railway workers they are getting a fair deal. This is the only way you are going to persuade workers all across our country that they are getting a fair deal.
I say this to the trade unions. It is time they took another look at their function. It is time they realized they should embark on new functions, new duties. They should have a share in the decision making and accept a share of the responsibility for the operation of the industries whose decisions they have helped to make. This must be done if we are going to have political and economic peace in this country. We will not get it by this sort of business, this business of ramming a bill through in panic, terrified that the House of Commons may take an extra hour in dealing with it, otherwise the economic roof would fall in. Some of us might not be able to take that trip or perhaps some shipment will be held up. It is better to send the workers back to work at $280 per month than to have that happen.
You and I and our fellow citizens are the ones who will have to foot this bill, and we should be made to foot this bill by a government with some courage. I am convinced, sir, that if the Prime Minister could summon enough courage to lock his door to Messrs. Gordon and Sinclair for a while and, speaking bluntly to the Canadian people, tell them that in order to operate this essential rail service it is going to cost them so many millions of dollars and therefore they are going to pay that many more millions in taxes, he would have the support of every right-thinking Canadian.
Those are the things that we should be considering in this house rather than ramming through legislation in a panic. I do not know whether the workers are going to go back to work. I would think it doubtful myself, but perhaps they will. However, if
August 31. 1966	COMMONS
they do go back to work they will go back with a festering sore in the heart of the labour movement of Canada. If you think this is the end of the story, you are deluding yourself because this same situation will come back again and again to haunt us. We have to face this issue. We have to realize it is not good enough to say we must get the railways back into operation.
It is not good enough to put the railways into operation unless those who are doing the work are getting a living of which you and I can be proud, not ashamed as we must be tonight. I would urge the Prime Minister when he speaks, as I understand he is to do in closing this debate, to give us some indication that he has some realization of the dangers and pitfalls that lie ahead. It has always seemed to me that we have in this house two experts in the creation of chaos. I have been in this house quite a long time, and the sad part of it is that most of the worst mistakes and bumblings of our Prime Minister stem from his amiable, human qualities, human qualities that unfortunately the leader of a country cannot afford. In fact, I should like to put it in blunt, rude terms that a Prime Minister has to be capable on occasion of being a bastard. It is unfortunate that our Prime Minister is unable to be that particular sort of person. I might say in passing that the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) does not suffer from that disability. It is a sad thing, and I say this in all sincerity. I know, I have a fellow feeling for the Prime Minister.
It is difficult to take decisions that are going to create antagonism. It is difficult because all of us want to put off decisions; all of us hope that somehow our troubles will go away. They do not. It does not matter if our troubles do not go away, but it matters tragically if the troubles of a Prime Minister do not go away because they come back to haunt him and the unhappy people he leads.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must advise the house that if the Prime Minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to begin, Mr. Speaker, by thanking my hon. friend who has just preceded me for giving me such amiable and eloquent advice. I can assure him that at least I am quite aware of the fact that problems are not just going to go away and that there are lots of pitfalls ahead. I will do my best to deal with them in a way which perhaps will not
DEBATES	7905
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters satisfy him but may at least not destroy that amiable relationship which he has with me personally.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
I feel it necessary in closing this debate to make as clear as I can the purposes and objectives of the government in submitting this legislation to the House of Commons. The legislation has been given the examination it deserves over the last few days. We have seldom had legislation dealing with a more critical matter in peacetime than that which is now before us, the second reading of which we shall soon be deciding.
As I say, I wish to set out as clearly as I can, and as unprovocatively and objectively as I can, the purposes and objectives we had in mind in this legislation and in the policy which is responsible for this legislation. I think it is important to do this, Mr. Speaker, because of misinterpretations which have been given-as I believe them to have been misinterpretations-and wrong interpretations which have been made-as I believe them to have been wrong-with respect to the meaning of the legislation and its clauses, which in my view could have the effect of misleading and confusing those who under this bill would be required to resume their duties.
Whatever we may think about the principles and purposes of this legislation it is of the most vital importance that those who are concerned directly by it should know exactly what they are being asked to do and why they are being asked to do it by this parliament which represents all the Canadian people. That is if the bill secures second reading; if it does not, that is a very different matter and the measure before us disappears and, no doubt, the government with it.
I believe these misinterpretations I have mentioned are especially misleading with regard to the wage figures in the bill for 1966 which have been put forward as indicating that these are somehow the final figures, the final increase that these 120,000 men affected by the legislation can secure in the next two years.
Let me mention, Mr. Speaker-and I intend to be brief this evening-the objectives of the government in putting forward this legislation. The first, of course-and this is the reason we are here-is to get the railways into operation again with the least possible delay. Believe me, this is not our only problem in regard to railways. It has been pointed out during this debate that there are many things behind this particular emergency which must
7906	COMMONS
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters be dealt with, the importance of which has been underlined by the emergency itself. And it is possible both nationally and internationally in a period of crisis to do things one could not otherwise do for years when the urgency is not there, and perhaps we shall be able to move faster and farther in making certain changes in economic and labour legislation generally than we could have had we not been faced with the necessity of dealing with this emergency now. I hope so.
The second objective is to assure the workers of an immediate increase in wages retroactive to January 1, 1966, not a final settlement but an immediate increase, provisional and tentative, to be adjusted by processes laid down in the legislation. I recognize, and I am sure all members in the house recognize, that the railway workers, to whom this country has owed so much ever since this country was formed and the first railways were built, are entitled to an increase in their wages. There is no difference of opinion about that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The third objective is to interfere as little as possible with the normal process of free collective bargaining notwithstanding the emergency we face which has resulted in parliament intervening in this matter. I admit that much of this so-called process of free collective bargaining in recent years between the railways and their employees has been, as I think the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) described it, a kind of ritualistic dance. I know this is true, and this is one of the things we shall have to do something about. We have been saying so for a long time. Nevertheless the principle itself of free collective bargaining is worth affirming, even in this situation.
The fourth objective is to ensure that any agreement arrived at by the intervention of parliament through legislation, a procedure which is adopted only as a last resort, will be fair and reasonable to the workers affected by it and, of course, to the railways as well. As far as the first objective is concerned, parliament is being asked in this bill to order the railways to resume operations, and direct the employees to resume their duties.
Next, provision is made for an immediate provisional and interim increase in wages. The government did not feel, Mr. Speaker, that either the government itself or parliament should set the standard even for an interim increase, though I believe this was 
DEBATES	August 31, 1966
done in 1950. We felt that some objective, judicial standard must be followed and that is why we decided to ask parliament to provide for an immediate provisional increase for 1966 of 8 per cent, 4 per cent to be effective on January 1, 1966 and 4 per cent to be effective on July 1, 1966.
Why did we select those figures? We did so because they are to be found in the reports of the chairmen of two of the conciliation boards, Mr. Justice Munroe, and the chairman of the only other conciliation board which made a report on these matters, Mr. Justice Cameron. We made this selection because of the long experience and high repute of the gentlemen who made these recommendations, their experience in making determinations of this kind, which I think has won the approval and respect of all who have had anything to do with this question. We selected these figures for 1966 also because on previous occasions when parliament has been obliged to intervene the reports of conciliation boards have been accepted as a basis for action.
* (8:30 p.m.)
Now, Mr. Speaker, we could have put the whole of the wage recommendations of Mr. Justice Munroe and Mr. Justice Cameron in the bill, the wage recommendations for 1966 and 1967. We did not do that, Mr. Speaker, after a great deal of consideration, because of our third objective which was to reduce legislative determination of a specific wage figure to the minimum required for fairness to those concerned with the processes of collective bargaining.
When we made this decision, 1967 was four months away. The legislative provision for 1967 would not have come into operation for another four months and we felt, and very sincerely felt, that it would be better and more advantageous to the employees themselves to have a further opportunity for bargaining before a legislative determination for a future year should be made. I confess quite freely that one cannot be too optimistic about the results of such collective bargaining in the light of the experience of the past with which we are all familiar, but we felt the right to bargain further should not be denied to the parties and we still can hope for results in the form of an agreement by negotiation.
Reference was made earlier this evening, and I thought a rather unpleasant reference, to the fact that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) had not been around much and
August 31, 1966	COMMONS
had not taken part in this debate. Normally the Minister of Labour would have taken a very active part in this debate, and I would have been very happy indeed if he had been able to wind up the discussion on second reading. But the Minister of Labour was asked by the government to mediate in this matter from August 22 on and he has been doing that. As I pointed out in my first intervention in this debate, this mediation has been going on while discussions were taking place in the house. It is still going on and I assure you, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour is very heavily engaged in that work of mediation and, being a mediator, did not see it as an appropriate course for him to take an active part in what was bound to be a very controversial debate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Our fourth objective, and this is as important as the others, in the long run perhaps the most important, was to make sure, as far as we could make sure, that any settlement reached would be fair and reasonable to the parties. We believed in the light of experience, in the light of the fact that we had specified the Munroe award for 1966, and again I repeat in the light of experience in past years, that there would be no doubt in anyone's mind who knew anything about this experience that any arbitrator would provide no less for 1967 than the Munroe award for that year.
In other words, we had no doubt that the total increase over the two year period would be less than the 18 per cent reached in the four instalments recommended by Mr. Justice Munroe and Mr. Justice Cameron. Since we had ourselves asked parliament to say that the men were entitled immediately to what Mr. Justice Munroe recommended for
1966-	and that of course can be adjusted by the mediator as well as any figure for
1967-	we felt sure, and we still feel sure, that no arbitrator would settle the matter for less than Mr. Justice Munroe recommended for 1967.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is quite clear, Mr. Speaker, that though we thought other people would also understand this it has been misunderstood by many-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -due in large part to interpretations given and representations made as to the meaning of this legislation.
DEBATES	7907
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think it is regrettable that these misunderstandings should exist, and undoubtedly they do exist across the country from coast to coast among workers who are on strike.


Some hon. Members:: Why?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have indicated one reason, because of the interpretation made-I have not even said misinterpretation-and because of the representations made-I have not even said misrepresentations-an impression has been created which is not based on the facts of this bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we should clear up these misunderstandings, and I am sure we will when we come to the committee stage of the bill.
There are two other matters I should bring to the attention of the house because a great deal of attention has been devoted to them in the debate. We have been criticized for including a provision in this bill, even though it is a qualified provision, for compulsory arbitration. As I have just said, it is not possible to be overly optimistic about the results of mediation, although we hope the result will be good, and therefore we put a provision in the bill for alternative arbitration. We did this in the exact terms of the 1958 bill passed by the previous government, something which was made clear last night by my hon. friend, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen). But we did add protection against arbitrary action by order in council through specific provisions in the legislation for review by the House of Commons and reversal if the House of Commons so decided.
It has been insisted by some hon. members, including the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas), that the provision for arbitration makes mediation meaningless. I am not as pessimistic about this as he is because experience-and this has been mentioned in the debate-has proven that is not necessarily so. There have been two cases where provision was made for arbitration, one by writing it into the bill itself and one by making provision for arbitration in the bill subject to government action.
In one case in 1950 mediation failed and arbitration was used. In the other case, 1958, arbitration was not required even though in that situation the interim award given was
August 31. 1966
7908	COMMONS
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters much less than that which had been recommended by mediators before the government stepped in. So the record does not bear out the pessimistic conclusion of my hon. friends who are opposed to this legislation and say that arbitration will make mediation meaningless.
I should add that in the case where arbitration was used, in 1950, the provisional wage increase in the legislation was not merely confirmed but was increased.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: From 4 cents to 7 cents.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I believe that our qualified and protected provision for arbitration will introduce into this legislation a desirable element of decision, of finality, which I think is very important.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
If we did not have the arbitration provision and if mediation did fail, what could we do? We would be exactly where we are now. Parliament would have to be called into session again or if parliament were sitting parliament would be asked to consider new emergency legislation to deal with the situation created by the failure of mediation, and we would have to go through this all over again. So, Mr. Speaker, I think we were not ill advised to put into the legislation in the circumstances the provisions which we did put in for arbitration if mediation fails.
A good deal has been said in this debate, and quite rightly, about the Freedman recommendations and the relation of those recommendations and the references to them in the conciliation board reports to the legislation before us. The Freedman report makes very clear-I referred to this in my first statement-that this is a difficult, complicated and far-reaching question with wider implications than for any single industry.
The recommendations of Judge Little's reports in this matter I think are very significant and very important because in those recommendations-and so far as I know this is the first time there has been this kind of agreement-there appears to be agreement between the representatives of the railways and the representatives of the unions that there should be negotiations between industry and labour before technological changes which have an important effect upon employment are put into operation. That is an important principle and we must implement that principle. I agree, Mr. Speaker, that this is an


objective which we must do our best to achieve.
Judge Little went on to say this. I have quoted these words before but they are important enough to repeat:
We trust that, when the ultimate decision is made in this regard, those making it will bear in mind the broad implications which it will undoubtedly have for many industries and commodities and will accordingly look beyond the interests of the parties hereto and the mere settlement of one industrial dispute.
In this connection I have mentioned already that the Department of Labour has been investigating the Freedman commission recommendations so as to be able to make a report to the government in respect of how and why they should be implemented or not implemented in their entirety. I had that report placed on my desk this afternoon. I hope that within a few days the government will have an opportunity to discuss it and decide how we can most quickly bring it before parliament.
I would also point out-I know hon. members know this-that there has been a committee of the Economic Council consisting of labour and employer representatives investigating the subject of technological change and unemployment. This committee will be reporting to a national council on labour-management relations early in November which is being called by the Economic Council to deal specifically with the effect upon employment of technological change. Therefore progress is being made in this matter. In the mediation, and if required in the arbitration provided for in this legislation, this is one of the matters which should be considered along with wage settlements and other matters. I hope it will be considered and I hope that further progress may be made as a result of that consideration.
Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, those are the objectives we had in mind in putting this legislation through the house. I have no reason to be defensive about this legislation, and I am not. In the circumstances I think it is a good bill for the purposes it is meant to serve. But I know, of course, that it is not perfect legislation, and there have been some suggestions made during this debate which undoubtedly will be considered in committee. I hope as a result of the consideration which we will be giving to this bill in committee shortly that we can make good legislation even better. I hope we can all rally around the kind of bill which comes out of the committee, even if it is not satisfactory to all
August 31. 1966

members of the house, and it will not be, because when this legislation passes it will be the will of the parliament of Canada and if it is the will of the parliament of Canada I know the law-abiding citizens of Canada, as they always have done in the past, will obey it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to ask the right hon. gentleman a question. I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question with reference to his statement that the railway workers apparently had been misinformed regarding the true facts in this bill'. I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether, in meeting with the leaders of the railway workers, he has explained fully the bill and if so why is it, according to the letter they sent today, that they still seem to be dissatisfied with the legislation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the railway leaders are misinformed about this bill. I think they understand it. They may not be satisfied with it but I think they understand it. However, I believe there are a great many people in this country who do not understand it and who have been misinformed about it.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Brewin:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister a further question?


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister permit a further question? I of course will sit down if he will not.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Francis Andrew Brewin: He apparently is a little more polite than some of his supporters.


Mr. Monleilh:: That is obvious.


Francis Andrew Brewin: The Prime Minister has said that in the committee stage it will be possible to clarify the misunderstanding which he says exists as to the intent of the bill. Can the Prime Minister tell the house whether an amendment will be introduced by the government in the committee stage?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As the hon. member knows, the Prime Minister has concluded the debate. It seems to me that the hon. member is not asking a question but
Division
rather is continuing the debate which I assume has been concluded.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, what I want to know and what I think the members of the house want to know, in order to help them decide how to vote on this measure, is whether it is regarded as possible by the government that an amendment may be brought in guaranteeing, as part of this law, that the recommendations of the conciliation chairmen will be included in the final settlement as a floor below which the decision of the board of arbitration cannot fall?


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question? Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


Mr. Fairweather:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Charlotte who is sick.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Batten in the chair.
Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. Pursuant to standing order 78 (1) clause 2 of the bill will now be considered.
On clause 2-Definitions.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a few general observations on the subject. When I spoke earlier I said that so far as Her Majesty's loyal opposition was concerned we wanted the matter brought to a vote at the earliest possible date. We have followed that course throughout-


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether 1 heard the right hon. gentleman correctly when he said that on clause 2 he proposed to make general remarks.


John George Diefenbaker: Absolutely.


George James McIlraith: If I heard him correctly I think the situation is that the rules provide for general remarks to be made on clause 1.
August 31, 1966
Nasserden
Nesbitt
Noble
Nugent
Orlikow
Ormiston
Pascoe
Peters
Prittie
Pugh
Rapp
Regimbal
Ricard
Rynard
Saltsman
Schreyer
Scott (Danforth)
Scott (Victoria (Ont.))
Sherman
Simpson
Skoreyko
Smallwood
Southam
Starr
Stefanson
Thomas (Middlesex West)
Valade
Wadds (Mrs.)
Watson (Assiniboia)
Webb
Winch
Winkler-103.
Augusl 31, 1366	COMMONS


John George Diefenbaker: Surely the minister is not suggesting that general remarks on this question are not to be allowed? Surely he is not taking that view now?


George James McIlraith: I do not mean to restrict the right hon. gentleman. I was drawing his attention to the fact that he began by stating something which is directly contrary to the rules and to the practice which has been followed in the house since the rules were amended. I respectfully drew his attention to that fact so as to find out what he had in mind, because the rules are explicit on the point.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I draw your attention to the amazing propensity which the hon. gentleman invariably reveals when he is afraid of argument-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: We want to do something to make this monstrosity work.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: We want to make suggestions regarding the bill in general and the minister is not going to throttle the committee. Let that be clear.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Let us obey the rules.


George James McIlraith: I was not attempting to throttle the committee. Far from it. I was attempting very respectfully to draw the attention of the right hon. gentleman, who has been in this house for exactly the same length of time as I have, to the rules and practice of this house which I hope he would not wish to deliberately flout.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George James McIlraith: I was very respectful to the high office he holds in this house, as may be judged from the form in which I drew his attention to this matter, but if he is going to become abusive I would respectfully, Mr. Chairman, ask for a ruling on the point.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman raised the question immediately I began to speak.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, are the trained seals in full howl?
DEBATES	7311
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. The Leader of the Opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: My purpose in rising, until interrupted by the hon. gentleman, was to make some suggestions. If Your Honour wishes to rule against any argument being advanced I will await that ruling.


Herman Maxwell Batten: 
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I find it difficult to understand what you have in mind because I see that under clause 2(l)(a) we are going to deal with the following:
"collective agreement to which this act applies" means a collective agreement between a railway company and a union that expired on December 31, 1965, the renewal or revision of which was the subject of proceedings before a conciliation board the report of which was received by the Minister of Labour in July or August, 1966.
Is Your Honour ruling that we cannot discuss the collective agreement in a general way? Are we to be placed in the position where the government is afraid of argument and intends to apply closure in this way on a matter of transcendent importance to the people of Canada?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I am amazed that the minister in question, the government house leader, should have raised this matter. What are they afraid of? A discussion of a collective agreement? What is the reason for the objection?
August 31. 1966

Legislation Respecting Railway Matters


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. I want to repeat that apparently the right hon. gentleman did not hear my remarks. He started his remarks by saying he wanted to engage in a general discussion of the bill and I respectfully drew his attention to the rules of the house. He is now attempting to discuss clause 2, and so long as he discusses this clause, which is quite wide as he will observe-I am glad he has now read it-that is another matter. But I did feel it my duty as house leader in this somewhat difficult matter that is of the utmost urgency-


John George Diefenbaker: You are trying to block discussion.


George James McIlraith: -to raise this point in order to permit the right hon. gentleman to correct the error of his opening remarks which were in direct contravention of the rules and practices of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Fulton:: Mr. Chairman, the government house leader spoke on a question of privilege. I think it should have been on a point of order, and I would like to speak on a point of order relating to the matter he first raised. Since he and I have been in this house it has been the practice in the house to permit general discussion on the first clause of a bill in committee.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: There have been changes.


Some hon. Members:: Shut up and listen.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Kamloops.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am perfectly well aware that I said the first clause of a bill in committee. The first clause of this bill to come before the committee is clause 2.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The new rule makes no reference to limitation of general discussion on the first clause to be taken up in committee.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Edmund Davie Fulton: My hon. friends do not agree with that or they would not laugh again in that unrestrained and stupid manner in which they laughed a moment ago.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I would suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that if it had been intended to change the practice and custom of the house the rules would have made it clear that that change was intended.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: What does that mean?


Edmund Davie Fulton: It simply means that instead of taking up clause 1 of the bill first in committee we take up clause 2, but the new rule says nothing about changing the practice and custom of the house in permitting a general discussion on the first clause of the bill to be taken up in committee. As the Leader of the Opposition himself has pointed out, in this case, as is the case in many bills, it so happens that clause 2 is quite a general clause.


George James McIlraith: Then he can discuss it very fully and widely.


Edmund Davie Fulton: My hon. friend is agreeing that it is a general clause and a general discussion may be permitted. If that is the case, what are we arguing about? Is the government attempting to limit discussion on this clause? This is all we are trying to establish.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, unless you rule first that the new standing orders, which are silent upon the point, have changed the custom of the house with respect to general discussion on the first clause to be taken up in committee-and you have to make that specific ruling-and unless, second, you say this clause is so limited that there can be no general discussion, then surely it is open to the Leader of the Opposition to make general remarks on the subject matter of the bill. I suggest that if hon. members opposite will restrain their rude laughter we will make much more progress than with the present attitude they are displaying.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I want to deal
with a completely different matter. I am not entering into the discussion that has taken place. I would like to ask the right hon.-


Mr. Olson:: I would like to speak on the point of order that has been raised by the hon. member for Kamloops.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. The hon. member for Medicine Hat.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I would like to say that I have no disagreement at all-
August 31, 1966


Edmund Davie Fulton: The point of order was raised by the government house leader.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I have no disagreement with the Leader of the Opposition entering into a discussion on collective agreements because that is part of clause 2 but, Mr. Chairman, I think that the statement of the hon. member for Kamloops must be challenged when he says that under the practice of the house the first clause considered by the committee, provides an opportunity for general discussion on the whole bill. When the committee on procedure considered this matter and its recommendations were adopted by the house, the provision that is now contained in the new standing order 78 was put there for the precise purpose of preventing repetition, on the first clause of a bill, of the debate that had just taken place on second reading.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: When you couple the provisions of standing order 78 with the provisions of standing order 59, as the Chairman has just done, it is certainly clear that it was intended to mean, and I think it does mean, that there shall not be a repetition of the same debate that was concluded on second reading.
I do not want to say any more than that, but I thought it was necessary to remind hon. members in this instance that these changes were made for the purpose of preventing repetition of debate. As I say, I can see no valid objection to the Leader of the Opposition entering into a broad discussion respecting collective agreements because this clause deals with a collective agreement, but in my view that does not include a general discussion of all the other clauses in the bill.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, on the same point of order, if we remember well, this is a new standing order intended to begin consideration of a bill with clause 2, and enabling us at the end, to revert to clause 1 and to the preamble of the bill, as you explained, a while ago, and I sincerely believe that the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) knows the standing order very well. I think the Leader of the Official Opposition should adhere to the rule as every other member of the house here.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: He may, during consideration of clause 2, argue about collective bargaining as much as he likes; however, he
DEBATES	7913
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters cannot, as he said at the beginning of his remarks, enter in a general discussion of the bill or of the principle of Bill No. C-230.
Opportunity to do that will be given to him at the end when we revert to clause 1 and to the preamble of the bill. However, in the circumstances, I think that the house leader of the government is perfectly right, and the Leader of the Opposition knows it well. He cannot blame the government in the circumstances. He has to adhere to the standing order agreed to by the house as every member should do, regardless of their political affiliation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Chairman, apart altogether from the arguments made by the hon. member for Kamloops, I should like to refer Your Honour to the fact that clause 2 of this bill is an interpretation section, and I think a very cursory examination will disclose that the very terms defined and referred to are contained, I would suggest, in every clausa of the bill which we are considering. Despite any ruling which you, sir, may see fit to make in respect of the first part of the argument, I would suggest to you with great respect that it would be almost impossible in examining clause 2 not to be free to deal with and discuss any part of the bill.
If the government had chosen to rely on its interpretation of the rule, clause 2 might have become clause 3, but being where it is I submit that Your Honour would find it very difficult indeed to close off the most general argument and discussion on this bill.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. May I refer hon. members to the Journals of the house for the year 1964-65 and to the report of the committee on standing orders presented to the house on Wednesday, October 7, 1964:
Your Committee believes that it would be more appropriate for the first clause of a bill, when it contains only a short title, to be considered by the committee of the whole house after the other clauses have been considered rather than at the beginning of the committee stage. It also believes that this would make it less difficult to apply to the debate on such a clause the rule of relevancy set out in Standing Order 59 (2).
As I said to the committee before, I was not a member of that committee and have no knowledge of what its intention was. But even if I did have such knowledge I must be guided by what is referred to me by the house. I read to the committee standing order
7914	COMMONS
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters 78 and also standing order 59(2), and I state again that speeches in committee of the whole must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, in commencing, my statement was to the effect that I intended to deal generally with this matter. There is no way in which a member can deal with the subject of the collective agreement referred to in clause 2(1) (a) other than to discuss generally the bill and its effect. I am amazed by the attitude of the government in endeavouring to prevent the opposition placing before the house and the country suggestions regarding the conciliation board report which will make this bill workable. That is what we set out to do in order to bring about a return to work.
The government has now commenced to realize the fact that the monstrosity it produced is in grave danger, if enacted into legislative form, of being ineffectual and inoperative. From the very beginning we took the stand in the face of the serious crisis facing Canada that we wanted to have the government realize that this bill in its entire form will not bring about, with that certainty which we expect and hope for, the object desired by all of us.
As I listened to the Prime Minister this evening I could not but conclude even he is beginning to realize this bill will have to be changed materially if in this House of Commons we are to achieve the purpose and objective we all have in mind. It is of interest that the collective agreement was, of course, dealt with at length by Mr. Justice Munroe, Mr. Justice Cameron, and Judge Little. Suggestions were made concerning what should be done. The government totally disregarded the major portions of the recommendations of Mr. Justice Munroe.
Last evening I listened to the Minister of National Health and Welfare in the House of Commons, and on the national television-I have never seen a person in such difficulty-trying to prove to the people of Canada that 6 per cent equals 18 per cent. He was on a greasy pole. Even with his capacity, his power of language and his attractive personality he was in difficulty. He was not able to establish that 6 per cent for 1966 represents the kind of offer that parliament should make under the circumstances.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: We told you that at the beginning. We said, withdraw this bill and
[The Chairman.]
DEBATES	August 31, 1966
produce one which will work. The government claims that the bill in this form, clause 2 and the succeeding clauses, represents the epitome of perfection. Yet, while asking parliament to pass it, the Prime Minister has a mediator working on it in the person of the Minister of Labour; and he himself has met' with representatives of the railway companies and also of labour because of the objections to the way in which the Munroe report and the other reports were being implemented.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam spoke of the ritualistic dance. The government has to do that dance again. They have had to back down on almost every piece of legislation they have ever introduced and they will have to back down on this piece of legislation. As we said they would, they will have to reform it and amend it to make it effective. Everybody says that now. The Prime Minister says that somebody does not understand what his bill means. Well, I am surprised to hear that. They do not understand it. They have been led astray. Who led them astray?
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)


Mr. Pickersgill:: You did.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: We did not do that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You did.


John George Diefenbaker: I knew that sooner or later the hon. gentleman was going to say
that, so let us read what was said today. I do not know any of these labour leaders who-


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


John George Diefenbaker: Would the hon. gentleman sit down.


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


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I rise on a point of order. Even by the very wide interpretation which was given to the new rules by the hon. member for Peace River one could not follow the procedure now being attempted by the right hon. gentleman. I have a good deal of respect for the mind of the hon. member for Peace River, but I think the particular things
August 31. 1966	COMMONS
contained in clause 2 and the desirability of amending them are the only things now debatable. Surely we cannot interpret the rules to allow discussion of anything possibly contained within the ambit of clause 2. If any other member of the house tried to do what the right hon. gentleman is doing I suggest it would not be tolerated.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The right hon. gentleman having incited others to break the law cannot be expected to abide by the rules himself.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. No one, not even the perpendicular pronoun who has just spoken, can make that sort of suggestion, and I demand an immediate withdrawal.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I suggest that-


John George Diefenbaker: I demand a withdrawal.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I am quite willing to withdraw anything that the hypersensitive Leader of the Opposition wishes to have withdrawn.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I withdraw the statement and I do so willingly. The right hon. gentleman, having got himself into a terrible mess by opposing this bill, is now trying by a desperate stratagem to extricate himself.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I suggest that the right hon. gentleman should be obliged to abide by the rules.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. Although I think my purpose has been accomplished I do so to protest against the Minister of Transport taking the opportunity of a point of order to make a speech.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
DEBATES	7915
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters


Edmund Davie Fulton: I trust, sir, that the matter is practically closed, but that was my purpose in rising. I appeal to you, as I may again in the future, to prevent hon. members, who have no defence, from attempting to make that defence under the guise of a question of privilege.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I may continue and speak on this point of order now that the hon. member has made a speech under the guise of a question of privilege. Let me say that I feel we must all obey the rules of this house. When we are dealing with clause 2 we should deal with that clause and its contents rather than with letters from union organizations and other matters that are totally extraneous to this clause. I suggest, sir, that even the right hon. gentleman, in spite of any interpretation that has been advanced, should be obliged, like the rest of us, to obey the rules of this house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. The standing order which the Chair must accept as a guide in this matter is standing order 59(2) which states:
Speeches in committee of the whole house must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.
I ask members of the committee to be guided by that standing order and to co-operate with the Chair in getting our business done as quickly as possible.


John George Diefenbaker: I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I hope that the message you have spelled out has permeated the cranium of the hon. gentleman. I was dealing with the attitude we are taking and our desire to have action taken by parliament that will be effective.
The implementation of the recommendations of Mr. Justice Munroe was, generally speaking, completely ignored. Instead of following those recommendations the government decided, and the Prime Minister said this was a decision taken after deep consideration had been given to the matter, not to go beyond the first of January, 1967, but to leave these matters for further consideration. I have stated, and I repeat, that the form of the legislation before us would provide a 6 per cent increase for the workers for 1966. That is supposed to be acceptable, according to hon. gentlemen opposite. All I have to say is that the outstanding labour leaders of Canada do not need a lesson in reading
August 31, 1966

Legislation Respecting Railway Matters ordinary English from ministers trying to escape their responsibilities for having produced such a bill. These labour leaders do not require any lesson in simple ordinary English, and its interpretation.
Mr. Chairman, I had just reached the point at which I intended to place before the committee those views expressed today in a letter to the Prime Minister.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I rise on another point of order.


John George Diefenbaker: What are you afraid of?


John Whitney Pickersgill: This is a much more serious point of order. It is a well established rule of parliament that the debates in this house are carried out by members of this house, and that nothing may be introduced from outside the house-


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am now speaking on a point of order.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The hon. member is now speaking on a point of order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: My point of order is this-


Donald MacInnis: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. There is already a point of order before the house.


Donald MacInnis: Then I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman.


John Whitney Pickersgill: My point of order is a very simple one.


Donald MacInnis: I rise on a question of privilege.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Under our rules we are not
permitted-


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I am rising on a question of privilege.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. I understand the hon. member is rising on a question of privilege and I would ask him to present it as briefly as possible.


Donald MacInnis: My
question of privilege is a simple one. If the Minister of Transport wishes to speak about the rules I would ask that the Chair and the

Minister of Transport recognize one simple rule. Before he pops up and down like a yo-yo to speak in the house he should be recognized by the Chair. That has not been the case on the last three occasions he has spoken. He was not formally recognized by the Chair. While I am on my feet perhaps I may remind the house that if the snake pit becomes active again it will not bother me.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, it is a well established rule that we cannot present opinions of others from outside this house as part of our speeches, when they relate to the debate that is currently before the house, unless we accept those opinions and make them our own. If the right hon. gentleman is prepared to endorse every word that is in that letter, there is no objection to his using it; but if he is seeking to bring persons from outside the house into the house to participate in our debates, he is offending against the most fundamental of all the rules of parliament.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, as I was saying a moment ago, the government says that these outstanding leaders in the labour movement of Canada cannot read or understand. Last evening the Minister of National Health and Welfare was on television. He was followed by Bill Smith, an outstanding leader, a responsible leader, who was most emphatic and said in effect that the argument of the Minister of National Health and Welfare was nonsense and what was being offered was 6 per cent-just that and no more.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is not true, and you know it.


John George Diefenbaker: Does anyone suggest that across this nation those able to read this bill could come to any other conclusion? The government knows now that they have not been able to fool anybody with this legislation. I am hoping that the government will be prepared to make the necessary amendments so as to assure that this legislation will be effective. I mentioned that a letter had been written to the Prime Minister of Canada, and copies were sent to the various members mentioned, including the Minister of Transport.
The Minister of Transport is a little hurt by what was said in this letter. He knows what these labour leaders said, but he does not want the Canadian people to know.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
August 31. 1966	COMMONS


John George Diefenbaker: This letter was directed to the Minister of Transport among others, or at least a copy of it. It begins "Dear Mr. Prime Minister," and it is dated August 31.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I think we should have a ruling on whether the right hon. gentleman subscribes to the contents of that letter. If he does not subscribe to its contents, he has no right to read it. If he is prepared to support the opinions expressed in that letter, I have no objection because it is quite according to the rules. But the right hon. gentleman knows what that letter contains and I should like him to have the courage to get up and say that he agrees with the sentiments expressed in the letter.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to indulge in any competition with the hon. gentleman on that question. I simply say that the letter is a statement of fact. I cannot understand the attitude of the Minister of Transport. I am sure it is disturbing to the Minister of Labour to have this voluntary help that is being given to him by the Minister of Transport, who does not know anything about the subject.
The letter says: "Dear Mr. Prime Minister,"-I got as far as the date before.
A meeting of some 80 representatives of unions involved in the railway dispute this morning-
That is today.
-unanimously instructed us to inform you in the strongest possible terms that the legislation now before parliament is totally unacceptable.
That is something that we in Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition contended from the beginning. We told the government that. The next paragraph says:
The position taken by this meeting was based on reports which we have received from all sections of the country. We feel our responsibilities, both to the workers we represent and to the country, very seriously. We ask that you and your colleagues give most serious consideration to making amendments which would make this legislation acceptable and avoid putting the railway workers of Canada in a position in which they are likely to ignore parliamentary action.
That letter is signed by R. C. Smith, W. J. Smith, W. P. Kelly and T. W. Read. We have been telling the government this. We did not know the view of the labour leaders, but we knew this legislation would not work. Yet the government decided to bulldoze it through. They were just going to do it in a big way. Now they have to have a sober second thought. I refer, of course, not to the question of sobriety but just to the thought. The
DEBATES	7917
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters government must now begin to realize that something has to be done. They had an opportunity tonight when the hon. member for Greenwood asked the Prime Minister the simple question: Are you going to do something about it? The Prime Minister would not answer.
What kind of government is this? They proceed by bits and pieces. We said this legislation would not work. We asked them to do something about it. We asked them to give consideration to some of the other recommendations contained in Mr. Justice F. Craig Munroe's report. Mr. Justice Munroe recommended certain ancillary matters. He recommended that effective January 1, 1967, the plan should be revised to provide $2,000 of life insurance for each participating employee, instead of $1,500, and to provide weekly indemnity payments of $50 as heretofore, the cost thereof to be shared equally by the railways and the employees, provided the present arrangement whereby the cost of $1,000 of life insurance and $10 of the weekly indemnity would continue to be borne by the special fund under the plan until exhausted. He recommended the institution of a prescription drug plan and a dental care plan that should be deferred for further consideration, after the institution of medicare. He did not recommend cumulative paid sick leave.
What have the government done? They have produced a plan that is meaningless and then say that the people have been misled. If you can tell me that more than 6 per cent is offered, when 4 per cent will be paid from January 1 and 4 per cent from July 1-


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Eight per cent.


John George Diefenbaker: Well now, who said, "Eight per cent"?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: It would be 8 per cent.


John George Diefenbaker: That does not amount to 8 per cent. It is 8 per cent in respect of a certain portion of it, but it is actually a 6 per cent rise, no matter what manner of mathematical ingenuity you try to perpetrate on the people. You cannot fool them with this kind of nonsense. These men are not fools. They can read. They cannot be bluffed by informing them that the government are actually carrying out those terms. Why did the government not carry out those terms?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Those are the terms.


John George Diefenbaker: This course was adopted simply because the government thought they
August 31, 1966
7918	COMMONS
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters could get away with it. They speak about messes. I have seen their faces in the last couple of days, and if ever a government qualified for being in that position, they do. Never before were they in such a position, and they know it. They have to back down; they have to make another of those fantastic retreats. They have to do this and cannot get away from it. They talk about that dance; they have to do it.
[DOT] (10:30 p.m.)
This is what we have been asking the government to do from the beginning. We said: prepare a bill that is fair and reasonable and will have a chance of acceptance. You gave the seaway workers 30 per cent. This was approved of by the government of Canada. The Prime Minister, with his usual jocularity laughs about this; but the seaway authority would not act without cabinet approval.
The government must act now, and I would like to see them rise at this time, not in a spirit of defeatism, not on the defensive, as the Prime Minister said-


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. You have recited the rule of relevancy to the committee three times, since the right hon. Leader of the Opposition began his discussion.
Speaking on another point of order, I said, and I think hon. members agreed, that the right hon. Leader of the Opposition has the right under clause 2(a) to discuss the definition of a collective agreement, but since then we have listened to him debate the whole field from the Munroe report to the seaway workers settlement, etc., all of which, in my opinion, is quite beyond the provisions of standing orders 78 and 59 (2). In spite of your attempt to persuade the hon. gentleman that he should stick to the rule of relevancy it seems to me that he has gone completely beyond the matter under discussion.
Under clause 2(a) we read the head note: "Definitions. Collective agreement to which this act applies." This is an expression that is used in many sections of the act. Clause 2(a) reads as follows:
"Collective agreements to which this act applies" means a collective agreement between a railway company and a union that expired on December 31, 1965-
The only subject matter under discussion is whether or not that definition means precisely what it is intended to mean. If the right hon. gentleman has anything to say concerning an amendment to that definition on collective agreements, then I think he is quite in


order; but whether or not we will succeed in bringing the right hon. gentleman back to the rules of this house I am not quite sure. However, I think it should be registered that he has gone completely beyond the traditions, practices and rules of this house in the discussion of a specific clause in committee. I hope that even if he does succeed in continuing his speech, he will not be setting a precedent by repeating a debate that was concluded and voted on by this house only a few minutes ago.
I therefore wish to register my objection so as to avoid setting a precedent in any further speeches that will take place.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I can only quote to the house again standing order 59(2) which has been given to the Chair and which reads as follows:
Speeches in committee of the whole house must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.
I would also ask members of the committee to co-operate with the Chair in seeing that the rules of the committee are obeyed.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I have been here a long while and I do follow the rules. The hon. gentleman from Medicine Hat always reminds me of that chap who helped a Roman emperor whenever the latter found himself suddenly in difficulties. The hon. gentleman is the government's assistant, its chore boy and water boy.
I want to see this bill improved; does not the government? Is that the reason they are objecting? Do they want to push this through and not make the necessary changes? We say: You have to make changes.


George James McIlraith: Get on with it, then.


John George Diefenbaker: You cannot get away with this. You can howl me down when I say you must make changes. The Opposition has contended from the beginning that this legislation will not work. You know it now and you have got to back down. You have to join in what has become the ritualistic dance of the present government: You go forward a bit, then back up, and then go in another direction.
These interruptions do not bother me at all. I enjoy them just as much as you enjoy them.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Mr. Chairman,-


John George Diefenbaker: Of course, this hon. gentleman's capacity for thinking at all does not bring him within the ranks of those about whom I was speaking.
August 31, 1966	COMMONS


George Albert Proud: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege.
I have always felt that I could consider the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Dief-enbaker) a past master of parliamentary procedure. During the two and a half years I have been sitting in this house I have always looked upon him as an expert in parliamentary procedure and I am in no way impressed by his attempts to ridicule me.
Nevertheless, my feeling is that he who has been sitting here for 25 years should rather set an example to be followed by the younger members of the house.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I said the hon. gentleman is one of the most able in the house, and if I said anything that is disturbing to him I assure him it was not designed to be hurtful. I think a great deal of him as a fine parliamentarian, in his own way.
Now, sir, all I want to do on this occasion is to ask the Prime Minister to let the House of Commons know now what changes he plans to bring about. We want this legislation to be effective. Almost every newspaper in Canada contends that what has been done here is not fair and reasonable. The Toronto Daily Star says "Ottawa rail offer isn't enough".


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, this very article to which the right hon. gentleman is now referring was read yesterday in the house. The very purpose of the rule to which reference has been made by the house leader was to avoid debate that has already taken place on second reading. We are now getting exactly the same material which we got in the debate on second reading.


Mr. Churchill:: That was a fine contribution to the debate.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I do not think there is any need for me to read again to the committee the relevant standing order, but I would again ask the right hon. Leader of the Opposition and other members of the committee to assist the Chair by obeying the standing orders as they are given to the Chair.
[DOT] (10:40 p.m.)


John George Diefenbaker: May I make it simple so that the Minister of Labour will understand me. May I ask him now: Are you going to bring about changes? Are you going to assure us that the collective agreements will be
DEBATES	7919
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters amended by this act in such a way as to preserve the security of Canada, while at tbs same time giving justice and equity to the workers? It is as simple as that. I know that the minister is anxious to rise and say that he will do so. If he will only do that, we will eliminate a great deal of discussion. We told you this would not work. It has been put together for the purpose of bluffing the workers and the people. We want the strike to end at the earliest possible date. We want an effective act passed by parliament. We want an act that will not permit, condone or invite evasion on the part of Canadians to whom it will apply.
I now give the Minister of Labour an opportunity, with all that great experience he has had beginning with the 30 per cent increase, to tell us what he is going to do about this question. He knows that the situation across Canada is serious. The government tries to pretend labour men have been misled by argument in the House of Commons. If it had not been for our stand you would not be willing to make any changes. I understand that now you are prepared to follow the usual course as a result of the strong representations made by Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition as well as by members of the N.D.P. You realize that what you placed before the house will be a nullity unless you make alterations.
I ask you, are you going to do it or are you going to go ahead bullheadedly and put through this legislation regardless of the consequences? We ask you, will you amend it? Will you bring in recommendations to amend it? The Prime Minister reads a paper at a time when people all over Canada are wondering and are seriously concerned about the economy of Canada as well as the preservation of the rule of law within Canada. I say if you are going to put the bill through-and you have the allies to put it through-then having put it through I warn you, as I warned you before, this legislation will have to be amended to indicate a degree of fairness which has been missing up to the present moment.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I doubt, Mr. Chairman, that I
will be able to follow the chaotic excitability of the right hon. gentleman who has just resumed his seat in the discussion of clause 2 of this bill in committee. I remind the committee that we are facing a grave national emergency and that second reading of the bill has been carried. We have decided to sit here,
7920	COMMONS
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters if it will accomplish anything and nothing has been accomplished up to the present, all evening in order to deal with these clauses one by one. There is no doubt that some of the arguments advanced by the more reasonable members of this house have been worthy of consideration. Points have been raised outside the house that are worthy of consideration. I said that during the committee stage we would look at the bill clause by clause and where clarification or change was necessary we would make it.
The right hon. gentleman has tried to exploit this situation, of course. He has made the most he could of it in a narrow, partisan way.


John George Diefenbaker: Is it partisan to want
fairness?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The reason for this is, no doubt, that he is interested in ending the strike, but I wonder if he is not even more
interested in ending the government?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: The Prime Minister and the government have done that effectively
without assistance.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am glad, Mr. Chairman, that
the right hon. gentleman has confirmed that he is more interested in ending the government than in ending the strike. However, we are interested in ending this strike and getting the men back to work on fair terms through a bill which will commend itself to them. If hon. members in this house can produce improvements to this bill, we will consider them, and we have some improvements to make ourselves.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: The opposition got results.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I tried to rise on
a few occasions. I gathered from the speech the Prime Minister made in closing the debate on second reading, and I gathered from the remarks he has just made, that the government does have some amendments in mind. I have been trying to rise to my feet, Mr. Chairman, to suggest to the right hon. gentleman or the Minister of Labour, whoever is piloting the bill, that it would be of great assistance to all of us in this house if we knew now what amendments the government has in mind. I hope that from now on we can get down to work.

DEBATES	August 31, 1966
There is surely no purpose in our sitting here with amendments to various clauses of the bill, as we are doing, if in fact the government has in mind suggesting amendments to those clauses. We will merely become confused if we go through the bill clause by clause and get these amendments one by one. I have not been long in the house but I have practised law, as others here have, and everyone knows quite well that thd clauses of a bill relate one to the other. In order to understand the bill and the act which is to follow, you have to have the entire thing before you. In this way you can see the relationship of one clause to another. It will save a great deal of unnecessary argument, it will save a great deal of unnecessary recrimination, of which I suggest we have had more than enough, if these amendments are produced. I plead with the Prime Minister and the minister not to keep these amendments secret and produce them one by one but let us have all of them now so that the members of the house may know what the revised bill is like.
I expressed the hope on behalf of my party, as did my leader and others, that there would be changes. I am delighted to hear there are some. I only hope they are adequate. I appeal to the Prime Minister to give us all the amendments now so that we may know what the revised bill is like.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: It has been drawn to the attention of the house already, Mr. Chairman, that I have taken very little part in the debate during the last three days. I think there are good reasons for that. I have had the opportunity of listening to the representations made by persons directly concerned every day since the bill was first introduced. I have no doubt that the leaders who signed the letter to which reference was made by the right hon. gentleman do understand the bill. However, there are approximately 120,000 railway employees in different parts of Canada who are getting distorted and garbled versions of the bill.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare made it quite clear, and I think if you refer to the introductory remarks of the Prime Minister on Monday night of this week you will see he indicated also, that we were accepting in principle, as a provisional item in the collective agreement, the recommendations that were made on wages by Mr. Justice Munroe and concurred in by the other chairman, hon. Mr. Cameron.
August 31, 1966

[DOT] (10:50 p.m.)
Not only have representations been made to me and to others-I have no doubt some have been made to hon. members on both sides of the house-as the Prime Minister has pointed out, some very worth-while suggestions have been made in the house in the course of the debate. Only this afternoon the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke intimated that his party was going to move an amendment and make a worth-while recommendation. I might say that I have stated more than once of late to responsible labour leaders that if the bill needed clarification it would be clarified when we got to the committee stage.
I should now like to advise the house that in response to requests which have been made to the government I intend to move when we come to clause 6-hon. members might look at line 29 on page 3 on which clause 6 appears-that after the words "January 1, 1966" the word "and" be deleted and that after the words "July 1, 1966" in line 30 the words "an additional 4 per cent effective January 1-",


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. For the last half hour we have been referring to clause 2. I recognize that there has been a request for the Minister of Labour to give this information but if this information is to be given in respect of clause 6 I would ask whether there is unanimous consent of the committee.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John George Diefenbaker: Now we are getting down to something.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Going back to what I was saying, after deleting the word "and" we shall, as I have suggested, add "an additional 4 per cent effective January 1, 1967, and an additional 6 per cent effective July 1, 1967". Then, Mr. Chairman, consequent upon that amendment, if it is accepted by this committee, I intend to move that the preamble of the bill be amended to make a consequential change in lines 15 and 16 by deleting the words "for terms and conditions of employment for the year 1966". It would then be necessary-


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister
please repeat that? I did not get what he said about the preamble.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: In lines 15 and 16 of the preamble the words "for terms and conditions 23033-5011
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters of employment for the year 1966," and the comma are to be deleted.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is that an alteration?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: It is just a deletion. It has been pointed out that doubts have arisen as to the amounts, the additional amounts to be received. I would make it clear that the preamble as amended would read:
-for the resumption of the process of negotiation and mediation and for the final settlement of terms and conditions of employment for the years 1966 and 1967;
These are the two amendments that I propose to move. I could give hon. members the reasons why they are being made, but to expedite the business of the house and save time, I am now giving notice of my intention to so move.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I am quite
certain that every member of the committee will welcome the statement made by the Minister of Labour. It is profitless to discuss why he made it and who has won the debate. One could indulge in this sort of argument, but we can all draw our own conclusions from what may be said. I do not think we should waste time in deciding which side may congratulate themselves for it.
I congratulate the minister and the government for having made a sensible move with which we concur and which we have been urging for some time. I am sure that both the companies and the employees involved in this dispute will be gratified to have the assurance just given by the minister of the incorporation of the recommendations of Mr. Justice Craig Munroe, so that there will be this increase as a condition of resumption of employment.
There are one or two other matters which I should like to raise with the minister at this stage, since we are now proceeding by cooperative agreement, with reference to certain points that were raised earlier. I am going to put them forward as matters for consideration and I hope that the minister and his colleagues will give consideration to these points. I am not now demanding an absolute undertaking. That would be improper. But I do hope that the points will be given immediate consideration and that we may have some assurance, either by way of amendment in the committee stage or by way of assurance from the minister, that they will
7g22	COMMONS DEBATES
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters be embodied in the instructions to the mediator. I hope either one of these courses can be adopted.
It is my understanding, Mr. Chairman, that of almost the same if not equal concern to the employees as the matter of wages are the conditions of work or what one might call fringe benefits on the one hand and the recommendations of the Freedman report on the other. I am not suggesting for a moment, and it is not the position of this party for one second, that everything demanded by one side in the dispute has to be conceded before operations or negotiations are resumed. May I make that clear. On the other hand, I should like to make very clear that it is my view that the men who work have very legitimate and real concern in that at the moment they have no assurance that any consideration will be given, or that any bargaining in good faith will be undertaken with respect to those two very important aspects or areas of employment.
What they are asking is not that parliament should write the details of a settlement into this legislation but rather that we should undertake to these men that as a condition of their resuming work the mediator will be directed, and indeed will be required, to give attention to these matters and to have the parties bargain in good faith with respect to those two areas that I have mentioned. If we could get some assurance from the minister and the government either by way of amendment or statement as to what will be the policy that will be laid down, as it were, to the mediator with respect to the matters that he must take under consideration and mediate, I think that would complete the assurances and the improvement, if I may put it that way, of the bill.
There is another matter I should like to mention which relates particularly to the operating employees as distinct from the nonoperating employees. It is very complicated and I find it difficult to express precisely. I do not want to take up too much of the committee's time. I know there will be discussions, and this matter is of very real concern to that particular group of employees.
o (11:00 p.m.)
It is a fact that under the legislation enacted in 1965 known as the Canada Labour (Standards) Code these men are to be placed on a 40-hour week whereas in the past they were on a mileage basis. There are great complications confronting them on the railways in the transition from the current basis

August 31. 1966
of employment to the hourly basis. I am told by these men and their representatives that in the whole course of negotiations they have been unable to obtain any assurance that the transition from the one basis of employment to the other will not result in a substantial reduction in their basic pay. Indeed, I am told that what they presently earn and the mileage they put in, if translated into an apparent hourly rate and then translated in turn into a 40-hour week, would produce a figure which would result over the year in an average reduction in basic pay amounting to as much as $1,500 a year. So what they have asked is an assurance that their new hourly rate of wages on the basis of a 40-hour week will be sufficient to provide the equivalent of what they are now earning, and that the question of an increase should then be the subject of negotiation, as are the other matters, in accordance with the amendment to be introduced by the minister.
They tell me they have been unable to get any assurance that they will start with their present basic aggregate take-home pay. The result is that they are represented as asking for as much as a 40 per cent increase. This is not what they are asking. They are asking that they should start at the same basic aggregate pay as they are now receiving and that this should then be subject to increase as provided in respect of all the other wage increases. If an assurance along these lines could be given I know it would go a long way toward settling the concern of the operating employees in the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen. I realize it will be difficult to put this proposal into legislative form, so I am not putting it forward in the form of an amendment. However, if the minister could assure us that the mediator would be instructed that this would be the basis upon which negotiations would start so far as this union is concerned, the purpose of my intervention would have been achieved.
In making this proposal I do not pretend that I am an expert and that my word is the last word on this subject. I do so on the basis of the discussions I have had with the men who work on the railways and on the basis of my very real desire to see that the legislation we pass in this house, while not based on the dictates of either management or labour, may nevertheless be calculated and expected to command support and contain provisions which we ourselves know to be fair and to meet the basic requirements upon which it is just to demand a return
August 31, 1966

to work. 1 hope we may be given some such assurance by the minister.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I think the quickest way to answer the constructive observations made by the hon. member for Kamloops would be to refer to clause 9 of the bill which states:
1. The Minister of Labour shall appoint a mediator or mediators . . . who shall forthwith endeavour to mediate the matters in dispute-
That is, the matters in dispute in all five of these conciliation proceedings. The subject to which the hon. gentleman has just referred, the problem of the railway trainmen having to switch from a mileage basis of pay to an hourly basis and a 40-hour week, is well understood by me and my department, I can assure him of that. We had to deal with a somewhat similar situation, though it was not actually related to mileage, during the truckers' strike earlier this year in Ontario, and I can assure the committee that in the instructions we are giving to the mediator or mediators the problem of the railway trainmen with regard to the take home pay will be included. Obviously time is important in these considerations and because we have a series of these matters to deal with, we may have to appoint more than one mediator to get results before November 15. We hope this will not be necessary but if it is, we intend to do so.
With regard to the Freedman report, the committee already has the assurance given by the Prime Minister earlier this evening and when we reach the relevant clause later I am sure this matter can be cleared up.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, I should like to express to the Minister of Labour the
thanks of this party for his compliance with the request of my hon. friend from York South by informing the committee with regard to the amendment he proposes to move when we reach clause 6. I think this will shorten the debate in committee and will have the effect of making this legislation more palatable to the railway workers.
I would say to the minister that this is not merely a matter of clarifying the situation for the railway workers. The reasons we in this party have been pressing the government to put into the legislation at least the formula recommended by Mr. Justice Munroe, the chairman of the conciliation board, are twofold. First, the workers will know that they have the guarantee that they cannot get less than the conciliation board recommendations,
DEBATES	7923
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters recommendations which, by the way, they had rejected. Second, and even more important, it means that in future mediation, negotiation or arbitration the formula will become the floor and anything which the arbitration board may award will be in addition to it.
On the other hand, if the formula had not
been provided in the act the men might have had to fight in negotiations and fight before an arbitration tribunal to get even the recommendations of the Munroe conciliation board. It is therefore most important that the workers should know that whatever a tribunal may recommend they will not get less than a formula which they have already rejected.
[DOT] (11:10 p.m.)
By introducing the amendment which he is going to introduce the minister will at least have removed this feeling. I hope he will be able to persuade the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the Minister of National Health and Welfare to vote for it, because they made speeches saying how much it would interfere with free negotiations if we inserted in the bill the formula for 1967 which had been proposed by Mr. Justice Munroe. Now that they have had the rug pulled out from under them, and all their eloquence wasted on the desert air, I hope they will take it in good part and support the amendment.
It should be made clear what this will mean. It will mean two 6 per cent increases in 1966-


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I cannot hear the hon. gentleman.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -and in the second year of the agreement it will mean a further increase bringing the total to 18 per cent at the end of the two year period. That is the minimum which the men know they will get, and they have the hope of getting something more in mediation. This is not a clarification. It is a new principle, and we are glad we will now have a legal commitment rather than a moral commitment. I know that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, who signed hundreds of agreements, did not like moral commitments. He wanted them down in black and white.
In considering further amendments I would ask the minister to give some thought to the second point, namely that Mr. Justice Munroe made certain recommendations with reference to fringe benefits. He rejected some things and recommended others. I see no
7924	COMMONS
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters reason why those recommendations should not also become the floor for negotiations, and if necessary for arbitration.
If the government is prepared to accept the financial and wage recommendations of Mr. Justice Munroe it should also be prepared to incorporate in the bill the fringe benefit recommendations which the conciliation board thought were fair and reasonable.
With reference to the point made by the hon. member for Kamloops, before this bill passes committee stage we will want something much more specific with respect to the implementation of the recommendations of the Freedman commission. It is unfair to ask these men to submit to further negotiation and arbitration something which has already been referred to a royal commission from which they got a favourable decision. If they had got an unfavourable decision they might have been reconciled to arguing the case again; but having got a favourable decision from the Freedman commission they are entitled to have it written into the law, so that with respect to future technological changes they will have some guarantee of advance notice and consultation.
If they do not get that, then the steady decline in the number of men engaged on the railroads will continue to cause anxiety and insecurity. The minister could do a great deal to make this legislation palatable and ensure its quick passage if he were prepared to give us something more specific with regard to the implementation of the recommendations of Mr. Justice Freedman.
. [Translation]


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, after listening to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) quoting the amendments he proposes to section 6 of the bill, providing in 1966 for an increase to the railway workers of 4 per cent in January and 4 per cent in July so that 6 per cent is gained for the year 1966, the minister adds to the bill that on January 1, 1967, another 4 per cent will be granted and 6 per cent on July 1, 1967. This means that for the first part of 1967, the railroad workers will receive a 12 per cent increase and that at the end of 1967 for the latter part, they will receive 18 per cent.
The original bill left the door open to negotiations between the parties involved. Mr. Chairman, I should like to bring the following fact to the attention of the Prime Minister and of the Minister of Labour: this 18 per cent increase was recommended

DEBATES	August 31. 1966
by the conciliation board before the strike started.
Now, members of parliament were called to a special session to be asked to offer exactly what the conciliation board offered and today, the N.D.P. members, as well as the Conservatives, thunderously applauded the Government decision to include the full amount, in the bill, that is 18 per cent over two years.
Mr. Chairman, I think the workers, the employees of the Canadian railways will be left holding the bag. The strike could have been avoided if the labour leaders had been responsible Canadians and had accepted the conciliation board offer. There would be no strike today, the workers would not have lost any wages and would not be worried and we would not have heard the statements of certain leaders that the workers would not go back to work for anything less than a 30 per cent increase.
Mr. Chairman, this increase had been offered-


Jean Marchand: I should simply like to inform the hon. member that if the workers had agreed, the railway companies would not have accepted it.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, when the conciliation board suggested 18 per cent, were the railways ready at that time to negotiate on the 18 per cent proposition.


Jean Marchand: No.


David Réal Caouette: It has been stated here in the house, that the conciliation board felt that 18 per cent was reasonable, while railway union leaders demanded 30 per cent, and that the government and the railways were told the men would not go back to work unless they obtained 30 per cent. This statement was made by Mr. Hall, in Montreal.
Mr. Chairman, I believe and I maintain the whole set-up was planned by people in the government-


An hon. Member:: Under the table.


David Réal Caouette: -under the table to be sure, between government people and labour leaders. This business was planned behind the backs of the national railway employees. There is a limit to playing behind these people's backs.
Mr. Chairman, I understand that we will later have the occasion to debate these amendments. We will wait until clause 6
August 31, 1966

comes up for consideration. Everyone now seems to agree that the 18 per cent increase should be accepted and hopes that all workers will go back to work tomorrow morning. We will debate another clause dealing with compulsory arbitration, and we will undoubtedly refer back to it before the end of today's sitting.
Mr. Chairman, these were the remarks I had to make concerning suggestions being made at present by the Minister of Labour and I feel we are laughing at railway workers in Canada.
[DOT] (11:20 p.m.)


The Deputy Chairman:: The hon. member for Medicine Hat.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, I understand we now are proceeding by agreement to provide the minister and others an opportunity to indicate what amendments they intend to introduce in the course of studying this bill clause by clause. My purpose in rising now is to make the suggestion to the minister that perhaps there are some defects in the amendment he suggested to clause 6, and also to inform him that I have before me an amendment in both English and French, saying essentially the same thing, which was prepared last night and this morning. I think this amendment takes care of the defects. The reason I bring this up now is that I should like to send it over to the minister after explaining the defects and what I think will improve some of the defects in his amendment. I should like to send this over to him for his consideration between now and the time when he will move his amendment when we reach clause 6.
If I understand the minister correctly, he suggested that in line 29 of clause 6 he would add the 4 per cent effective January 1, 1967 and the 6 per cent effective July 1, 1967. Mr. Chairman, I wish to suggest to the minister and the Prime Minister, the sponsors of this bill, that at the present time the wording above the two subclauses says that "the conditions of each collective agreement to which this act applies are amended forthwith." In other words, if he adds those other two raises in 1967 to what already is written there, it does in fact amend forthwith the collective agreements which are defined as the collective agreements which expire on December 21, 1965. I do not believe that was the intent of what the minister wished to say. I believe in his explanation he suggested he wanted a
DEBATES	7925
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters minimum guarantee of retroactive pay for
1966,	which was already in the clause, and that he wanted the minimum guarantee for 1967 but did not want it limited to that.
I suggest that if it is amended forthwith as the clause now says, then of course it becomes a part of the law and is amended. I suggest also the clause should be amended to state that it is a minimum, and that is all-in other words, that the increase shall be no less. I know it could be argued that that was what the minister intended in his amendment, but I think there still could be some confusion. Perhaps the mediator and arbitration board would have some difficulty if there was a subsequent amendment, because it says "forthwith".
Therefore, to get around this problem, so that the railway workers across Canada will know that this is intended as a floor, and a floor only, clause 6 should be amended by adding the following new subclause, and of course it would be called subclause (2):
(2) the terms and conditions of any amendment or revision of the collective agreements to which this act applies, determined under the provisions of Sections 8, 9 and 10 of this Act shall provide at least-
And the reason I mention those three sections is that section 8 deals with the requirements that there shall be further negotiation; section 9 deals with the appointment of a mediator and the powers of that mediator, and section 10 deals with the appointment of an arbitration board in the event that no agreement is reached under the provisions of 8 and 9.
I continue:
-an increase to each rate of wages in effect on December 31, 1965, established by or pursuant to the agreement in case of an agreement binding or entered into on behalf of non-operating employees, of not less than 4 per cent, effective January 1,
1967,	and of not less than an additional 6 per cent, effective July 1, 1967.
That wording is necessary for a number of reasons, but it is a repetition of the wording used in the present clause 6(a). I discussed this matter with the law officers of this house earlier today, and other legal authorities who are familiar with railway legislation. They advised me that an additional clause, the same as in the two paragraphs in the first part of clause 6, is necessary to provide for what is referred to as operating employees. The reason is that one says "each rate of wages" and the other says "each basic daily
7926	COMMONS
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters rate". There is an important difference between those in the existing collective agreements and the ones which did expire on December 31, 1965.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, in the hope that I may be helpful to the minister, I should like to send that proposed amendment, both in English and in French, to him for his consideration between now and the time he makes the motion. This might enable him to improve what he suggested he was going to do. He suggested that another substantial amendment is required in the preamble. I believe it is necessary and I take no exception to the proposal he made.


Maurice Rinfret: Order. I bring to the attention of the house that there was unanimous agreement that we foresee an amendment to clause 6. May I suggest to the committee now that we continue with the consideration of clause 2.


Mr. Webb:: Mr. Chairman, my remarks will be brief, I should like to bring to the attention of the minister that I have here some T-4 slips which certainly contradict much that has appeared in the press and on television. The minister may not know that in the year 1965, in August, the C.N.R. discontinued the commission to the railroad agents. Originally this commission was given as an incentive to the agent to promote and solicit business for the railroad. In August 1965 this was discontinued. As a result of this many of our agents on the C.N.R. today are receiving less wages now than they did in the year 1964. I should like the minister to look into this.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 3-railway services to be resumed
Mr. Cowan:: Mr. Chairman, we now are
discussing clause 3 of the bill and I have some comments I wish to make. This afternoon I voted against the amendment, and I voted in favour of the motion for second reading of the bill this evening. I cast my votes on both occasions with the firm intention to speak on clause 3 when we reached our consideration of it in the committee stage.
I should like to ask the ministry to consider deleting from clause 3 the words following the word "existing", namely, "and employees now on strike shall resume the duties of their employment with the railway companies". Those words mean but one thing and I do not believe they should be left in an act passed by this parliament. Those words mean in

DEBATES	August 31. 1966
effect forced labour or slavery. I for one cannot support clause 3 in its present form. I believe the purposes of this clause can be achieved even when those words are eliminated. By their deletion the clause would then read:
[DOT] (11:30 p.m.)
Forthwith upon the coming into force of this act, every railway company shall resume operation of the railway and subsidiary services the operation of which is suspended by reason of the strike now existing.
There has been a lot of purple prose thrown around this chamber to the effect that when this bill becomes law it is likely the labour unions will not observe it. Some have said that anyone who makes reference to that suggestion is inciting people to break the law. I do not believe for one moment that if the labour unions refuse to observe this act in its present form they would be anarchists. I believe they would be sensible and intelligent men deciding they would not work under terms presented to them by the railways by whom they were formerly employed. Surely these men have the right to choose their employers in this country of ours. I cannot support that clause which states in part that employees now on strike shall resume their duties. Who in this case is forcing whom to work?
Today I was doing some research regarding this situation and I was enheartened by something I found that was said on August 30, 1960, 16 years ago by Hon. David Croll, a former member of this house representing the riding of Spadina, Toronto. It is disturbing to me as a Liberal member to read a record of 16 years ago and find that what we will be doing by adopting this clause is following a precedent. We find that this was done 16 years ago by a former Liberal government. Surely what was done then was a precedent which we are now asked to follow.
Hon. Mr. Croll stated on August 30, 1950, as recorded at page 39 of Hansard of that date:
Speaking in this house yesterday the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) was careful to make it very clear that this bill is not to be considered a precedent: [DOT] [DOT] [DOT]
To me those are very comforting words; yet in principle I consider this a dangerous bill, less because of what it attempts to do now than because of what in other hands it might be made to do hereafter.
Hon. David Croll, as it turned out, was quite a prophet.
I was in Saint John, New Brunswick, during the past week end and I found a
August 31, 1966

Canadian Press dispatch from Corner Brook, Newfoundland, in the Saint John Evening Times-Globe of Saturday, August 27 which read as follows:
Premier Smallwood went on television here Friday night to explain why the government has not granted recommended pay increases to 90 nonprofessional workers at Western Memorial Hospital as the workers voted to strike in defiance of a government statement that such action would be illegal.
They passed another resolution "that Premier Smallwood be condemned for refusing to grant recommended wages to hospital employees and also for threatening to enact legislation to outlaw all hospital strikes in Newfoundland.
Mr. Smallwood, in his television address, said the government would have to approve wage increases to a total of 38 other hospitals in the province similar to those being asked by Western Memorial employees if these were granted.
A conciliation board June 14 recommended increases ranging from 5 to 25 per cent for the employees. The union at first had asked increases up to 50 per cent but reduced its demands and approved the conciliation board report, also agreed to by the hospital's board of directors.
. . . the government invoked a section of the Labour Act to declare "an emergency in respect to Western Memorial Hospital."
A proclamation made public while the union was making final plans for the strike Wednesday night said "any strike or lock-out or other action in the dispute" would be illegal and compulsory arbitration was being imposed.
As Mr. Croll said 16 years ago yesterday:
-in principle I consider this a dangerous bill, less because of what it attempts to do now than because of what in other hands it might be made to do hereafter.
I have given you a current example as to what is being done in other parts of this country. I should not like to see this federal government establish a precedent, even though in 1950 Mr. St. Laurent said that what was being done then would not be a precedent. In 1966 we are repeating what was done at that time. Men are being told that they shall resume the duties of their employment with the railway companies. Where is there a distinction in this regard, when we are telling men that they will resume work at their occupations as was done in 1950?
I have in my hand an interesting book I obtained from the parliamentary library entitled "The Slave in Canada" written by Hon. Renwick Riddell, a justice of the Supreme Court of Ontario. At pages 56, 57 and 58 one will find that the honourable justice pointed out that in 1793 a bill to abolish slavery was introduced in Upper Canada, and Upper Canada today is Ontario. Slavery was abolished by an act passed on
7927
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters July 9, 1793, and there is an interesting paragraph in the preamble of that act which states:
No . . . person who shall come or be brought into this province . . . shall be subject to the condition of a slave or to bounden involuntary service.
We now have a Liberal ministry which suggests by clause 3 of this bill that employees now on strike shall resume the duties of their employment with these railway companies. What will happen if these employees decide they do not want to resume their duties with these railway companies? Are they to be called anarchists? In my opinion they are exercising the very proper right to make a decision as to whom their employers shall be. God grant them the ability to make a proper choice in this matter.
Since the Minister of Labour has been good enough to indicate in advance certain proposed changes that he will make I suggest that it would be very easy for the ministry to delete from clause 3 the following words:
-and employees now on strike shall resume the duties of their employment with the railway companies.
If we force the railway companies to resume operations and they do not obey, we can impose penalties. Not one railway company in this country operates without one or more charter or licence authorized by this parliament. Penalties can be invoked against the railway companies. On the other hand, if railway companies announce their intention to resume operations and striking employees do not report for work, surely that is a choice on the part of the employees who may be faced with sacrificing their pension rights, severance pay and other benefits. I see no point in keeping in this clause the words:
-and employees now on strike shall resume the duties of their employment with the railway companies.
[DOT] (11:40 p.m.)
The Telegraph-Journal of Saint John, New Brunswick, on Friday, August 26, the date the strike took effect at noon hour, carried an editorial parts of which I should like to read. The editorial has a bearing on the point "shall resume the duties of their employment." The Telegraph-Journal says:
The union members can argue their legal right to strike, but as Canadians they have no moral right to disregard the consequences to the nation. They have no right to price fellow Canadians out of world markets and, inevitably, themselves out of jobs.
If a worker wants to price himself out of a job, that is his choice. It is not up to the
7928	COMMONS
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters Saint John Telegraph-Journal to rule on that point for him. The editorial continues:
They have no right to seriously impair or destroy the earning capacity of innocent people whose livelihood depends so completely on rail transportation. They have no right to deprive sections of Canada of a vital link-and no section will be harder hit than the already struggling Atlantic provinces. They have no such rights.
In the name of heaven, does the economy of Canada depend upon driving the noses of railroaders into the dirt and telling them they have no rights, that they are second-class citizens? They have the same rights as every other Canadian and those rights should be guaranteed them. I do not want to see a slavery clause imposed on them such as "and employees now on strike shall resume the duties of their employment with the railway companies."
I do not wish to prolong the debate, Mr. Chairman, but I shall refer to this question again when we come to discuss the preamble of the bill, at which time I understand we will have an opportunity to speak a second time. I would simply ask the ministry to delete those final words of clause 3 and bear in mind that when the time and labour of one person are, by any means not purely voluntary, the property of another, the former is a slave and the latter is a master; and and I do not want to see parliament in the guise of a slavemaster.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, I want to assure the hon. member that the point he has raised was carefully considered by the government and the law officers who advised us in this matter before the clause was finalized. I realize the significance of the hon. gentleman's remarks with regard to similar legislation passed in 1950, but I would point out that if this clause is accepted by parliament it will direct the railway companies to resume operations, and our problem was and is, how can the companies resume operations if the employees, now on strike do not resume their duties? The one thing goes with the other.
In addition I would draw to the attention of the hon. gentleman-and I only do this to emphasize and bring home my point-that in clause 4 of the bill certain obligations are placed upon the companies. They are not allowed to refuse people who want to resume their duties after having gone on strike. If the legislation does not provide that they shall resume their duties, you are in trouble because the companies are ordered to do something and they would have no men to

DEBATES	August 31. 1966
operate their railways. This matter was considered by parliament in 1950. In that case- and I have read and re-read the section many times-every employee who was on strike was to return to the duties of his employment. The wording of the section was "shall return to the duties of employment." We believe that the word "resume" is preferable with regard to returning to duties. I might also point out that the government in power in 1958, when the return to work legislation was passed with regard to the British Columbia ferries, also used the expression that the company "shall resume operation and the employees on strike shall return to their duties."


Mr. Ricard:: They could not operate otherwise. ..


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Yes. Hon. gentlemen opposite unanimously accepted that wording in 1958 and several of them are still in the house. I would assure the hon. gentleman that we are making no attempt to return to slavery. All we are trying to do is to introduce workable legislation.


Mr. Leboe:: Mr. Chairman, I would ask the minister whether he has taken into consideration the fact that a man could return to his place of employment and immediately tender his resignation. This would have the same effect as if we made the correction proposed by the hon. gentleman; they could return to work and then quit.


William Arnold Peters: 
Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if I could ask the government house leader if the time has come, as he indicated earlier today, when we might look at the clock and assess the situation? I believe this afternoon, when the house agreed to sit beyond six o'clock, questions were asked as to how long it would be. I believe the government house leader said that at midnight he would be glad to look at the clock and assess the situation. I wonder if it would not make good sense, in view of the progress we have made, to adjourn until some time later this day?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
DEBATES	7931
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


George James McIlraith: When I made the motion at the opening of proceedings today for the house to continue sitting after 6 p.m. a question was raised and I expressed what seems to have been a forlorn hope that the bill would be through all stages before midnight. I did undertake in specific language, however, that I would consider a cut-off hour at a later time. Unfortunately, we only seem to have passed one clause, the interpretation clause. I wonder if the house would be willing to complete the discussion of clause 3? Perhaps an order could then be made concerning the sitting tomorrow, say at ten o'clock in the morning. Perhaps we could then continue to sit until we have completed all stages of the bill. Perhaps we could rise in a few minutes when we have completed this clause.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


George James McIlraith: I should like to get the sense of the house on that point before making a decision.


Michael Starr: Yes, we would agree to that.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I think the suggestion of the minister is an admirable one but I understood clause 3 had been passed, Mr. Chairman. If clause 3 has not passed, then we have to wrestle with that clause. However, when we get to clause 6, which is fairly complicated and about which there are many technical questions-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Some members who are shouting have not even read the bill and do not understand what is in it. I want to suggest that three or four o'clock in the morning is not the time for careful examination of legislation as important as this. I think the minister's suggestion of adjourning now and reassembling at ten o'clock in the morning makes sense. We could consider this matter properly tomorrow. My experience has been that the longer the hours the shorter the tempers, and we are not going to make much progress.


Robert Norman Thompson: We would like to carry on and go through with this. This is an emergency with which we are dealing. Six weeks ago I spent several days in the British parliament and for two of the three days they sat until
7932	COMMONS
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters the early hours of the next morning considering issues that were not as serious as this. I do not see why we cannot continue.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Clauses 3, 4 and 5 are tied together. Clause 6, however, is related to a different matter, as has been mentioned by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. The hon. member for Medicine Hat suggested a short time ago an amendment to clause 6 which must be carefully considered. I have been trying to follow the debate but I cannot consider the merits or otherwise of his suggestions having been able to give them only a cursory glance. They should be considered and discussed with my colleagues. If we could deal with clauses 3, 4 and 5 tonight, then surely we could adjourn until ten o'clock tomorrow morning.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


George James McIlraith: Do I understand it is agreed that we continue until we have considered clauses 3, 4 and 5 and that at that time we will rise and report progress and have an order made by the house that we meet tomorrow at ten o'clock and continue through?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I do not wish to engage in any cross-fire with the Minister of Labour but he made some comments after my previous remarks to which I should like to refer.


An hon. Member:: On what clause?


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Clause 3.


An hon. Member:: Clause 3 has been
carried.
[DOT] (12:10 a.m.)


Ralph Bronson Cowan: It has not. I point out that in making his remarks the minister stated that in 1950 there was a similar clause in the act, and I was well aware of that. I have read the clause several times. Did the minister not read Prime Minister St. Laurent's statement that 1950 was not to be taken as a precedent? I do not believe that changing the word "return" to "resume" has eliminated the fact that 1950 is being taken as a precedent. I also point out that I do not agree that two wrongs make a right. I was not in this house in 1950 but I can assure you that, had I been, I would have taken the stand of Hon. David Croll on this matter now under discussion. Since two wrongs do not make a right, I would ask that we do the right thing in 1966 and that we do not forget the fact that we

DEBATES	August 31. 1966
are making a precedent out of an act which Mr. St. Laurent said was not to be taken as a precedent.
In addition, the minister points out that this clause is similar to one brought in in 1958. This is about the fourth time I have been told by members of the Liberal cabinet that they are doing something which is exactly the same as was done by the previous government. I ran in 1962 against the government of the day because I did not agree with its policies and I thought that the Liberals could do a better job. I ran against the same government in 1963 because I thought we could do a better job. There are quite a few Liberal members of this house who are getting fed up with hearing Liberal cabinet ministers tell us that this is just the way the previous government did things. Then why did we oppose them?


William Heward Grafftey: What is he like in caucus?


Ralph Bronson Cowan: May I point out to you, Mr. Chairman, that Hon. David Croll said, as found on page 41 of Hansard for August 30, 1950:
Compulsion never removes the cause of the strife. Forced obedience against the will of those concerned sows the seeds of bitterness and resentment and in the end aggravates the very condition it was sought to cure.
I say to you, as members of the ministry, that it would be best to eliminate the words "employees now on strike shall resume the duties of their employment with the railway companies". Clause 4 will not need to be altered in any way and we will get rid of this forced labour or slavery clause. It does not affect clause 5. I sincerely ask the ministry to eliminate those words that will cause concern to the men now on strike, because I do not believe that that concern should be caused them.
The question has been asked by the Minister of Labour: What will happen if the men do not return to work? I could name a score of industries where the workers are on strike but which are still in business. They have engaged other employees. Are we going to force these men back to work because, when the railways announce that they are open for business, the men on strike may not go rushing back to the gates? I am opposed to compulsory labour.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to.
Progress reported.
August 31. 1966	COMMONS

George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I should like to have it recorded as an order of the house that we sit tomorrow-


An hon. Member:: Today.


George James McIlraith: -at ten o'clock a.m. and continue to sit until Bill C-230 has been completed through all stages.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Does the house agree that it will meet again at ten o'clock-


An hon. Member:: On Thursday, September 1.
DEBATES	7933
Business of the House


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: -on Thursday morning and continue until the bill has been completed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Michael Starr: What is the business for tomorrow?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I understand that under standing order 6 we require a motion to adjourn the house now. I move, therefore, that the house do now adjourn.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 12.15 a.m.

Thursday, September 1, 1966