1966-08-30

NORTHERN AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William) presented the second report of the standing committee on northern affairs and national resources and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table copies in English and French of the report of Mr. Justice Dalton Wells concerning George Victor Spencer.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave to table this report?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister. Can he say, after his meeting with the leaders of the railway unions this morning, whether those leaders expressed any acceptance of the bill now before the house? What was their reaction to that bill?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: As I indicated yesterday, the processes of mediation were continuing while we were discussing legislation in the house, and it was in connection with those processes that I had the privilege of meeting the union leaders last evening and again this morning to discuss current developments including, of course, the bill which is before the house. But I cannot say anything about those discussions at this moment.


Michael Starr: Could the Prime Minister clarify the statement he made to the press after the meeting had adjourned, when he said "We have a better understanding of the situation"?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes. I meant I had a better understanding of the attitude of the union leaders toward certain matters under discussion.


Mr. Heward Graffley (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the union leaders' reactions in the last few hours to the bill before us to end the strike I would ask the Minister of Labour, did the government consult railway management and union leaders on the terms of this legislation before presenting it to the House of Commons?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour discussed with leaders of the labour movement certain proposals that might be incorporated in legislation but certainly not the legislation itself. As to the railways management, I cannot speak with any authority on that matter. Possibly the Minister of Transport may have had some discussions with them in this same regard.


William Heward Grafftey: Did management and the union leaders give the government any information on which they based this legislation, which gave the government reasonable hope and assurance that it would be effective?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have some doubts as to whether this line of questioning is in order, particularly in view of the fact that this question refers specifically to legislation which is now before the house. It seems to me this is the type of question which might very well be asked when the house resumes consideration of the legislation.



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister on an entirely different subject; I may
7792

August 30, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry have something to say about the other subject later. I should like to ask the right hon. gentleman whether he is still planning to attend the prime ministers' conference and, if so, whether he is giving consideration to supporting mandatory sanctions against Rhodesia under the United Nations charter.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Whether I am able to attend this conference will depend on developments in the house and in the country in connection with the railway situation. I would regret very much, of course, if I were not able to go. In the circumstances I do not think I should say anything about what I might do if I were able to go, but before the conference opens there would be, I hope, an opportunity on orders of the day or on motions for whoever represents Canada to make a short statement.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: I realize that the Prime Minister is most anxious to attend, and it is very desirable that he should be able to attend the prime ministers' conference. I want to say to the right hon. gentleman that anything we can do to make it possible for him to be there for a couple of days will be done; because, I suggest, his presence there is very necessary at a time when the future of the commonwealth might well be in jeopardy unless, in the collective wisdom of the prime ministers, a consensus is arrived at.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I can only say I appreciate very much the attitude taken by the right hon. gentleman. I still hope it will be possible for me to attend this conference, even if for only a couple of days. His attitude, expressed this afternoon, will make this easier.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
The right hon. Prime Minister had a recent meeting with the President of the United States in New Brunswick. Did any agreement come out of that meeting or those talks, with regard to Viet Nam or American involvement in Viet Nam or was there any discussion about inflation, which seems to be taking a permanent hold?

tEnglish]


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, there was no occasion to reach any particular understanding at these meetings in regard to our position on Viet Nam and the United States position, because our position is well known to the United States and I think we understand their position. We did discuss many other subjects within the limited time available, some two and one-half hours, and one of these was inflationary dangers and pressures in both countries; because this is more than a national problem.



NATURAL GAS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, who is the minister designate of energy and national resources. Has the government any alternative proposals to gain access to the United States markets that are denied to Canadian gas producers as a result of the government's decision not to allow the proposed southern route pipe line to be built? Further, has the government any proposals to compensate for the additional cost of delivering gas to central Canada?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, it will not be up to the government but up to Trans-Canada to come forward with alternative proposals.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: As a
supplementary question, has the minister received from the premier of Alberta an objection to the decision of the cabinet to reject the decision of the National Energy Board on this matter?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Not personally, Mr. Speaker.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver Easi):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance and ask whether he can confirm, or otherwise, that an offer has been made of a long term loan at low interest rates for the construction of an additional bridge over Burrard Inlet in Vancouver. If so, has
August 30. 1966

this information been conveyed to the government of British Columbia, to the city of Vancouver and the adjoining municipalities?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, this is the first time this matter has been brought to my attention. I have received no such offer of money either at low rates of interest or high rates of interest.


Harold Edward Winch: As a supplementary question, has this information been conveyed to the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Davis) who made such a statement recently in B.C.?



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that it is now approximately 16 months since the Prime Minister referred the question of the high cost of living and prices to the economic council for a special study, and in view of his repeated assurances that he would try to find out the reason for the long delay, can he tell us whether the study is completed, and will we ever see it?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very glad to make inquiries into that matter so that possibly we may have the views of the economic council on it before discussion takes place in the house. I have had discussions with the president of the council on this matter within the last fortnight.



CONSIDERATION AT MEETING OF FINANCE MINISTERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: 
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should ask the Minister of Finance to deal with this matter. He may have the communication before him.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, some confusion seems to have arisen out of the exchange between the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister yesterday. It is my understanding that what the Prime Minister was answering was a question in a very general form. That question was asked by the Leader of the Opposition, and the Prime Minister was indicating that on the agenda of the federal-provincial conference tax structure committee meeting on September 14 we will be discussing the current economic situation including the problem of inflation.
I should like to make it quite clear that I do not propose to place before the provinces any proposals for the application of wage and price controls.


John George Diefenbaker: There was no question of that raised in any question I asked, but the Prime Minister said "This very important matter is on the agenda". I ask the minister, now that he is speaking and as he is the conscience of the Prime Minister in replying to this matter, whether there is any such question dealing with co-operative legislation on the agenda for the 14th.


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I think I made that quite plain in what I have already said. The Leader of the Opposition asked a very long and very involved question. I am not surprised that the Prime Minister in answering it might have seemed to answer one of the more obscure aspects of that question. However, let me read what I said yesterday in the letters which I addressed to some of the premiers and some of the ministers of finance, because some of the premiers also will be attending the conference on
7794	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry September 14. This is from the letter which I wrote to Premier Roblin yesterday.


John George Diefenbaker: When; was it in the
afternoon or in the morning?


Mitchell William Sharp: This letter had been sent out in the morning. I was not able to read the mind of the Leader of the Opposition, and if I had tried to I would not have been very successful. This was done on our own initiative. May I read the sentences:
The current economic situation lends additional urgency to federal-provincial consultation on fiscal and economic questions. Action may be required to deal with the current economic situation of a nature that would concern provincial governments as well as the federal government. Such action might well have some bearing on the fiscal arrangements we will be discussing.
I suggest therefore that we consider this question at the start of our meeting.
Accordingly, the first item on the suggested agenda appended is the economic situation and its relationship to federal-provincial fiscal arrangements.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question to clear up some of the more obscure aspects of this question of the minister. In view of the statement made by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Davis) to the western Liberal association in Saskatoon that the federal government is leaving resource development out in the cold and his demand that it meet this challenge more aggressively, would the Minister of Finance inform the house whether the question of resource development will be considered at this conference in relation to fiscal policy?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, it will.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. C. Cadieu (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. So much rumour has been spread around about the abundance of the crop in western Canada that I am wondering whether the drought stricken area northwest of Meadow Lake from Dorintosh west through Peerless to Goodsoil and extending into Alberta has been drawn to his attention. This is an emergency situation and I should hope he would be making arrangements to send a survey team into this area.

DEBATES	August 30, 1966


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: I have not had that matter drawn to my attention by the provincial government as yet, Mr. Speaker, but I will be glad to take notice of the hon. member's representations and look into the matter.


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I
have a supplementary question. Has anything been done about a similar situation which occurred in the area last year?


John James Greene: No application has been received to date from the provincial government for aid in this regard.



NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the hon. Minister of Manpower.
Following the brief that the National Unemployment Insurance Commission Association forwarded to the minister, is the latter in a position to inform the house whether he intends to take immediate action to correct the injustices which have found their way into the National Employment Service employee assessment program.


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, out of 626 employees at the National Employment Service in the province of Quebec, 178 were not classified. Our intention is to interview each of the 178 employees and to try and see how we can deal with each case, if possible.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboli-Melfort-Tisdale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance in his capacity as the minister under whose jurisdiction the Canadian Wheat Board falls. In view of the fact that Russia already has some ships at the port of Churchill to pick up wheat they have purchased from Canada, would the minister consider keeping this sea route open by the use of icebreakers or even submarines so they could pick up the wheat
August 30. 1966

they have purchased even during winter months?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, although as Minister of Finance I find myself in the extraordinary position of speaking for the Canadian Wheat Board, I really do not have any responsibility for keeping Hudson Bay open. Perhaps this question should be directed to another minister.


Reynold Rapp: I have a supplementary question which I should perhaps direct to the Minister of Transport. Will he give consideration to this matter so this sea route may be kept open, in view of the fact that the Russians have indicated they will make full use of this port even during the winter?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I could be frivolous and say that I will use every submarine the Department of Transport has for this purpose, but I do not think that would impress the house. Let me say seriously to the hon. member that the Department of Transport, the harbours board and the Department of Public Works are giving every attention to doing everything possible in order to use the port of Churchill to a maximum. This will be all the more necessary because of the unhappy interruption in service being experienced at the moment.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Keays (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. In view of the imminent closing of five of the six unemployment insurance offices located in the lower St. Lawrence region, will the minister consider delaying the implementation of that decision until representations from those affected can be presented to him?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, as I have said before, decision in this matter is the responsibility of the unemployment insurance commission itself. However, I will pass on the hon. member's suggestion to that commission. I am sure he will appreciate that many weeks' notice was given by the commission of its intention to act, not only in his riding but in many other ridings in Canada.


James Russell Keays: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Does the minister wish to
Inquiries of the Ministry indicate that notice was given in the areas in which these offices are to be closed?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I cannot speak specifically as to the notice in the hon. member's riding, but I do know that somewhere between 50 and 100 notices in this regard have been sent out in the course of the last three or four months.


James Russell Keays: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the minister to look into this matter further, because it is not one riding that is concerned but four ridings in the lower St. Lawrence, and in none of them has notice been given.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I have assured the hon. member that I will draw his observations to the attention of the commission.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the statement made by Mr. Ian Sinclair, president of the Canadian Pacific Railway, that any striking railway workers who fail to go back to work for the Canadian Pacific Railways may lose their pension rights, will he consider drawing to Mr. Sinclair's attention the law on this subject as set out in the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I will be pleased to do so, Mr. Speaker.



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I should like to ask whether there has been any diminution in the amount in the federal old age security fund since July 15, contrary to information previously acquired from his department.


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I think this is a matter for the Minister of Finance.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Then could I ask the Minister of Finance the same question?
7796	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to suggest that any question at this time should be put on the order paper, because of the very special character of the sittings, but it appears to me that it is statistical information for which the hon. member for Grey-Bruce is now asking and I wonder whether the question should be allowed. I should not think so.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether he intends to table at the earliest possible moment a copy of the report by Commissioner Spence, which I understand he now has.


Lester Bowles Pearson: My hon. friend is misinformed, Mr. Speaker. I have not that report.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Has the Prime Minister any information as to when it may be available?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have no definite information, Mr. Speaker. The Privy Council office have been making inquiries from time to time.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence which I think is of absolute urgency and concerns a matter that requires clarification. Would the minister inform this house whether in respect of officers of the armed services giving evidence before the defence committee of the House of Commons it is correct that their presentations are received by him and censored before they are allowed to be made to the committee of the House of Commons?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: No, Mr. Speaker. I do not believe in censorship any more than my hon. friend does. He was present in the committee and knows that there was no restriction whatever in respect of the questions asked and the answers given.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: May I put a
supplementary question to the Minister of Na-

DEBATES	August 30, 1966
tional Defence? I should like to ask the minister whether he has noted the regulation prohibiting members of the armed forces to speak French in the air force shops?
What are the department's intentions concerning this regulation?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: To the best of my knowledge there is no such regulation but I can assure my hon. friend that if there is, this is one of the things that will be changed.


Gilles Grégoire: Another supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
In view of the fact that such a regulation has been posted at the Bagotville airport, could not the minister inquire whether such a regulation exists within the Canadian army?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, but I understand that was in the air force, Mr. Speaker.


Gilles Grégoire: This applies to the army and the navy.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I desired to ask a supplementary question before the previous question was asked. I am afraid I did not get an answer to my question. I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence, in view of what he just said, whether the information given by a now retired vice admiral that his presentation to the defence committee, made in camera, was censored and certain parts cut out before he made that presentation, is correct. Can we have a direct answer as to whether that was done?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to answer all the questions in respect of this matter when the committee meets.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Churchill:: Answer it now.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: At that time perhaps my hon. friend would like to call the admiral and ask him any additional questions he might care to put. If he will check the evidence that was given the day the maritime commander appeared before the committee, he will find that in his testimony he did give figures with respect to manpower and recruiting, and there was no limitation whatsoever in respect of the questions or the answers.
August 30, 1966	COMMONS


Harold Edward Winch: A supplementary question,
please, Mr. Speaker. This is not an answer to my question. I asked, was anything cut out prior to the presentation? Can we now have an answer yes or no from the Minister of National Defence?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The answer is yes.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The admiral deleted from his original text two or three references to friendly nations which it was felt would have had rather serious consequences to Canadian external affairs had they been made to the committee.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Were there any portions of the admirable brief-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: -of the admiral's brief, in explanation or exculpation of that slip of the tongue, it was an admirable brief; but in the admirable brief-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: I understand perfectly.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Were there any portions of the admiral's brief with reference to personnel matters and morale which the minister indicated should be within the purview only of the chief of personnel?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I did not make any such indication. I think it was an admirable presentation, and my hon. friend should re-read it.


David Réal Caouette: My question follows that put to the Minister of National Defence a minute ago by the hon. member for Lapointe concerning the use of French at Bagotville.
The minister replied that there is no regulation prohibiting the use of the French language in the army, but he said a minute ago that in the air force it was probably possible that the use of French could be prohibited.
I should like to inquire of the minister whether he is inclined to take measures so that in Quebec at least, the use of French be respected and recognized even in the Royal Canadian Air Force.
DEBATES	7797
Inquiries of the Ministry


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That is what we are attempting to accomplish. It is difficult in respect of this particular question, which I should like to take as notice; but every effort is being made to make those members of the armed forces who come from the province of Quebec more at home in the armed forces and to permit them to use their own language on a greater variety of occasions.
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the minister of defence a very simple question. Did he read the copyright story by Admiral Landymore which appeared in the Toronto Star on July 23 and which reads as follows:
The section on personnel-wherein I described the actual state of affairs in my command-was thoroughly censored and rewritten-
The excuse given me for the censorship was that the minister wanted to take a positive approach to the hearings and that mine was too negative.
Is this true or is it not?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: So far as my giving instructions is concerned, Mr. Speaker, it is not.


An hon. Member:: Who is in charge of the department?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the
Minister of National Defence whether he is in charge and the man of authority in his department, or does that authority rest with someone else?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I have to accept the responsibility for all the actions that were taken.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question is not in order.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Can he tell us what delay is expected before the deficiency payments will be made to cream shippers?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I have been assured that all the cheques for the first three months to plants that have duly reported under the new program-some of the plants may not have reported-will be out on September 1.
7798	COMMONS
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters GRAIN



WHEAT-REQUEST FOR HIGHER INITIAL PAYMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the current market situation, which appears to guarantee sales for all the grain that can be handled this year at 40 or 50 cents over the initial price, is the Canadian Wheat Board considering raising the initial price to producers on delivery to country elevators?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, such an increase can only be made by the governor in council under the Canadian Wheat Board Act, and various representations have been received from various quarters on this subject. The matter is mder consideration.


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganlic):: On a
supplementary question I would like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he could give us the approximate date on which we can expect a report from the governor in council. Can that information be included in the return to the question asked by the hon. member from Medicine Hat?



MAINTENANCE OF RAILWAY OPERATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, August 29, consideration of the motion of Mr. Pearson for the second reading of Bill No. C-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.
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, lest anyone be misled by various references made by the C.B.C. to the effect that I would be speaking today and indicating that I had not spoken yet, I would draw the attention of the news department to yesterday's Hansard.
Today I intend to review just a few matters. I do not have anyone like Mr. Lee to write my speeches. We are faced with a very serious situation, a strike which the government of Canada knew, or should have known for weeks, was going to take place. They treated the matter in a casual and
[Mr. Greene.)
DEBATES	August 30, 1966
irresponsible manner. At no time was there any apparent realization of the tremendously adverse consequences which would follow. The government took the attitude that with a strike under way it would be an easier way of securing legislation through parliament than meeting the certainty of the strike in advance. We in parliament have a tremendous responsibility at this time. We must try to do something to meet the catastrophic possibilities that have followed the actions of a government which in this, as in so many other matters, refuses and has refused to face the facts.
We want the strike to end. In our opinion the two-faced attitude which the government has shown in this legislation will not assure that objective. When the vote has taken place and parliament decides that this legislation shall be the law of the land, all of us will join in calling upon all Canadians to respect and follow the law. To do otherwise would be to undermine the power and prestige of parliament. Parliament's prestige depends upon respect. No parliament worthy of its name will rubberstamp a bill which in its opinion will not be effective.
I will not go into the 6 per cent which is offered under this legislation for this year. However, I will say that the government, by ineptitude and failure to act, has contributed to the breathtaking growth of strikes. A few months ago it settled two strikes, or a potential one and an actual strike, by a carrot in the form of a 30 per cent increase under what I choose to call the Pearson formula. Under this legislation the government is substituting the big stick for the carrot. This kind of attitude on the part of the government cannot but cause differences within this nation.
We are asked to join the government in legislation that will provide further instability, uncertainty and division. One only had to see the government yesterday in the course of the debate to realize that it is in a state of panic, that it is frightened and fearful. It now places the problem before parliament and says: You deal with this in the way in which we want to deal with it. Within the last fortnight I offered on behalf of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition our fullest cooperation toward parliament being called at once before the strike vote became effective. There was no reaction to that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Such action would have the purpose of preventing the men from exercising their constitutional rights.


Michael Starr: What are you doing now?
August 30. 1966


John George Diefenbaker: We have now heard the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin).


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I say that of course the right to strike is part of the Bill of Rights of this country.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)


John George Diefenbaker: The Secretary of State for External Affairs talks of civil rights. I think he has heard the voice of labour from his constituency. I should like to be able to record some of the things that he has heard, even in that area which often hears nothing but what the hon. gentleman has achieved or has in mind. What he has said is very interesting. He was so anxious that all the processes of conciliation should take place. They have. There was ample time between the time the last procedure was completed and the day of the strike for parliament to have been called, but this government would not move. They wanted a strike. They would then be able to go forth in shining armour with a new courage recently assumed and bring about action.
I listened to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), as he spoke in his mellifluous tones to the people of the nation, blaming labour and everybody else but the government. The blame finally rests on a government that has failed to take any action to counter the most inflationary trend in history. The Prime Minister postpones decisions and refuses to act. Up and up and up go prices.
Surely the Prime Minister and the government in providing the 30 per cent formula realized that it would add to the fires of inflation. The Prime Minister said last evening that he had nothing to do with that. He looked in anger in my direction suggesting that I called it the Pearson formula. Does he deny it was the Pearson formula? I will describe that answer as being as convincing as if Einstein had denied that he was the father of Einstein's doctrine of relativity. It has been associated with him. Clearly and definitely the government created this situation. They played around and pussyfooted.
The Prime Minister from time to time dispensed daily bromides. The government was rudderless for days while the threat hung over Canada-that is the "diplomatic" approach. Problems do not solve themselves or disappear by neglect. The government then comes to parliament and produces a bill.
When I came into the house at the beginning of yesterday's session I believed that there would be something effective in this bill
7799
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters which would assure that, if passed by parliament, it would represent a solution to the problem. But what do we find, Mr. Speaker? The government has produced legislation that by no stretch of the imagination, even the imagination of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, will provide a fair deal in what is being asked from parliament by the government while the same time recognizing the interests of this nation.
We are in a crisis. That does not mean that members of parliament simply have to bow down before the ukase of a government that brought about in large measure the situation that has developed. Indeed, the whole situation was well summed up in an editorial in the Montreal Gazette of August 19 which stated:
Canada today has many crises. But the greatest crisis of all is the feeling across the country that the government of Canada is in a curious suspense. An absence rather than a presence, a source of inertia rather than a source of energy, a vagueness rather than a guidance.
That sums up the situation very well. That is the feeling of Canadians. In every part of the nation there has been failure to take action dealing with inflation, failure to place the facts before parliament.
Yesterday the Prime Minister answered me with directness. Today he had to have his words interpreted by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) so as to tell the House of Commons what the Prime Minister meant when he said what he said. The government does not know where it is going. His answer yesterday was clear and unequivocal, and no amount of playing with words can explain why the Prime Minister of Canada should say that actions were being taken along the line I asked about and then today one of his ministers vicariously gives the answer that they are not.
Is it any wonder, Mr. Speaker, that when the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh) was abroad visiting Australia she made a certain statement in an interview? Far-off thinking sometimes has clarity. What she said was reported in the press under the heading "Miss LaMarsh Fears Canada May Copy U.K. Economic Woes". She went on to say when speaking at a National Press Club luncheon, that recent measures to slow down the economy-she is talking of Canada-may be too little and have been applied at the wrong time and that stronger measures are necessary.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: And where are they?
August 30, 1966
7800	COMMONS
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters


Miss LaMarsh:: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the right hon. gentleman would not want to leave on the record anything which was incorrect. I think he should know that that story was at once denied from Australia. It did not appear there, although my speech was made in front of all the members of the press gallery in that country. It was denied to the only representative of the press of Canada who got in touch with me in Australia, and I understand a retraction appeared the next day.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. lady says that the story was denied and the retraction appeared the next day. I would ask that she table the retraction.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: I should very much like to see it, because that retraction certainly did not receive the prominence that her statement, which was published not only in Canada but in the United Kingdom, did.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: They never do.


John George Diefenbaker: There has been failure to take action and failure to realize that action was necessary. There has been failure to act, lethargy, uncertainty, division in the cabinet-and I could deal with that at some length.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, you are an expert on it.


John George Diefenbaker: Some members over
there even left, and I understand there are others who feel like doing so.


Mr. Robichaud:: That is not so.


John George Diefenbaker: I will not mention the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Robichaud) because I understand he may be going to a higher place. The very smile on his face indicates that he is shortly to be elevated to that place from whose bourn no one has yet returned.
Returning once more to the facts, I point out that all through the weeks from July 15 on the government was warned that there would be a strike. On July 15 The Canadian Transportation magazine had this to say:
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
Parliament soon to adjourn-
It will take at least four or five days to bring the wandering M.P.'s back from their summer cottages and hideouts, and perhaps another two or three days to pass the required legislation. That means the strike will last from five days to a week.
It could conceivably last longer, of course, if the non-op unions decide to defy the legislation. The


government doesn't think they will. The consensus of the Pearson cabinet is that the week or so on the picket lines will take most of the steam out of the militants among the railway employees, and that they will be more than ready to heed the back-to-work legislation.
We got no action, only postponement. Then the government produced the bill that was placed before us yesterday. I have not heard of anyone affected by it who gives it even tacit approval. We want the strike to end. We want the government to take effective action that will be fair and equitable. Indeed, the matter was summed up in an editorial in the Toronto Daily Star of August 27 which reads as follows:
The strike which now grips the nation's railways was first invited by the Pearson government, which then acted too late to prevent it.
Ottawa invited the railway crisis in June when it approved wage and benefit increases of more than 30 per cent to settle the Quebec longshoremen's strike and the seaway workers' claims.
It took until yesterday for the Prime Minister to deny this. The editorial continues:
If the railwaymen defied Parliament on such a settlement, they would forfeit their claim to public sympathy.
The settlement being one that is fair and just.
We must trust that, if parliament deals justly with them, they will react sensibly.
I intend to say something about that, something that should have been said by the Prime Minister himself. When he spoke last evening to the Canadian people he should have said something on the subject that above all else is of prime importance at this time.
My life was at the bar. The rule of law must be maintained or our democracy will cease. At this time more than any other the Prime Minister should have told the people of Canada when he spoke yesterday that a breakdown of law and order is taking place. The philosophy is being supported that laws deserving to be broken can be broken, that laws with which individuals disagree can be evaded by direct or indirect action. If we ever accept that proposition, our democracy is gone.
There is a growing problem of disrespect for the law. When parliament has a bill before it such as this, it must be scrupulously careful that the legislation is not of so coercive a nature as to arouse antagonism and worse. The law must have the support of the people as a whole. That is so in regard to matters affecting each of us personally.
August 30, 1986

On the flag question I took a strong position. Parliament acted, and I have accepted the decision of parliament. Sir, if we come to a situation, by reason of the conduct of a government that is irresponsible in its attitude, where disobedience of the law is brought about, we will have the end of civilized society.
I have said before that those in the ranks of labour, and I have acted for them, are law-abiding. But some in those ranks are aroused today by the cavalier methods adopted by this government. I do not like to say this but the facts must be frankly faced. This government today lacks the moral power to lead the nation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: They have failed in this and in so many matters to meet their responsibilities. There are individual ministers who do not come within that category. But in the solidarity or lack of solidarity of the cabinet, there has been a failure of leadership and panic at the last moment.
I say to the government that in every part of the world the psychology of lawlessness and disregard of the law is expanding. There are some today who believe they can flout the law for their own ends when the occasion demands. I want parliament, and I implore the government of the day even now, to bring about amendments to this bill as it stands so that there will not be aroused within this nation a feeling of disrespect for parliament and for the legislation passed by parliament.
It is a serious thing, perhaps the most serious matter that democracies have to face, that in so many countries many are coming to believe that there is no great wrong in ignoring or flouting the law so long as it can be justified on the basis of a personal conviction that the law is wrong. Sir, there is a way to change a law that is believed to be wrong and bad and that is not by breaking it but by changing the law at its source.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I was disappointed yesterday in the Prime Minister's speech because he did not then, or when addressing the nation, place before the people of Canada the position that whatever the situation may be, a law will not be passed by parliament unless that law meets those principles of equity and justice that ought to emanate from parliament, the fountain of justice.
23033-494*
DEBATES	7801
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters [DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
The government asks for co-operation. I offered that co-operation and it was spurned, not receiving even the acknowledgement of passing approval. The government went ahead on its own. It got itself into a mess. It got the Canadian economy into a serious impasse. Now it comes before parliament and says: "Whatever we present to you you have to accept. Th s is what we want done regardless of the equity". That is not the spirit in which problems like this are solved. I say this because I have been greatly concerned over suggestions by various individuals, including one within parliament speaking outside parliament, that the flouting of a law which is not agreeable is permissible and even admirable.
I hope this parliament will act. I disagree with the manner in which the government has acted. This legislation should be redrawn to give justice and equity. In its present form it cannot but result in further divisions within this nation. Sir, I love this institution. Let us not do anything here which will give the slightest encouragement to those who preach the doctrine of civil disobedience. Let us carefully avoid adding fuel to the fires of lawlessness and contempt for the law which are smouldering, not only in our own country, but in other democracies. Even yet, take back this legislation in its present form.
I say to those sitting opposite: You must realize now that it is not workable in the manner in which you have drafted it. Let us work together to secure a fair and equitable law. I am sorry to say I cannot designate this bill as belonging in that category. Let us work together to secure a fair and equitable challenge the Canadian people, those directly and indirectly affected, to support it. We in Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition do not intend to make any further speeches on the subject until we get into committee in the event that the house gives this legislation second reading. Disagreeing with the bill, condemning the government which has brought forth this monstrosity, we still say that, if it becomes law, it requires the support of us all because it will then be a decision of parliament, however much we disagree with it.
We tried to co-operate, and for two weeks our attempts were spurned. We are prepared to do so now if the government, in a spirit of co-operation, is willing to withdraw this legislation in its present form. As it now stands it resembles one of the laws of the
August 30, 1966
7802	COMMONS DEBATES
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters Medes and Persians. We must bring about a law which will be effective.
I fear that this bill, if passed, will lead to divisions within this nation and help to undermine respect for parliament, something which must be maintained. I know this is asking a lot, but surely the government now appreciates the fact that its indolence and uncertainty, its refusal to face facts when they should have been faced, have brought this nation to a serious position. I say also to the government of Canada: If you are not prepared to co-operate in bringing about a law which will be effective and fair, do not try to condemn those of us who want to see a law on the statute books which will be effective for taking a strong stand when presented with a bill which in our opinion can only cause dissension, strife and separation within the various areas of our nation and spell trouble, difficulty and uncertainty in the days ahead.
Look over the legislation. I have already made some suggestions. We have not yet been told whether the government might give consideration to some of them. I do not intend to repeat them; I referred to them last evening. Provide some fringe benefits. Why have members opposite forgotten the Freedman report? Is it in a pigeonhole along with the other reports which have died a natural death since this government came to office?
Give these people, men and women who work in this nation, some of these fringe benefits. Give them a degree of security of tenure, which they seek, something which goes far beyond the amount of the actual payment made for work done. There is nothing of this in the bill before the house. There is simply a declaration that this is to be the law, 6 per cent for 1966, with nothing on the Freedman recommendations whatsoever. Add some of these things to the bill. Bring about a feeling, as between labour and the nation, that we are interested in their welfare. You will find there is a favourable reaction. I know this.
I have talked to the man who works and to his wife who runs the home-and, remember, there are no earnings when a strike is on. They speak of these things, the little things, the amenities. They ask for changes in regard to those things which make it difficult for them to be as comfortable as otherwise they would be. Make those changes. Incorporate them. Do not let us have this picayune attitude regarding health benefits, holidays and sickness leave. These are amenities, these are

social security measures which the workers should have. Give them some of these things. Show that we think and feel for them. If we do this we shall bring about a new spirit within this nation.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I fear for my country with legislation like this. We in Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition want to end the strike. We will do anything to assist if the government on its part will show some consideration for these things that are necessary. I know there are some who say, "Why, they are getting so much now." That has always been the story, but taxes today eat up a great portion. The percentage of taxes today over all the areas of government is, I think, approximately 50 per cent.
The cost of living mounts every day and the government sits as a spectator taking the view that something is going to turn up and it is going to be all right. This government will bear a tremendous responsibility before history if it does not now begin to realize that what is being presented here is a bill of such harshness, without those amenities that could easily be granted, that it arouses antagonism. The amenities I mentioned a moment ago are the fringe benefits.
Even yet I hope the government will act. We cannot as an opposition, having implored the government to do something to end the strike-we demanded it should be stopped even before it began-we cannot, under those circumstances, be placed in a position where, without reconsideration by the government, we can give the legislation that support which we would want to give.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr):
That all the words after "that" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
This house declines to proceed with the second reading of a bill, the provisions of which, in their wide departure from the terms of the report of Mr. Justice Munroe, Chairman of the Conciliation Board, and in their failure to give any assurance of an equitable solution of the problems of fringe benefits or any directions as to the implementation of the Freedman report, do not provide an adequate solution of the current impasse.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a point of order with respect to the regularity of the amendment which has been moved by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition.
The principle of this bill is to provide for the resumption of the operations of the railways in Canada. The main purpose of the bill
August 30. 1966
COMMONS DEBATES	7803
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters
is given in the title, and it has been demonstrated, both in the speech by the Prime Minister and in the speech by the Leader of the Opposition, that this is the principle of the bill. It is a well-established rule of the house that any amendment on second reading must declare a principle that is opposed to the principle of the bill under discussion. In other words, the amendment must assert a principle that is opposite to the principle in the bill.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What authority are you relying on?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: If the hon. member wishes me to refer to citations, among others there is citation 382 in Beauchesne:
It is also competent to a member who desires to place on record any special reasons for not agreeing to the second reading of a bill, to move as an amendment to the question, a resolution declaratory of some principle adverse to, or differing from, the principles, policy, or provisions of the bill-
There are other citations which make the proposition even clearer that an amendment on second reading, in order to be declared regular, must directly oppose the principle provided for in the bill. The main principle here is to establish the resumption of railway operations, and I suggest on that ground that the amendment moved by the right hon. gentleman does not meet the provisions of the rules of the house.
I would raise a further objection to the amendment, namely, that there is also a procedural necessity involved in that in moving an amendment on second reading it is not possible to anticipate amendments that may be moved in the committee of the whole. I refer to citation 389 in Beauchesne:
A motion opposing the second reading of a bill must not anticipate amendments which may be moved in committee. Alterations which may be affected by amending the clauses of the bill cannot be moved on the second reading. On the 8th March, 1934, when the motion for the second reading of an act to incorporate the Bank of Canada was under consideration, a member moved in amendment "that all the words after 'that' be struck out and the following substituted therefor-
Farther on the citation reads:
The Speaker ruled the proposed amendment out of order because clauses of the bill provided that the stock in the bank be allotted to the public and mat the directors be appointed by the shareholders, ihe member could serve his purpose by moving amendments to those clauses in committee on the bill.
I suggest there is one term selected from the report of Mr. Justice Munroe, namely, the wage term, which is included in the clauses
of the bill, and it is open to the Leader of the Opposition to vary that particular clause by amendment in committee. It is open to him to achieve the same purpose in committee, but in this amendment he is really asserting that there is a wide departure from the terms of the report of Mr. Justice Munroe. I contest that as an inaccurate statement. However, it is not relevant to the argument on procedure. If there is a wide departure from the terms of the report then it is open to the right hon. gentleman to close the gap or remove the departure by moving an amendment in committee. So I suggest on that ground that the amendment as put forward by the Leader of the Opposition is deficient.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I believe that the same argument could be raised with respect to other items in the amendment, but I simply assert that the amendment does not declare any principle contrary to the main principle of the bill, which is to resume railway operations. That is the first point. If that point is not persuasive enough, I submit that any of the terms posed in the amendment can be effected by possible amendments at the committee stage of the bill. I suggest that for this reason also the amendment moved by the right hon. gentleman is deficient.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, in respect of the argument advanced by the Minister of National Health and Welfare I should like to refer first to the first citation quoted, namely 382. He appeared to take the position that the only amendment which could be moved was an amendment asserting a principle which is diametrically opposite to the principle in the bill. In so far as he has based his position on citation 382 he has completely misconstrued that citation, because citation 382 at page 277 of Beauchesne, fourth edition, starts with the words "it is also competent to a member." Nothing could make it clearer that this is but one of the alternatives available to members of this house in moving amendments and not, as the minister suggested, the only kind of amendment that can be moved.
In support of the propriety of the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition I should like to refer Your Honour to what I am sure you will regard as a very convincing, if not indeed binding authority, namely, an amendment moved by the present Prime Minister when leader of the opposition, on November 30, 1960, as found on page 350 of Hansard of that date. At that time the house
Augusi 30, 1966

Legislation Respecting Railway Matters had before it consideration of railway legislation introduced by the government of that day dealing with an industrial dispute. This was legislation to postpone that dispute and continue the operation of the railway.
At the end of his speech the then leader of the opposition, now Prime Minister, moved an amendment. This was during the debate on second reading in which he put forward the position and the attitude of the then Liberal opposition. The amendment is as follows:
This house declines to proceed with the second reading of a bill the provisions of which establish a compulsory and discriminatory wage freeze for railway employees contrary to the recommendation for a wage increase made by a board of conciliation appointed under the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act.
That was the sum total of the amendment. Later in the discussion concerning the admissibility of the amendment it was pointed out that it did not contain the operative words with which any such amendment must be introduced, namely, "that all the words of the motion after 'that' be deleted and the following substituted therefor". Mr. Speaker Michener, the Speaker of that day, ruled that this was a technical omission and in effect, with the consent of the house, added those preliminary words and then allowed the motion to stand, to be debated, and to be voted on.
Your Honour will appreciate that the amendment which has first been submitted to the house by the Leader of the Opposition is, in so far as the technicalities or legalities of it are concerned, practically on all fours not in substance but procedurally in relation to the motion for second reading-with the amendment which was sustained by the Speaker of that day.
In so far as the argument is concerned that the content of the amendment could be moved at various stages in committee of the whole an argument based on the principle ennunciated that amendments on second reading should not be in a form which can be made in committee of the whole-I should like to point out that the strict application of that ruling would apply also to the amendment of 1960. One could have made a technical argument that the content of that amendment might have been made as an amendment to a clause in committee.
Your Honour, however, knows the difficulty involved in moving amendments in committee. In committee you cannot assert a general

principle; you must move a specific amendment strictly related to the section under discussion. So I would say now that just as that argument was not used and did not apply with respect to the amendment of 1960, it is not applicable to the amendment moved today.
On the basis of the precedent that was established by the attitude and the conduct of this house itself just six years ago, I have no hesitation in submitting to Your Honour that this amendment is in order and has been sanctioned by the house itself.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I too should like to say a few words in support of the validity of the amendment moved by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition. In just a sentence may I emphasize the strength of the argument used by the hon. member for Kamloops in drawing your attention to the amendment that was moved on November 30, 1960, by the right hon. gentleman who now is the Prime Minister of Canada, an amendment practically the same in form as the one now proposed. That amendment was allowed by the Speaker of that day and voted on by the house. It does seem to me that Your Honour will have to give serious consideration to the weight of that precedent.
The second point I should like to make relates also to the use-if I may say so, I think frequently the misuse-that is made of citation 382. The Minister of National Health and Welfare reads citation 382 as though every qualification mentioned therein has to be met by an amendment of this character. I draw Your Honour's attention to the fact that the word "or" appears half a dozen times. In other words, there are several different things that an amendment of this kind may do, even if it does only one of them, and be in order under the provisions of citation 382.
It is not necessary in all cases for such an amendment to be moved by one who is completely opposed to second reading of the bill. I happen to be opposed to second reading of the present bill as it now stands, but it seems to me that has no relevance to the question of whether or not the amendment is in order. If it is an amendment which states a resolution declaratory of some principle adverse to or differing from the principles, policy or provisions of the bill, it is in order. On the other hand, if it is an amendment which expresses opinions as to any circumstances connected with its introduction or prosecution, it is in order, or if it is otherwise
Augusi 30, 1966	COMMONS
opposed to the progress of the bill it is in order.
I submit that the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition does express opposition to the progress of this bill just as the amendment of the present Prime Minister did in 1960. So far as citation 382 is concerned, far from its being one to quote in opposition to this amendment it is precisely one to quote in support of its validity.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
The third point I should like to draw to Your Honour's attention is the manner in which the Minister of National Health and Welfare has tried to have it both ways. He argued that it is not possible to raise matters such as the Freedman report and other things of that kind on second reading because they are not relevant to the bill and therefore they cannot be the subject of an amendment on second reading.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I did not say that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister said precisely that there was no reference in the bill to the Freedman report and therefore it would not be relevant to move an amendment of this kind on second reading. Then he turned around and said it would be possible to do so during the committee stage.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I said exactly the reverse. I said an amendment or change sought during second reading, including anything in reference to the Freedman report, could be achieved during the committee stage.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister is demonstrating the point I am trying to make. When he was arguing about the kind of amendments that can be moved on second reading he said this would not be possible because the Freedman report was not mentioned in the bill. He then said that when we reached the committee stage amendments of this kind could be moved. I suggest the minister cannot have it both ways. Either the amendment is relevant or it is not relevant.
So far as the Freedman report is concerned,
I submit there is a reference to the matters dealt with in the Freedman report in the bill in that it refers to the issues in dispute between the companies and the employees. Therefore I submit it would be appropriate to deal with this report by amendment on second reading. I submit, as a matter of fact, that when we reach committee stage we will
DEBATES	7805
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters be faced with all kinds of difficulties about details that are somewhat removed from the specific details in the clauses of the bill, but that we have an opportunity to press points of principle when we are debating the principle of the bill on second reading.
I submit there is no question as to the propriety of the amendment at this stage and that we may have difficulty importing new ideas into the bill when we reach clause by clause consideration of it. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, without spelling it out at any length I submit that on these three counts, because of the fact that the amendment moved on November 30, 1960, by the present Prime M.nister was allowed as being in order, because of the authority set out in citation 382, and because of the fact that on second reading we are dealing with matters of principle, we should have the right to vote on the declaration of principle put forward in the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in arguing in support of the regularity of this amendment reference was made to the amendment to second reading of the 1960 bill which was moved, as it happened, by myself. As hon. members know, that particular bill prevented workers from exercising the right to strike and, over a period of six months, froze their wages. No increase was given and wages were frozen. Our amendment at that time provided for a wage rate, if such a step were taken, and the wage rate was in accordance with the majority report of the conciliation board. There was a difference in principle. On the other side there was a suggested wage freeze while on this side there was a suggested wage increase.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister a question? How long is it since he has read his amendment of 1960-because it did no such thing as he has claimed.


Lester Bowles Pearson: You do not like to be reminded of the facts.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You should state your facts accurately.


Mr. Turner:: Mr. Speaker, in addressing myself to the point of order I should like to draw Your Honour's attention to citation 393 of Beauchesne, fourth edition, and specifically
August 30, 1966

Legislation Respecting Railway Matters to all three paragraphs. The first reads in part as follows:
An amendment purporting to approve the principle of a bill and at the same time enunciating a declaration of policy cannot be moved to the second reading. It must oppose the principle of the bill.
The second paragraph reads:
An amendment to the second reading of a bill which accepts in part the principle of the bill and suggests that it may be improved by provisions which can only be moved in committee of the whole is out of order.
The third paragraph reads:
An amendment which is not adverse to the principle of a bill but proposes that certain provisions be added to the bill cannot be moved on the motion for second reading.
The principle of this bill is to provide for the resumption of the operations of the railways and the early settlement of existing disputes.


William Heward Grafftey: That is not what the Prime Minister just said.


John Napier Turner: There is nothing in the amendment introduced by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition which is adverse to or attacks the principle of the bill. All it does is add certain provisions which in the opinion of the official opposition would improve the provisions of the bill, namely, the incorporation of further items of the Munroe and Freedman reports.
I submit to Your Honour that if that is the opinion of the opposition hon. members will have an opportunity to append suggestions such as they are now making when dealing with the individual clauses of the bill, and I refer specifically to clause 6 regarding the Munroe report and clause 10 and other clauses regarding the Freedman report. With the greatest respect, they cannot have things both ways. They cannot in fact approve the principle of the bill, which I am sure everyone approves, that is, to achieve the resumption of the operations of the railways, a cessation of the strike and a settlement of the dispute, and at the same time move an amendment to the declaratory principle. That can quite appropriately be done during the committee stage when we are dealing with the clauses of the bill.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I think we have to look at the first few words of the proposed amendment of the Leader of the Opposition which state:
This house declines to proceed with the second reading of a bill-

The amendment then goes on to spell out a number of reasons why the house should decline to proceed. It seems to me that if the amendment were passed it would have the effect of killing the bill. There is no doubt in my mind about that. The Leader of the Opposition went on to suggest that the government should come forward with a new bill.
It is my opinion that we must also decide whether or not, on the basis of the arguments that have been advanced up to this point, the purpose of the bill is the same as the principle of the bill. I suggest it is not. Surely the purpose of the bill is to put into effect an act which would result in a resumption of the operations of the railways. It seems to me that the principle of the bill involves more than simply that. It involves the manner in which this is to be done.
In the citation referred to by the Minister without Portfolio, citation 393, particularly paragraphs 2 and 3, it is very clearly stated that an amendment to the second reading of a bill which accepts in part the principle of the bill and suggests that it may be improved by other provisions is not in order but must be moved at the committee stage during the consideration of the particular clauses which are disagreeable.
Paragraph 3 of that citation states:
An amendment which is not adverse to the principle of a bill but proposes that certain provisions be added to the bill cannot be moved on the motion for second reading.
The last three sentences of citation 386 are as follows:
The house cannot both refuse to give the second reading and refer some provisions of the bill to a committee. It shall have to make its choice. The amendment was ruled out.
I suggest that the question Your Honour must decide is whether there will be anything left to proceed with if this amendment is accepted. I suggest that the amendment will completely kill the bill if accepted and therefore is not in order at this stage.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Mr. Bell (Carleion):: Mr. Speaker, may I submit very briefly that the whole matter is set forth with great clarity at page 530 of the 16th edition of May. This type of amendment falls within the definition of what is called a "reasoned amendment" in the House at Westminster. May says at page 530:
A reasoned amendment is placed on the paper In the form of a motion and may fall into one of several categories.
August 30, 1966

Then he mentions these three, each of which is alternative:
1.	It may be declaratory of some principle adverse to, or differing from, the principles, policy or provisions of the bill.
I emphasize "the principles, policy or provisions of the bill." These categories are in each case alternative and in fact are very similar to those contained in citation 382 of Beauchesne. Then May says:
2.	It may express opinions as to any circumstances connected with the introduction or prosecution of the bill, or otherwise opposed to its progress.
3.	It may seek further information in relation to the bill by committees, commissioners, the production of papers or other evidence.
For each of these three alternatives there is ample authority in the footnotes. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that here you have an alternative situation, that the amendment moved by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition in fact falls within No. 1 and that if it does not fall within No. 1 it certainly falls within No. 2.


Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, I have listened attentively to the comments of the hon. members and of the ministers on the amendment moved by the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker).
I was particularly impressed by the argument that the purpose of amendment is not contrary to the principles of the bill. In fact, the bill under consideration is divided into three parts. The bill suggests, first of all, a suspension of the railroad strike, second, an increase in wages and third, the institution of binding arbitration.
These are the three principles. What is being suggested in the amendment? No purposes are being suggested contrary either to the suspension of the strike or to the wage increase or to binding arbitration.
This is an amendment that adds something and much more could be added. In fact, I am surprised to find it so short. A lot of things could be added to make it into an amendment encompassing other items. And if the government had not yesterday introduced another bill on the implementation of the recommendations of the MacPherson commission, I would not have been surprised if it had been added to the amendment that has been introduced.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I think this amendment should be rejected because it is out of order
DEBATES	7807
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters and it will only delay the business of the house while Canada is losing $15 million a day. We should deal with the bill at the earliest possible moment.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, we could probably spend two days listening to the pros and cons of the amendment without reaching an agreement. We could listen to citations, have recourse to precedents established in the past, and all this would still not settle the matter. The hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard) has just said that this amendment is not at all in keeping with the principles of the bill under consideration, but only adds to the bill. Reading it, I do not see that the amendment adds anything to the bill; its result would be rather, as the member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) said earlier, to kill the bill, since in fact the amendment introduced by the Leader of the Opposition simply says that the bill does not provide an adequate solution to the present deadlock.
The Leader of the Opposition is not suggesting or adding anything by this amendment, as the member for Sherbrooke said earlier, it merely serves to delay the study of the bill.
Now, I think that the principles of the bill are, first and foremost, to put an end to the railway strike. Those principles must be adhered to and if the Leader of the Opposition wants to move an amendment against the principles of the bill designed to end the strike, he should then move an amendment other than the one now before us.
To sum up, Mr. Speaker, this amendment is meaningless. It would be a waste of time to call a vote on this matter. If the Leader of the Opposition has nothing else to submit, at least he should let us discuss the bill and refrain from moving such amendements.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I simply wish to ask for some information The first words of the amendment are as follows:
That all the words after "that" be struck out and the following substituted therefor.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in the bill before us, the word "that" appears at least 75 times, and I should like to know after which "that" the words are to be struck out and the following added. Knowing this, we shall then be enlightened as to the scope of the amendment. Could the Leader of the Opposition give us an answer?
August 30, 1966
7808	COMMONS
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters [English]


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am in a position now to express an opinion with regard to the very interesting arguments which have been put forward to enlighten the Chair. Perhaps I may deal first with the objection just raised by the hon. member for Lapointe.

The motion provides that the bill be not read a second time. The amendment does not refer to the bill itself but to the motion for second reading. I believe there is only one "that" in this motion.

The objections raised by the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister without Portfolio were, of course, of a very serious nature and require appropriate consideration. I have also taken into account all the arguments put forth by other members of the house. I might say right now, to relieve the anxiety of some hon. members, that I feel the amendment should be accepted for a number of reasons.
The first objection raised by the Minister of National Health and Welfare and supported by the Minister without Portfolio was that this is a reasoned amendment and that a reasoned amendment must be declaratory of a principle adverse to or opposed to the principles of the bill. This objection has been answered effectively, I believe, by the hon. member for Kamloops and the hon. member for Carleton in that this is only one of the several possible forms of a reasoned amendment.
There is an enumeration, as stated in May's 17th edition at page 527, of the several forms of this type of amendment. The first is:
It may be declaratory of some principle adverse to, or differing from, the principles, policy or provisions of the bill.
Then we find:
2.	It may express opinions as to any circumstances connected with the introduction or prosecution of the bill, or otherwise opposed to its progress.
3.	It may seek further information in relation to the bill by committees, commissioners, the production of papers or other evidence.
The Minister without Portfolio referred to citation 393 of Beauchesne, which seems to be in contradiction to May. This matter was brought to my attention on a number of occasions previously, namely, that there was obviously a contradiction between May and Beauchesne. Consequently a search was made
CMr. Gregoire.]

of the authorities upon which citation 393 of Beauchesne was based. This search was not too fruitful. It seems that citations 393 (1), (2) and (3) of Beauchesne constitute the rule as it existed perhaps some years ago. However, it has not been followed more recently. I suggest to hon. members that the rule which should be followed is as expressed in May's 17th edition.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
The other serious objection submitted by the hon. ministers, which was supported, of course, by other hon. members, was that an amendment must not be concerned with the provisions of the bill upon which it is moved nor anticipate amendments thereto which may be moved in committee. In relation to this particular objection, the amendment appears to be a borderline case.
Hon. members are aware of the citation in the 17 th edition of May's Parliamentary Practice, page 528, which reads as follows:
The amendment must not be concerned in detail with the provisions of the bill.
I feel there is a distinction to be drawn here. In my opinion this amendment does not refer in detail to the provisions of the bill before the house. For this reason I think I can feel free not to accept the objection of the ministers to the amendment.
We have before us a reasoned amendment and the principle of a reasoned amendment is set out very clearly in Abraham and a Hawtrey's Parliamentary Dictionary at page 162, which states in very clear terms what a reasoned amendment is. It reads:
This form of amendment seeks . . . either to give reasons why the house declines to give a second or third reading to the bill, or to express an opinion with regard to its subject matter or to the policy which the bill is intended to fulfil.
This language is extremely general in nature and I believe would include the type of amendment which has been moved by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition.
Lastly, it has been brought to my attention that an amendment in many ways similar from a procedural standpoint was moved in 1960 and accepted at the time. I believe there is no substantial procedural distinction between the two amendments.
For all these reasons and from the procedural standpoint I accept the amendment moved by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, there can be no doubt that the present railway strike constitutes a crisis for
August 30, 1966	COMMONS
this nation. There can be no doubt that it is having serious repercussions not only upon the travelling public but also upon the primary producers and on the jobs of thousands of workers who depend for employment on parts and materials which are shipped by rail. Consequently, this house is properly seized of the importance of dealing with this matter.
It seems to me equally true that there is no doubt as to why we face this serious crisis. This is one of the government's chickens that has come to roost. The government's failure to cope with the problem of the maldistribution of our national income, the fact that the government has done nothing about profiteering and soaring prices charged the consumers of Canada, have had an adverse affect upon the farmers, the fishermen, the workers, and particularly upon those who have to live on fixed incomes. Moreover, there has been no serious attempt to avert this strike. There has been no genuine bargaining on the part of the railway companies when one realizes that bargaining began ten months ago and that in all that period of time the railways have not made a single offer of settlement to the employees.
The other evening on the national television the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) said that certainly the railway employees were entitled to an increase in wages. Both the Munroe and the Cameron commissions said that the employees were entitled to an increase in wages. However, for ten months the railways have refused to acknowledge that any increase at all should be given to their employees. This has been ten months of frustration and resentment. It was inevitable that out of this feeling of frustration a strike would undoubtedly come.
Mr. Speaker, workers do not go on strike for fun. These particular unions, I understand, have no provisions for strike pay. Workers depend upon their weekly wages to support themselves and their families. It is only under the most extreme provocation that workers finally decide to walk the streets. The fact is that in this instance, as in previous railway strikes, the railway companies have deliberately invited a strike because they have used a national railway strike as a means of blackmailing the country into giving them increased revenue Repeatedly over the past half century the railway companies have stalled negotiations and provoked a strike so that parliament would have to intervene. Then they have sent the wage bill to
DEBATES	7809
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters parliament in the form of either asking for a government subsidy or asking parliament to sanction increases in freight rates. We might as well face the fact as to where the culprit is.
In this country the Canadian Pacific Railway has exploited its employees, milked Canadian shippers and raided the federal treasury ever since the day it was born. It has continued to do that throughout its history with the connivance of both the major political parties in this country. We have seen this ritual dance performed again and again. The railways stall, a strike takes place, hysteria is rampant, parliament rams through legislation, men go back to work, some settlement is imposed, and then parliament is told by the railways: You must give us more money to pay the wage bill which you have caused us to incur. This could be called the mating dance of avarice and expediency. Every step is carefully rehearsed and the conclusion is well known in advance. The one thing you can be sure of is that the public is the one that gets ravished.
Of course, the governments we have had, whether they were Liberal or Conservative, have each in turn condemned this practice when they were in opposition and practiced it when they were in office. In 1950 the St. Laurent government introduced com-plulsory arbitration to settle a national railway strike. This, of course, was opposed by the Conservative opposition.
In 1960, to prevent another national railway strike, the Diefenbaker government imposed compulsory arbitration, and the members who sit on the front bench to your right, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) waxed eloquent about this violation of civil rights and this denial of the basic freedom of collective bargaining. Now we have the same gentlemen introducing another compulsory arbitration law and it is being opposed vigorously by the same party which in 1960 introduced a similar measure.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
The unfortunate part about this ritualistic dance is that in every case the government in office at the time has allowed the situation to deteriorate to the point where hysteria and a crisis psychology put parliament in the position that it must pass compulsory legislation and put the Canadian people on the spot where they can be blackmailed into giving the railways more money. It is bad enough,
August 30, 1966
7810	COMMONS DEBATES
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters Mr. Speaker, to have the government's chickens coming home to roost, but it is worse when parliament has to deal with them and the Canadian people have to pay for them.
Over the years both the major political parties of this country have failed to introduce machinery for effective collective bargaining between the railways and their employees. They have allowed the railway companies to bamboozle both government and parliament into introducing compulsory arbitration and then into picking up the tab for any wage increases which may ensue.
Many labour leaders in Canada and the United States have been saying quite openly that the strike is outmoded as an industrial weapon in our modern society, that it has now become a blunt instrument which not only affects the economy but adversely affects even those who take part in it. The only way that strikes can be averted is to set up the kind of machinery that will prevent strikes and which will promote genuine collective bargaining on the part of both parties.
This is not impossible, Mr. Speaker. A country like Sweden has established economic stability without any denial of fundamental rights. That country has gone for more than a quarter of a century without a major strike because there has been provided both to management and labour effective machinery for negotiation and collective bargaining.
However, the Prime Minister may gift-wrap this bill, it is imposing compulsory arbitration. Earlier this afternoon the Secretary of State for External Affairs interrupted the Leader of the Opposition to say that the right to go on strike was a basic civil right. But according to the government, staying on strike is not a basic civil right. For them the right to bargain collectively as to wages, conditions of labour and the terms on which workers on strike will return to work is not a basic civil right. Under this bill the worker has not the right to stay on strike or the right to say under what terms and conditions he will go back to work.
I am opposed, Mr. Speaker, to compulsory arbitration. I do not think the government should have allowed itself to get into the impasse in which it now finds itself. But now parliament has no choice but to ask the railway workers to go back to work in the interests of the welfare of the public. In this as in any other case the national interest must take precedence. But that cannot justify trampling upon the basic rights of this group of workers or of any other group of workers. 
We in the New Democratic Party believe that it is possible to bring about a resumption of work while at the same time preserving the principle of free collective bargaining.
The government proposes to force the men back to work on the basis of a wage settlement of 4 per cent from January 1 and 4 per cent from July 1 of this year, which over the entire calendar year amounts to a 6 per cent increase. The government leaves the wages for 1967 to arbitration if an agreement is not reached as a result of negotiation. We might as well face the fact that any negotiation under a mediator which takes place between now and November 15 will be a farce. It will be a pointless waste of time. Does anyone think that the railway companies will seriously negotiate when they know that by stalling until November 15 compulsory arbitration will follow? Does anyone think that the railway companies will make a genuine offer when they know that in the event of compulsory arbitration any offer which they have made will become the floor in the consideration of those who are called upon to arbitrate and to settle the final wage bill?
So what the government is doing, Mr. Speaker, is fixing the wages for this year and leaving to the tender mercies of an arbitration tribunal what will be the wages of the railway workers in 1967. I think it is significant that although this legislation contains terms that will fix the railway workers' wages for this year and will leave the arbitration board to fix the wages for next year, there are no provisions for restricting the profits made by the railway companies. Nothing is said about holding down the profits of the railway companies to 6 per cent.
This morning's Globe and Mail carries an interesting item datelined Montreal which indicates that for the first seven months of this year, ended July 31, the profits of the Canadian Pacific Railway amounted to $30,266,322 compared with $22,535,679 for the first seven months of the previous year. That represents an increase in profits in the first seven months of this year for the Canadian Pacific Railway of 34.2 per cent. So the railways have done pretty well.
If one looks at the financial statements of the Canadian Pacific Railway one notices that 1958 was for a long time their banner year in achieving peak railway revenue. But in 1964 this figure was surpassed; it went up to $510 million, a 1 per cent increase. In 1965 railway revenue amounted to $518 million, an increase of $7.9 million or 1-| per cent. For the
August 30, 1S66

first seven months of this year railway revenue is up another $29 million. I think it will not be lost on the railway workers of Canada that while the government is asking parliament to restrict their wages to an increase of 6 per cent in the year 1966 no provision whatever is made for restraining in any way the profits which will be made by the railway companies. Nor is there any provision which says that when this matter goes to arbitration the railway companies will be required, in arguing their ability to pay, to take into consideration not only their railway revenue but also the vast revenues they get from their other operations which were started and financed out of the profits derived from their railway operations.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
For years it has been a sore point for many of us in western Canada that when we argue before the Board of Transport Commissioners with respect to freight rates the railways insist that their financial ability should be based solely upon their railway revenue. The millions of acres of land they have obtained as a free gift are not included. Their mining operations, their forestry operations, their sales of land, their petroleum operations and their great investment companies are left out of consideration when they argue as to what wages they can pay or what freight rates they should charge. As a matter of fact, the Canadian Pacific Railway for several years has been divorcing its railways operations from its other enterprises. It is looking to the day when some government in Canada will take over the railways and establish a national railway system.
If any government in this country is ever faced with the prospect of taking over the Canadian Pacific Railway, I hope it will have enough sense to take over all the Canadian Pacific Railway's assets and not merely the railway. Those other assets have been built out of the profits which the company has made from its railways and out of land grants consisting at millions of acres of land which it received from the respective governments of Canada.
It is significant, Mr. Speaker, that although the government is now going to impose a settlement on the workers by this legislation, which tells the trade union leaders to order the men back to work, there is no suggestion that it is prepared to appoint an administrator of the railways as we suggested should have been done when the longshoremen's
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters strike went on for so long last spring. The only way that the railway workers of this country will know that collective bargaining under a mediator will be genuine and effective is if there is an administrator over the railways during all that period of bargaining and negotiation.
In this party we believe that the wage increase provided for in this legislation is inadequate and that it will be ineffective in bringing about the result the government desires. The 6 per cent for this year follows the formula proposed by Mr. Justice Munroe and by Mr. Justice Cameron. But the rest of the formula, which was that there should be a further increase of 4 per cent for the first six months of 1967 and 6 per cent increase for the last half of 1967, is not to be found in the legislation. This leaves the determination of what railway wages will be in 1967 completely up in the air, completely at the mercy of a board which has not yet been appointed. I say that because I am taking it for granted that the railways will not do anything effective with respect to free bargaining and negotiation between now and November 15.
The very least that the railway workers had the right to expect was that if they were to be ordered back to work they would be given an increase of 18 per cent spread over a two year period in line with the Munroe formula. In my opinion the government would have been justified in giving them 25 per cent. That would have been less than the workers were asking. Twenty five per cent can be fully justified in the light of wage rates being paid in the durable industries.
The proposal contained in this legislation is scandalously inadequate and indicates the extent to which this government is out of touch with the people of Canada. If anyone thinks that this statement is too strong, I call as a witness the outstanding Liberal newspaper of Canada, the Toronto Star, which says in an editorial in today's issue:
It's incredible that the government could have got so far out of touch with the mood and need of the railwaymen.
It goes on to say:
What if they don't go back? A provision of the Criminal Code specifies two years imprisonment for anyone who disobeys an act of Parliament. Can anyone seriously believe that this is going to be applied against 117,000 railway workers?
No, the government must be rescued from the ludicrous and dangerous position in which it has placed itself and the country.
August 30, 196&

Legislation Respecting Railway Matters
This is a Liberal newspaper speaking. This is not a critic of the government but one of its supporters, Mr. Speaker.
For those persons who feel that the amendment which has been moved or the speeches which have been made are obstructionist I will read the next sentence:
The opposition should hold up the bill and fight for a more realistic wage proposal. The right standard is not to be found in the excessive wage increases won by the dock and seaway workers, but in a formula based on wages in the durable goods industries.
The editorial winds up with these words:
The government's proposal for continued negotiation under a federal mediator, followed by arbitration, if necessary, is pointless time-wasting. There is no reason to believe that genuine negotiation will take place. And considering the sharpness of the railwaymen's discontent, more waiting seems likelier to heat them up than to cool them off.
It would be far better for Parliament to impose a decent settlement now. That is the way to get the railways moving again, to insure an equitable deal for the workers, and to maintain a degree of respect for Parliament and the law. That respect is now jeopardized by the government's folly.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the hon. gentleman would permit me to ask him a question?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Certainly, if Mr. Speaker will take into consideration the time taken by it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would ask the hon. gentleman whether he subscribes to the view expressed in the editorial he just read, that this parliament should set wages?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: You have done it. You have done it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We have not.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have already expressed my opposition to wages being set by parliament. But I plead with the government that if it is going to set wages, then in heaven's name set decent and reasonable wages.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the hon. gentleman, who is always fair and reasonable, will permit a second question?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: When the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate starts to hand out compliments I know there is trouble ahead. Very well.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would ask the hon. gentleman whether he can point out any place where this bill sets wages. Does the bill not

state a figure and allow that figure to be increased by mediation or by arbitration?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I can save the hon. gentleman sputtering much longer. May I put it in a single sentence. This bill sets the wage at which a man will be required to work and tells him that anything more will have to be got as a result of the finding of an arbitration board in the event that negotiation does not produce a settlement. If that is not setting: wages, I do not know what is.
The Minister of Transport, who is sputtering to himself in his seat, is not going to deceive the railway workers of this country into believing they are not being hijacked into going back to work for wages which they do not know. Nor does the minister know what they are going to be. They may get nothing more than is provided in this bill. They have no guarantee of a single dime more than this bill provides, and the minister knows that. Let the hon. gentleman not try to split hairs and wriggle around to get out of the tight position in which he finds himself.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If the minister wishes to make a speech he can make it, but he is not going to take up my time. Unlike the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, I have limited time at my disposal. I want to make a case and I do not propose to have my time frittered away by nonsensical questions. If the minister wishes to make a speech justifying the government's position I am sure we will all listen to it.
The basic weakness of this legislation is that it may not be effective in getting the men back to work. That is the most serious aspect. Throughout the history of this country the labouring people have been among our most law-abiding citizens and I hope they will continue to be so. But if the government wants people to respect the law, then the law must be deserving of respect. If the government wants the workers of this country to hold parliament in high regard and obey the laws, this parliament must be careful to ensure that the laws it passes are just and fair. This law is neither just nor fair.
These men are not unaware of the fact that if this law is passed it will force them back to work under conditions imposed upon them and about which they have no say whatsoever. They are not unaware of the fact that while their wages will be set by someone else, partly by parliament and partly by an arbitration board, the government and parliament
August 30, 1966

are doing nothing at all about setting the price which a worker has to pay to General Motors for a car or to Canada Packers for a pound of bacon, or what a farmer has to pay to International Harvester for a tractor. They know that this parliament is doing nothing about the steady rise in the interest rates which workers must pay for mortgages on their homes. As a matter of fact, instead of doing nothing government authorities have pushed interest rates higher so that today the worker is paying higher interest rates than ever. It is not lost on the worker that he, along with some of the primary producers, belongs to the one group which is having the price of its labour set by someone else while those who control the economy, those in the monopolies and the combines, continue to set what ever prices they please for the products which the consumer must buy.
If this law is to be obeyed it must be a just law in the eyes of those who are affected by it. The government ought to stop and think about this measure. This parliament can pass a law but legislation will not run trains. Only men can operate trains and only men can make the railroad system work. If the government wants the men to go back to work, as we all do, surely it ought to take a little time now and re-examine this measure.
I suggest to the government that it should consult the representatives of the railway unions and be prepared to amend this legislation by setting rates which will be considered a fair minimum and asking the men to go back to work on the basis of those rates. Then the process of free collective bargaining should take place with respect to what is to be added to those rates. I see no reason for imposing compulsory arbitration. If the government would appoint an administrator to act for the railways in these negotiations, if the government would give to the men a reasonable minimum as a basis upon which to return to work, I believe the process of free, collective bargaining would produce a settlement.
I seriously doubt that an imposed settlement will produce the effect which the government desires. Furthermore, may I say to the government that the situation is not being helped by the statement which was allegedly made yesterday by Mr. Ian Sinclair, the president of the C.P.R., who is quoted in one of our more widely circulated daily newspapers as having said that if the men do not go back to work when this bill is passed they will lose their pension rights. First of all, I
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters doubt that he has the legal right to carry out such a threat. But I suggest to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) and to the Prime Minister that one of the first things they should do is call Mr. Sinclair and tell him that this type of arrogance is only inflaming the situation and can only incite the men to defy parliament and the law.


John Napier Turner: Would the hon. gentleman not agree that Clause 4(b) of the present bill would anticipate and prevent any such action?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: There is no need to tell me that. Tell that to the president of the C.P.R. In any event, the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Turner)-and without many other things-is a lot closer to the president of the C.P.R. than I am, and I suggest he talk to him on the telephone, read that clause to him and tell him to "button his lip", if we are to settle this strike peacefully.
There are other matters in dispute in addition to the matter of wages. Under this legislation all questions having to do with holidays, conditions of work, sickness benefits, vacations and job security are to be submitted to arbitration. I take strong exception to forcing workers to accept working conditions which have been imposed upon them by a tribunal of arbitration. These are things on which the workers have a right to bargain and to bargain freely without any imposition.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Lest I run over my time, Mr. Speaker, I shall interrupt what I am saying to propose an amendment to the amendment. Seconded by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) I move:
That the amendment be amended by inserting therein, immediately after the words "Freedman report", the following words:
"by imposing compulsory arbitration, and by failing to provide for the appointment of an administrator of the railway companies so that there might be effective collective bargaining,"
I move this amendment because not only is the question of wages important but equally important are these fringe benefits and other matters which are in dispute. I refer particularly to job security. The public is not too aware of the fact that over the past ten years the number of railway employees, although they are handling more tonnage, has actually declined by some 30 per cent. Figures for the C.P.R., for instance, show that in 1957 it had
August 30, 1966

Legislation Respecting Railway Matters 89,720 employees and last year had 66,837 employees, a decrease of over 30 per cent.
Insecurity and anxiety are prevalent throughout our society and nowhere more prevalent than among railway workers. They have seen innovations and technological changes that have wiped out many jobs. They do not know from day to day or from month to month what is going to happen to them. This came to a head nearly two years ago and as a result of some wildcat strikes the .government appointed the Freedman commission.
The Freedman report was brought down last year. Nothing has been done about implementing it but now the government, which has already had a royal commission look into the matter of job security and what is to be done about the workers in the event of technological change, is asking us to refer the whole matter back to another arbitration board which will review it again. Surely members of the government who have quoted the Freedman report and the excellent recommendations it contains throughout the length and breadth of the country do not need to leave this matter to arbitration.
Surely the principles affecting the question of job security for workers, the matter of consultation in the event of technological change and the matter of adequate notice to workers of any changes which affect them, ought to be written into this bill. The workers should not have to go before another arbitration board to argue for something which they already won from the Freedman [DOT]commission. This is why we support the amendment which has been moved by the Leader of the Opposition. We believe that this legislation is deficient in that it does nothing to implement the recommendations of dhe Freedman commission and to put those principles on the statute books of Canada.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, may I say that we hope the government will have second thoughts about this legislation. Before this bill is given second reading we hope the government will be prepared to indicate that it is willing to make some of the changes we have recommended. If it fails to do so then it must accept the responsibility if the legislation is compeletely ineffective in getting the men back to work and getting the trains running again.
But I want to warn the government that if This strike is settled, and I hope it will be settled soon, it should not feel that it has really grappled with the causes that produced

the strike. If this strike is brought to a successful conclusion and the men go back to work on terms which are fair and just, the government is going to have other strikes and other labour disputes unless it faces up to the fact that in this so-called affluent society the affluence is not fairly shared by all sections of the community.
The government must face the fact that we have still got unskilled workers, underpaid workers, farmers and fishermen who are getting inadequate incomes, and old age pensioners and veterans on fixed incomes who cannot survive in the face of the rising cost of living. The government must face the fact that the present distribution of income in Canada favours certain groups and that the great mass of the Canadian people are not enjoying the fruits of their collective labour.
The government will have to grapple with the problem of bringing wages, prices and profits into some proper relationship that is consonant with social justice. The time has come when we must either revamp the Canadian economy or face the prospect of having other economic crises like that which now faces the country. The railway strike will not be the end. It will only be one in a long series of crises unless we are prepared to face up to the fact that the present economy is an economic jungle in which the powerful are able to take the lion's share and the great bulk of the people have to be satisfied with what is left.
We shall have dislocations and social upheaval in Canada until we are prepared to build a society founded on economic planning and social justice. Let us not deceive ourselves that ending one strike will bring industrial peace to Canada. That will depend entirely upon substituting a planned economic and social democracy for our jungle economy.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, we have now before us two amendments to Bill C-230.
The second amendment, that is the subamendment which I just received, has been moved by the N.D.P.; I draw the attention of the N.D.P. leader (Mr. Douglas) who, when he comes in the province of Quebec, speaks highly of the French language, of bilingualism in Canada, to the fact that his amendment is in English and that no French copies are available. The hon. member for York
August 30, 1966	COMMONS
South (Mr. Lewis) tells me that he did not have time to prepare a French copy, but that is just it, there has been no time for that for too long. That is why we hear people complain not only in the province of Quebec but nearly everywhere When we move a subamendment or an amendment, we take the time to prepare it in English as well as in French because we recognize that all through Canada both languages must be dealt with in the same manner.
Mr. Speaker, the N.D.P. amendment provides the insertion, after the words "Freedman Report" of the following words:
By imposing compulsory arbitration and by failing to provide for the appointment of an administrator of the railway companies so that there might be effective collective bargaining.
Mr. Speaker, that amendment changes nothing or practically nothing to the bill before us. In fact, the bill provides that before compulsory arbitration there will be mediation, there will be a mediator who will consider the whole situation.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I am not clear whether the hon. member for Villeneuve is raising a point of order on the subamendment. If he is not addressing himself to that point, since we have been unable to obtain a copy of it, I should like to reserve our right to raise a point of order with regard to the subamendment. Until we are able to obtain a copy of it, we have no objection to the debate continuing.


David Réal Caouette: I have no objection to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mcllraith) considering the amendment in order to decide whether or not it is in order.
However, I wish to call once again the attention of the house to the fact that the appointment of an administrator, as suggested by the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Douglas), will not settle the labour problem in Canada.
As far as the amendment proper moved by the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) is concerned, I mentioned earner that this amendment is more or less meaningless. And if we recall what his government did about labour matters when he was prime minister, and more specifically, regarding the Canadian National Railways in 1960, we find that the Leader of the Official Opposition did not work any miracle at that time. The labour problems were not solved;
DEBATES	7815
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters the national railroad problems were not solved in the least. Yet, today, it is claimed that the Munroe report is not included in the bill, the chairman of the arbitration board indicates not a single efficient method to-settle the problems of fringe benefits and gives no indication as to the implementation of the Freedman report.
Mr. Speaker, we are swamped with all kinds of reports. We are stifled under reports from right and left. Day after day, stacks of reports are brought in and the question has never been solved, the problem has never been settled.
On August 16 last, 15 days ago, I handed the press the following release:
Nowhere in the world has a strike ever settled the labour problem.
That is so true that it always has to be done all over again.
Consider any sphere of the economic activity in Canada and you will see that that is true, be it within the mining industry, the textile industry, the national railways, the building industry, agriculture, be it in any sphere of economic activity in Canada, never have strikes settled the labour issue. It always has to be done all over again. The end of a strike spells the beginning of another.
We are presently considering Bill C-230 aimed at ending the railway strike. While we are discussing this bill, the postal workers' strike is being planned in Canada. The Postmaster General (Mr. Cote), the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) are aware of this. After the postal workers' strike there will be another strike. Mention is made today in the press of a strike involving 16,000 men in the Sudbury area. There was a strike not so long ago and the problem was solved; a solution was found at that time. Today we have to start all over again. With the railways it is the same thing.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
In 1950, under the St. Laurent administration, there was a nine-day National railways strike. What did the Leader of the Opposition say at that time? Back in 1960, former Prime-Minister Louis St. Laurent proposed and obtained compulsory arbitration in spite of opposition reproaches-the Conservative opposition-concerning the railway problem in-Canada.
On December 2, 1960, after the Diefenbaker government had the house pass the Railway Operation Continuation Act, which suspended
August 30, 1966
7816	COMMONS
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters for a period of six months railwaymen's right to strike, that is until May 15, 1961, during that six month period, negotiations went on between employer and employees, and early in May 1961, an agreement occurred between the parties.
In 1966, the same problem arises with much more serious and disastrous consequences for Canada and the Canadian people.
In addition, the threat of a strike-of an inflationary strike-crisis, and everyone is talking about it-the strike or strikes are the result of circumstances, of a political and economic situation which exists in Canada today. What will the government do to solve efficiently once and for all that conflict which has been dragging for almost 20 years? The leader of the opposition in 1960 was the present Prime Minister; he stated then, at pages 446 and 447 of Hansard I think:
I do not intend to try to block or delay passage of this bill at this time by any procedural move. However, before the vote is taken I intend to set out briefly but I hope clearly the sole but significant difference between the government and the Liberal opposition on this bill. We agree with the government that there should be no railway strike at this time.
The same remarks were made last night by -the Leader of the Opposition.
We agree with the government that there should be no railway strike at this time. We agree with the government that it has become necessary to prevent this strike which otherwise would start tomorrow morning. We have already made that statement.
We do not agree with the government that the workers involved in this matter should be compelled by law to continue to work at wages below the standard accepted in comparable occupations where strikes are permitted, which standard has been used in negotiations previously.
It is the present Prime Minister, then leader of the opposition, speaking.
Our position is that in compelling the men to remain at work, the bill should also compel the companies to pay wages that a conciliation board, with a chairman appointed by the government, found to be fair and reasonable.
The present Prime Minister said that when he was leader of the opposition.
However, if the government persists in maintaining the bill as it is, we cannot vote to force men to work for wages judged to be substandard by the Milvain conciliation board set up by the government. Therefore the government and its supporters will have to take exclusive responsibility for this unjust method to prevent a strike, which [DOT]strike, however, we also believe must be prevented at this time in the public interest.


That statement was made by the Prime Minister when he was leader of the opposition, about a similar conflict at the time when the present Leader of the Opposition was prime minister, on December 2, 1960, as reported at pages 446 and 447 of Hansard.
Mr. Speaker, today we hear the same thing from the Leader of the Opposition, those very words that were used in 1960 by the present Prime Minister.
We find here on page 345 of the official report for November 30, 1960, what the minister of labour of the time, the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr), had to say about a piece of legislation providing for the maintenance of railway operation:
At this point, I would refer to the words of the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, then prime minister, when dealing with a similar situation in this House in 1950.
That was ten years before.
Mr. St. Laurent spoke against the background of a railway strike which had been in progress for nine days. That strike he described as a national emergency. If continued over a lengthy period of time, he told the house then, it would bring the economy of the nation to a complete standstill.
This legislation, Mr. Speaker, is being brought forward in order to prevent a repetition of a similar national emergency.
That was the then minister of labour, who is now the hon. member for Ontario in the official opposition, speaking. Now, we find that this crisis is repeating itself, this time still more acute. And the then minister of labour said:
In 1950, the emergency was allowed to happen. In 1960, it will not be allowed to happen.
Really, it is edifying to hear today the Leader of the Opposition tell us exactly the opposite of what his assistants said at that time.
The first effectcontinued the former minister, Michael Starr,
-of a strike, at this time would be to throw out of work some 170,000 railway employees. This figure would be doubled by the resulting unemployment of those who depend upon the railways as a means of economic subsistence.
In 1950, for example, in addition to the railway workers unemployed as a result of the strike, some 70,000 workers in other industries were laid off and, in 1960, the figure would be substantially higher. The direct and indirect consequences which would flow from a strike at this time would be disastrous in their magnitude.
That was the minister of labour of that time speaking. This is even more true in 1966. How is it, Mr. Speaker, that the member for Ontario then said this crisis should not occur
August 30, I960	COMMONS
again? Why, following their 1960 legislation, does this crisis recur today whereas according to what they said then, everything was definitively under control and the Conservatives boasted of having settled the railway dispute in Canada?
Mr. Speaker, the labour problem has never been settled by strikes. This does not mean that we do not want better working condition for the workers. We know and realize that, in many cases, the workers do not receive the treatment they deserve.
For example, there are the raises demanded in certain fields or sectors of the economy which may be compared to the starvation wages paid by Ayers to its Lachute workers.
Mr. Speaker, while others help to raise prices in Canada, what about the situation of workers such as those in Lachute who have large families and earn at the most $40 a week?
How can those people live in Canada now? And if those people and those families, Mr. Speaker, find it difficult to make a living in Canada, is it because Canada is not able to produce more than enough goods and services? Is it because Canada lacks natural resources? Is it because Canada lacks intelligent and brave people?
Mr. Speaker, it is the system that is a fault. It is the system which produces strikes. It is the system which is responsible for inflation; and yet the government does not lift a finger to control that system and make it serve those who are ready and willing to develop all the potential in Canada.
These, Mr. Speaker, are the wrongs of the system. And that is why my statement continued.
The workers themselves are victims of the strikes.
The workers suffer from the strikes. Not only the railway workers now on strike, but many others. The discharge or lay-off of 2,000 miners in Sudbury because the trains are no longer running is a result of this strike. Other workers pay for the strike. The farmers left with their wheat harvest in the west, who cannot ship it:	again, workers struggling
against the system, results of the railway strike.
We federal members are not deprived of our income and our standard of living does not suffer from these strikes. Neither are the income and the standard of living of labour leaders affected by the strikes. It is the workers themselves who suffer, along with their wives and their children all across Canada. It
DEBATES	7817
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters is they who pay for the strikes. Financiers are not affected by strikes.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
When chartered banks are allowed to raise their rates of interest purely on account of the creation of credit, this is legalization of monumental theft in Canada. Those people, the financiers, do not pay for strikes: Proof of this is provided by the fact that the government is getting ready, by means of another bill, to make us accept a raise in the rates of goods shipped by rail which will cause price increases. And do you believe price increases affect financiers?
When prices go up in industry, and industry rakes in 20 per cent, or 10 or 12 per cent in profits, Mr. Speaker, these profits come from price increases just as before. That means the big ones grow, in smaller numbers and small ones get smaller in larger numbers.
This is the financial system in which we live. And the government is not aware of this yet; nor are the labour leaders. They keep fighting with each other. I ask you, is one union better than the other?
I will undoubtedly be accused of being against trade unions and of being a lot of other things, after this speech.
Mr. Speaker, I admit officially that without the trade unions, workers would not be treated as they are today. I admit that unions have rendered immense services to all sectors of our national economy. I admit this has been the case from the standpoint of economy, politics and society. However, labour leaders have lost their heads, they are running around in circles much as a dog runs after its tail. Whenever someone cannot solve his problem he runs around insulting everyone, having no solution to offer. Even while we are debating Bill No. C-230, labour leaders have said this morning that if this bill is passed by the House of Commons of Canada, workers still will not go back to work. The labour leaders have said this; responsible people, people who think they are very important and who think they can make anyone do their bidding through intimidation. Mr. Speaker, no labour leader can make me toe the line by force; I am ready to hold a dialogue with him, though.
My statement to the newspapers went on in these terms:
It is my opinion that certain labour leaders must be brought back to reason, because their sole aim is to sow hatred and general confusion.
7818	COMMONS
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters
What is being done? Labour leaders lay the blame on those who are in the upper wage brackets. They attack those who make profits. Mr. Speaker, federal members of parliament here receive $18,000 per year, expenses included, $18,000 a year. Not one labour leader-and I dare them to deny this earns less than twice that amount. The Minister of Manpower (Mr. Marchand) knows that labour leaders are now better paid than any federal member of parliament.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I am being asked a question. I may say that the statement just uttered by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) is untrue and as a former president of the C.N.T.U. I have never been paid twice the indemnity of a member of parliament.


David Réal Caouette: It was not an indemnity, Mr. Speaker, it was expenses and such expenses were substantially higher than salaries.
I will give him two examples: In the United Steelworkers of American, two small local leaders in our own area, one in Val d'Or and one in Rouyn-and the Minister of Manpower (Mr. Marchand) former president of the C.N.T.U. knew them very well, these chaps from the Abitibi and Rouyn-Noranda region-two local labour leaders, now established in Montreal, at Laval des Rapides, in $45,000 homes. These people are very well paid; they have two cars at their door. Now, I have nothing against people who are well paid and who have two cars at their front door-His and Hers-but I do have a grudge, for instance, against labour leaders who constantly attack private enterprise and call the parties concerned communists or bad capitalists. Small businessmen who operate a store on the street corner are branded as capitalists and small industrials do not even earn in a year what those people make in six months.
That is sheer discrimination and class warfare on the part of some labour leaders in Canada and in the province of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, I will give no names but I can bring the Minister of Manpower with me to Laval des Rapides and show him the two houses I have just spoken about.
Mr. Speaker, I am not speaking through my hat and the minister knows that everything is not as it should be. It is so true that when he was president of the C.N.T.U., the minister spoke in the same vein as Marcel Pepin, the present president, does now. Mr. 
DEBATES	August 30, 1966
Pepin is not happy with Bill No. C-230 whereas the minister who, as president of the C.N.T.U. was trying to ingratiate the workers and wanted politics to be subdued and become the handmaiden of labour, must now, because of cabinet solidarity, accept to recommend a piece of legislation which offers a 6 per cent increase to the nation's railway workers. The minister is aware of that; it is exactly the contrary of what he advocated throughout the province for 25 years. That is what the minister does here today.


Jean Marchand: I wonder if that is true.


David Réal Caouette: The minister knows it too. He may well look up to see if he has any opposition but it is true.
Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I should like to direct attention to the fact that there should be no interruption or comment of any kind from people in the galleries if they want to stay in the galleries.


David Réal Caouette: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I should like you to repeat in French what you have just said, because the person concerned speaks French very well.


Mr. Speaker:: I ask for the co-operation of hon. members to ensure if possible that there is no comment or interruption from the people in the galleries.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, some labour leaders spend their time criticizing salaries and profits and in this house, we hear members of the New Democratic Party speak against profits and high salaries but, Mr. Speaker, profits contribute to foster ambition, to promote private enterprise. Without any initiative, there is no progress. When individual initiative is discouraged, instead of going forward, we go backwards. When I hear members of the N.D.P. talk about profits and high salaries, it reminds me of the member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) who does not look like a poor man, and of the member for York South (Mr. Lewis), a prominent lawyer-


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member is quoting a myth.
August 30. 1966	COMMONS DEBATES	7819


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, that reminds me of the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), a distinguished lawyer of the city of Toronto. Do you honestly believe that the hon. member for York South does not have a better income than the workers of the city of Toronto? It is all very well to speak against profits but the member for York South derives a profit in the practice of his profession. He sells his services; he does not give them free of charge. It is the same for the member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) connected with an important firm of distinguished lawyers in Toronto.
It is easy for well-to-do people to tell humble folk: Well, old chap, we will work for you.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
We will force the socialist system upon you, a system which will enable you to live properly, under which you will have security and freedom. The freedom in the hands of the government.
Mr. Speaker, we have had some of those solutions proposed by the government. A while ago the leader of the New Democratic Party spoke about Sweden where everyone works, where there are no unemployed, where people do not have the right to strike now.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Oh, never.


David Réal Caouette: In Russia also, people do not have the right to strike. We went there last year.


David Lewis: You do not know.


David Réal Caouette: In Sweden, it is the same, Mr. Speaker. Let the member for York South tell me since when there has been no strike in Sweden. The government intervenes immediately and it is the government which settles strikes in Sweden.
The hon. member for York South knows that.


David Lewis: I do not know that, because it is not true.


David Réal Caouette: In Russia, the present government was organized by union leaders in 1917 through strikes such as those we now have. They led the workers to believe that with a labour government, a government ruled by union leaders, they would get security.
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters
Of course. Everybody works in Russia. The man, the woman, the young people, everybody is working. We went there last year. We saw women driving steam rollers on asphalt in the streets. We saw women coming out of coal mines wearing heavy helmets on their heads. We saw that everybody was working. How many hours a week? After 50 years of administration, 46 hours a week. Not 40 hours as they call for in Canada, not 36 hours, but 46.
Mr. Speaker, in Russia the salary of a skilled worker is not $4 an hour. Not even $2.37 an hour as the railway workers earn at present. A skilled worker earns $100 a month. As for an ordinary worker, he gets between $60 and $65 per month, and not per week. The standard of living, the cost of living over there is much lower than in Canada. You can get an apartment with three rooms for $15 a month-the leader of the N.D.P. was with me in Russia at that time-but we would not live in those apartments.
For instance, food prices are about the same as in Canada. Clothing is more expensive than in Canada. Electrical appliances, refrigerators, television sets, etc. cost twice as much as in Canada.
As for the motor car industry-we went to Czechoslovakia-I asked the vice president how much a small car cost in Czechoslovakia, that is the small Skoda car, made in Czechoslovakia where the wages and labour conditions are the same as in Russia. The Skoda car sells in Canada for $1,700. For $1,700, we can get a Skoda car. In Czechoslovakia, where the Skoda is made, there were 6,000 employees in the shops we visited, the Skoda sells for $6,200. As a worker earns $65 per month you will readily understand, Mr. Speaker, that not too many Skoda cars are seen in Czechoslovakia.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David Réal Caouette: Bicycles with pedals or even
without pedals are seen over there. People walk or use public means of transportation, such as buses which run without a hitch.
In the yard of the Skoda plant, the morning we went there, we saw fewer than 25 cars. I asked the president: How is it that your cars are so expensive here and so cheap in Canada and in America? It is quite easy to understand, he said, we produce for export purposes. And he added: "Here in Czechoslovakia, we do not want people to buy cars, for then we would have to build roads and we have many more important things to do. I
7820	COMMONS
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters was told this by the vice president of Czechoslovakia, one night, when we were guests at a party given in our honour by the president of Czechoslovakia, in some castle or other.


An hon. Member:: A N.D.P. government in Czechoslovakia.


David Réal Caouette: Exactly, an N.D.P. government. Mr. Speaker, these are the systems which the N.D.P. people would like to establish in Canada. We do not want that system. That is the system which some union leaders would like us to have. They would like to take over and become members of the government, just like in Russia, in Czechoslovakia, in Sweden, in Norway, in all those countries. Their standard of living is way below ours. We will be told: Yes, but they are only beginning. Communism has been in existence in Russia for the past 50 years. When we look 50 years back and compare the situation in Canada with that of Russia, we see that the two countries were about even; but after 50 years of administration and development, today I say that we are definitely at least 25 years ahead of Russia with regard to the standard of living. We are ahead of them. We have everything in all our homes-even people who are on welfare here have a better life than workers in Russia. They enjoy more services.
This goes to show, Mr. Speaker, that socialist systems have many things in common. Under such systems the government belittles man at will. Oh, people have security, certainly. When I have a nice little dog in my house, I give it security. I feed it and pet it. I take care of it, but I control its freedom, I am the one who decides when it goes out and when it comes in. That is what they would like to do to the Canadian people.
Mr. Speaker, as I said in my communique, that handful of labour leaders consciously or unconsciously play into the hands of the communists; they never strike out against the true cause of the political, economic and social unrest, which is finance. They say nothing about that. When interest rates go up, Claude Jodoin does not say a word. Neither do Marcel Pepin, Mr. Laberge or the former president of the C.N.T.U., the Minister of Manpower. They accept the hike in interest rates. Let the minister go and tell that to his constituents at the next election and we will take care of him, Mr. Speaker. We will remind him of the promises he made during the 25 years; we will recall to his mind how

DEBATES	August 30, 1966
he sacrificed himself and gave of himself during the 25 years. He is not the same man since he has joined the Liberal party. Before, I thought he was a good man but not today, Mr. Speaker. Never do those labour leaders get to the true cause of political, economic and social unrest. As I have said, only the Creditistes offer a genuine solution by starting to put finance at the service of man.


An hon. Member:: Through the Bank of Canada.


David Réal Caouette: Surely through the Bank of Canada, Mr. Speaker. I hear the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) -


Mr. Choquette:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a
question? It is because in 1963, I asked the hon. member for Villeneuve a question, as reported in Hansard on page 63. At that time, I asked to what extent unemployment would be reduced in Canada if Social Credit were to come to power and he answered: One hundred per cent and I enjoyed his reply very much. I will now ask him, if ever we have a Social Credit government in this country, whether all strikes would be abolished in Canada?


David Réal Caouette: I honestly think so, Mr. Speaker, and I shall tell him why. Because on the day when the purchasing power of individuals in Canada is on a par with the true production in this country, at such time, the income of the citizens will never exceed the production in Canada so that inflation will be impossible. Deflation will also be impossible, because the process will be automatic and as the people produce, income rises and as the people no longer want to produce, income diminishes.
Strikes are contrary to common sense, because production is decreased during a strike, and increased incomes are being sought, which is absolutely illogical.
Now to come back to my line of thought, Mr. Speaker. If the solutions offered by Social Credit do not seem logical, what can be said about the solutions offered under the present system which, year after year, every ten and every 20 years bring up the same problem without ever achieving a settlement? After the railroad strike, there will be another.
What we say is that when the worker is sure to have on hand the money or the credit to purchase the products made by him in Canada, then, Mr. Speaker, strikes will disappear but unions will remain to look after the
August 30, 1966
COMMONS DEBATES	7821
security of the workers, to deal with labour problems which, by that time, will not be monetary problems.
The Social Credit solution is a national dividend based upon our wealth and our riches, a dividend distributed to all, so that each and every one will have a purchasing power conformable to production, and then security and freedom will both be guaranteed to each and every one in our country.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: When the hon. member
for Burnaby-Coquitlam introduced the subamendment the reservation was made by the Minister of Public Works, I understand, that an argument might be made as to the procedure to be adopted in relation to the subamendment.


Mr. Pennell:: Mr. Speaker, I propose to raise a point of order centring upon the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. I advance my argument on three fronts.
First, I respectfully invite your attention to citation 389 of Beauchesne, fourth edition. I quote the first sentence:
A motion opposing the second reading of a hill must not anticipate amendments which may be moved in committee.
If I may go to the proposed subamendment, the first sentence contains the words, "by imposing compulsory arbitration." It is my respectful submission that during the consideration of the bill in committee of the whole it would be open to the hon. member, if he so desired, to move to strike out clause 10(2), which would achieve the purpose now proposed by the amendment. If this citation 389 of Beauchesne, is to have any effect whatever, I respectfully suggest that this would be a classic illustration.
The second ground of my argument is contained in citation 202(3). It reads:
Since the purpose of 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-
I do not think I do any violence to the words of the hon. member who moved the subamendment when I say that it is really an extension of the number of reasons advanced by the Leader of the Opposition in moving the amendment. It is in effect an enlargement by a number of new reasons why the bill should not be read. Therefore it comes clearly within the four corners of citation 202(3), to
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters be found at page 169 of Beauchesne, fourth edition.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the appointment of an administrator would involve a charge upon the treasury and therefore the subamendment cannot be put unless by a member of the treasury benches. For these reasons I respectfully submit that the subamendment is clearly out of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I say a word with respect to the points which have been raised by the Solicitor General. He bases his first argument on citation 389 where reference is made to the fact that on second reading a motion must not anticipate amendments which may be moved in committee. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that this is a repetition of the argument that was advanced by the Minister of National Health and Welfare when we were debating the validity of the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition.
It was my contention then that on second reading we are dealing with the broad principle of the bill and that if we wished to object to or to modify that basic principle the place to declare that opposition or modification is on second reading. I submit that the arguments which persuaded Your Honour to allow the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition should persuade Your Honour that the subamendment is likewise in order.
If I may put in capsule form what I have been saying thus far, I submit that citation 389 does not take away from the right which is set out in citation 382, namely the right of a member on second reading, when dealing with the principle, to move an amendment declaratory of some principle that should be advanced before we proceed further with the bill.
With respect to the argument of the Solicitor General based on citation 202(3) of Beauchesne, fourth edition, may I re-read the words he read:
-it should not enlarge upon the scope of the amendment but it should deal with matters that are not covered by the amendment;-
Even though this subamendment deals with the basic proposition of the amendment, namely, that the bill does not provide an adequate solution of the current impasse, nevertheless the subamendment does what citation 203(3) permits. It deals with matters that are not covered by the amendment. The two matters referred to are, of course, the reference in the bill to compulsory arbitration
7822	COMMONS
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters and the failure of the bill to deal with the possible appointment of an administrator.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the very citations which the Solicitor General has relied on are citations not against the validity of the subamendment but rather they support the right of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam at the second reading stage to add these other matters to this declaration of principle.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank hon. members for their advice, guidance and assistance to the Chair. I would first refer to the argument put forward by the Solicitor General. He referred to citation 389, which was advanced earlier in argument today by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, I believe. On this point I am in agreement with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. This argument was found not acceptable earlier today; therefore the precedent having been set I feel bound to follow it.
I would suggest that the second argument is more to the point. Citation 202(3) of Beauchesne, fourth edition, reads:
Since the purpose of 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.
It seems to me on reading the subamendment as proposed that if it means anything it advances something new and suggests a new proposal.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre referred to citation 202(3) of Beauchesne, fourth edition, which is to the effect that the subamendment should deal with matters that are not covered in the amendment. That is so and I accept that proposition. But we must still respect the principle of relevancy as outlined in citation 203(1) of Beauchesne, and even if the subamendment is advancing something new it has to be relevant to the amendment which the subamendment seeks to alter.
For these reasons I think that the proposal advanced by the hon. member for Burna-by-Coquitlam cannot be accepted at this time in the form of a subamendment.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could raise another point of order which has no relation to the ruling you have just made. Perhaps I might address it in the form of a

DEBATES	August 30, 1966
question to the government house leader. Would he be willing to take the sense of the house on whether it might be desirable to take a little time off to eat?


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that would be quite agreeable. It would be a matter of when we should reconvene.


Michael Starr: We in this party would be agreeable to that, Mr. Speaker, provided we do not rise at ten o'clock but sit until we complete this legislation.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, we are quite agreeable to that. I wish to suggest to the house that we forgo the late show. Tonight there is only one speaker. Instead of going on with the late show, could the house not consider this legislation? I am referring to the bill now before the house. We are agreeable to the proposal to adjourn for dinner.


George James McIlraith: Two new points have been raised, Mr. Speaker.


Michael Starr: We are in favour of both.


George James McIlraith: One has to do with the proceedings with respect to oral questions under the motion to adjourn. The government is agreeable to forgoing this until the conclusion of the debate on the railway bill.
On the other point, the representative of the official opposition has suggested that we sit continuously until this bill is finished. That is a pretty tall order. I have no objection to sitting after ten o'clock so that there will be no time lost, but to put the matter in the form in which he wishes to put it might involve a long time. It might involve some days. I have had no information from the opposition groups as to the time they expect to take on the various stages of the bill. If they would modify the form of their request perhaps we could deal with the proposition at ten o'clock, or now.
In any event, the suggestion originally made was that we adjourn for a dinner hour and to that we are quite agreeable. I am also agreeable that we consider the other matter at ten o'clock. It seems to me that the suggestion which has been made is sensible and would permit some hon. colleagues who are directly and immediately involved with relation to this bill to have certain discussions, which they must of necessity have, during the dinner hour. Perhaps it would be a sensible arrangement, and we could consider how late we might sit tonight-
August 30, 1966


Mr. Hees:: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the suggestion that has been made that we sit until the bill is completed I point out that, as the whole country knows, this is a vitally important matter. We are here to deal with a matter where every hour counts. Producers all over the country are being held up by lack of rail shipment. I think the country expects that we continue sitting if we physically can, and I think we can. This party is thoroughly in favour of sitting until this legislation is completed today.


George James McIlraith: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, surely the crucial nature of the business before us requires us to support the suggestion made by the opposition house leader, the hon. member for Ontario. Unless the government wishes to assure us that it will amend the legislation, I think we should follow his suggestion and sit until the conclusion of the bill.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I had risen to ask a question of the hon. member for Northumberland. I accept his proposition about the importance of the bill and the legislation. That is why last night I asked his leader to agree to the house continuing to sit for a few minutes after ten o'clock in order that he might conclude his remarks. I was quite mystified when he refused that very modest and reasonable request. I am now a little more mystified to find that the hon. member for Northumberland is at variance with his leader on that very point. In any event, the whip of that party has had his leader move an amendment to defeat the legislation altogether and kill the bill.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


George James McIlraith: I just do not understand his now asking to have the bill, which he has just by his amendment sought to have defeated, put through.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You can bring in another one.


George James McIlraith: So the remarks of the house leader for the party, which he has made, I think, in a spirit of desiring to get on with the business before us, are difficult to understand in relation to the remarks of his own colleagues in that party. What I should like to return to is-
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters


An hon. Member:: You are asking for trouble.


George James McIlraith: -the simple proposition whether or not the house wishes to have a short adjournment for the dinner hour. So far as we are concerned we are agreeable to that, and we are quite prepared to deal with the question of how late we should sit tonight and to go along with any reasonable proposition on that score. But it should be something that is responsible and reasonable.


Michael Starr: In view of the house leader's remarks we withdraw any suggestion that we made previously. We should abide by the rules and sit during the dinner hour.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the point of order raised by the government house leader, he should not be sore at the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) who last night wanted to adjourn at ten o'clock because it took him all night to produce the amendment as colorless and insignificant as the one we had this afternoon; I understand him-



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to
provisional standing order 39A it is my duty to inform the house that the question to be raised at the time of adjournment this evening is the following: the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), Canadian Pacific Railway-reported statement respecting pension rights of workers.



MAINTENANCE OF RAILWAY OPERATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Pearson for the second reading of Bill No. C-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 of Mr. Diefenbaker.
[Stage Direction]
7824	COMMONS
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters
George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, one point perhaps should be clarified with respect to the remarks made a few minutes ago when an hon. member raised a request as to abandoning the right to debate questions on the motion for adjournment at ten o'clock and using that time for debate on the railway bill.


Michael Starr: No.


George James McIlraith: That point got lost in the subsequent discussion.


Michael Starr: Only because of your remarks.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, as the member who has the item posted for the late show, I was prepared to surrender it for tonight if we could come to some agreement about the supper hour. Since the hon. member for Ontario has said that the rules must stand, all right, let the rules stand.


Michael Starr: I made that statement in view of what the government house leader had said.


An hon. Member:: We want justice.


Michael Starr: What does the hon. member know about justice?
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, we have an amendment before the
house, the subamendment having been ruled out of order. The subamendment brought out a principle which is very important, one of which we should take cognizance. To have accepted it would have meant taking over the right of railroad management to take part in the negotiations which must continue with the railroad unions looking toward a settlement of this strike. In other words, it would be placing parliament in the position of an arbitrator and I am confident that neither the union leaders nor their membership want this. The door must not be closed to negotiation. When parliament acts it is compulsion, whether we like it or not. I should have thought that the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas), who raised this question, need only look at the situation which exists in Great Britain at the present time and the action taken by the prime minister of that country to find verification of what I have said.
As to the amendment itself, it seems to me it has no other purpose than to do away with the entire legislation which is before us in the form of Bill No. C-230. It would kill the bill. In my opinion this is not the time when

DEBATES	August 30, 1966
such a proposal should even be considered by members of this house.
If there are provisions in this bill which are considered to be unsatisfactory there will be an opportunity to deal with them by amendment in committee of the whole. That is the proper way in which to correct weak points in the measure. Certainly, however, to kill or eliminate the bill which has been presented to us is not a responsible way in which to deal with the crisis which has brought this emergency sitting into being.
Having said this, let me make it clear that we agree there are many faults in the economy and that union members have many legitimate complaints. There are many aspects of this strike which lie, so to speak, beneath the surface, and these can never be dealt with until some of the gross errors affecting the economy have been corrected. Until we have a financial policy which is adequate to care of the economic needs of our country we shall continue to face problems of this kind.
This we admit. But the legislation we are
dealing with now, and the reason we are here, concerns the crisis which has been precipitated by the strike action that the railroad unions have taken. To deal with this situation is our first and most important responsibility. That is the number one priority. So let us return to the priorities and deal with them in a positive way remembering that it is the welfare of the nation and the well-being of the economy in general which are involved.
I say again that the immediate crisis which faces the nation centres on the railroad strike. Our jog in parliament is to end that strike and get the railroads running again. It is not our immediate job to conduct an inquiry into the reasons behind the strike or to determine why the strike came about. There will be another time for that.
There is a great deal behind this rail stoppage. Lack of action in the past, poor working conditions and other factors have all contributed. The strike does not reflect any single problem; it is a symptom of something which is much deeper, a problem which the government must recognize and toward the solution of which it must direct its legislative program.
Nevertheless the country cannot be plunged into irretrievable loss and economic chaos while all the rights and wrongs are debated in parliament. The national interest must
August 30, 1966

come first and the national interest at this time demands the resumption of rail services. This is the first priority, though the other factors to which I have referred are admittedly of great importance. I am merely placing first things first.
These contributing factors, the fringe benefits which are involved as well as the over-all picture of a rapidly rising cost of living, can and must be settled later. Today it is the strike which must be dealt with. To stand before this house for more than half an hour and play to union leaders in the galleries is merely to becloud the issue. Let us return to realities.
The legislation before us makes four basic proposals in this strike emergency which has quickly become a national crisis of the greatest magnitude. First, the railroads are to resume operation immediately this bill becomes law. That is why we are here. Transportation is the lifeblood of a nation and unless transportation is performing its function well the whole economy is sick. Second, an interim wage increase has been set at 4 per cent plus 4 per cent as a basis for negotiation later. This does not set the wages. As I interpret the provision this is merely a guarantee of a minimum floor level which the workers can expect from the negotiations which are to take place. It is not to be arbitration in the first instance; it is to be direct collective bargaining.
Should these negotiations end in agreement cn a greater amount', that is what the workers will receive. The provision in the bill represents an assurance that there will be at least a minimum. I am bound to agree with this because it is what Mr. Justice Munroe recommended. He recommended 4 per cent for the first six months, 4 per cent for the second six months, 4 per cent for the third and 6 per cent for the fourth half year period. This legislation refers only to the first year because it is expected that the negotiations which are to continue will take care of the second year. That is exactly what Judge Munroe recommended and to try to deceive the public into believing this is only a 6 per cent increase is wrong. It is a 4 per cent increase plus a 4 per cent increase, exactly what it says.


An hon. Member:: What is the average per
year?


Robert Norman Thompson: It averages 6 per cent. But
the figure was arrived at in the light of the 18 per cent which was recommended by Mr. 23033-495J
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters Justice Munroe and to say it is less than 8 per cent amounts to misrepresentation. This is a guarantee of an immediate floor, an assurance which is a reasonable one even though it may not meet the demands of the unions.
I say we must face this second point for what it actually is. In the Ottawa Citizen of today I notice an editorial which is extremely relevant to this legislation. It states in part;
The increase proposed in the legislation, at 4 per cent from January 1, and an additional 4 per cent from July 1, is plainly merely a point of departure. It is based on the recommendations of Mr. Justice Munroe, chairman of one of the five boards of conciliation that sat on the railway wage dispute. The government had to start somewhere, for the men have had no increase in almost three years, their last contract having expired on December 31 last. Justice Mun roe's proposal was probably as good a starting point as any.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
But that is evidently all it is. The government is not imposing this increase on either the unions or management as the terms of the final settlement. If the government did impose a wage increase, however large, democracy would be on the way to the graveyard.
Therefore it is not the responsibility of parliament to arbitrate and set the terms of the final agreement between management and labour.
For if the government could decide the level of industrial wages, it could come down on the side of low wages as easily as on the side of high pay. Union members who have felt the government should take more assertive action and impose a wage settlement, ought to think of the power of government to reduce as well as to raise wages.
In that connection I might refer to the action taken by Prime Minister Wilson in freezing wages. That is what he has done.
Only the processes of collective bargaining, with government intervention kept at a minimum, can protect the democratic rights of workers.
Let us not forget that.
Third, this legislation provides for continuing negotiations, for collective bargaining until at least November 15, a minimum of ten weeks. If we read the legislation carefully we find there is provision within it whereby if the report made at that time indicates that, negotiation is going on satisfactorily it can continue even beyond that date. So in the third instance this legislation is providing for the continuation of free negotiations. For the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam to refer continually to this as compulsory arbitration is not correct because compulsory arbitration is something which lies beyond the period of. negotiation mentioned in the bill.
August 30, 1966
7826	COMMONS
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters
In addition to the salary problems there are, as I mentioned yesterday, many other legitimate problems which concern the workers. I am referring to working conditions. Just the other day it was mentioned to me that the cabooses which still are part of freight trains have not yet been equipped with electric lights or toilet equipment. There are many other things which are grievances so far as the workers are concerned and must be considered.
Likewise there is the whole area of allowing for the effects of automation. This should not be part of this bill because it is not the responsibility of parliament to arbitrate in these things. It is part of the negotiations that are continuing and will continue until November 15 and beyond if the results at that time warrant continued negotiation on that basis. But in the event that the results do not a board of arbitration will be set up then whose findings are to be binding.
Free collective bargaining has been the basis of labour-management operations for a long time. It should continue; it must continue. Government's role in the past has been to set rules so that the system would operate fairly and the well-being of the general public would be adequately safeguarded. But the unions and management cannot have it both ways. If they intend to appeal to the government for solutions to their problems-and it is evident that both union leaders and management felt this was necessary-then they must quit paying lip service to free collective bargaining and accept the consequences of compulsory arbitration.
The field of industrial relations is the area in which the government has a new role to play in setting up conditions under which the fruits of automation will be more equitably spread across the nation. Automation has increased productivity tremendously in the production industries. The result is that for the first time we have the money and the manpower to undertake great new developments in the social and cultural fields.
Government does have a responsibility to make sure that this takes place. That is why the suggestion made the other day by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson), one which I believe should have come from the government a long time ago, that a labour study commission should be set up is a step in the right direction. There also needs to be a study made of each particular industry to
[Mr. Thompson.}

allow labour and management to plan in advance for the changes that are coming.
This is why government does have a definite responsibility in industrial labour relations to bring about consultation in a way which we have not yet seen. Government has this responsibility and it applies not only to the situation on the railways but in the whole transportation industry. Government also has the responsibility in connection with its own legislation to bring together the various aspects of management and technical development in order that we can plan to meet the problems that are inevitable in the future and thus anticipate them rather than being forced into a situation like that in which we are at the present time of having to deal with a crisis that involves the economic well-being of the entire nation.
In this regard I would state that perhaps Bill No. C-230 could have been better worded. There has been some lack of explanation and it requires rewording in some places. The 4 per cent plus 4 per cent formula should have been amplified and explained. There should have been some reference or assurance regarding provision for the results of automation and the government's responsibility in bringing industry and labour together.
I also think there should have been some reference in the legislation to amending the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, particularly with regard to broader use of the job security fund which was established in 1962. Further, some reference could well have been made to Judge Little's report, a very important report which demonstrates with clarity many of the things that the C.N.R. is already doing in anticipation of future developments.
Yesterday the Prime Minister gave an explanation of why a 30 per cent settlement was justified in the case of the seaway workers and the Quebec longshoremen. Why did he not give it when the settlements were made? Why was there not some reference to it in the television appearance which he made a few nights ago? If this explanation had been given it would have been easy for the labour unions to understand and realize what they felt they were seeking as their just desserts as the result of previous settlements.
Why was there not some mention made of the need for a work stabilization agreement? If the details of fringe benefits are not the job of parliament then neither are the details of working out these things to which I have
August 30, 1968	COMMONS
just referred. Likewise I believe there should
have been some mention made in the bill, although it is not our responsibility to work out or implement the details, of the government's intention to deal with the problems of inflation. No one can deny that Canada is heading into a critical inflationary period much faster than is the case in the United States. I think the unions will agree with management and with all of us that we cannot continue as we are.
Let us stop for a few minutes and look at the air lines settlement in the United States which was on a 4.9 per cent basis. There was a great hue and cry in the United States because this was higher than the general increase in the productivity of that country, which is taking place at the rate of about 3.2 per cent, not too different from what it is in Canada. But then it was explained that the airlines has gone ahead at a faster rate of expansion, something on the average of 6 per cent, and that 4.9 per cent as a wage increase was a reasonable, intermediate figure.
With reference to wage increases in this dispute I would point out that it is not the profits of the C.N.R. and the C.P.R. which are going to pay for them. They will come out of the pocketbooks of the taxpayers and consumers, and that includes the union workers as well. We must deal with this thing in a rational way.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
Management has a responsibility, one which it has not lived up to, so far as the union workers and the general economy are concerned. But again it is not just the wages of labourers nor is it just the profits of management with which we are concerned; it is the cost of living which involves the persons in every household and every taxpayer in the country. I believe it is a basic rule of modern economics that the general scale of wage increases must not exceed the growth of the rate of productivity. The rate of productivity in Canada this past year has averaged nearly 5 per cent. In the United States the projected long-term trend average has been calculated at about 3.2 per cent.
If the cost of living is going up it is reasonable and fair that wages and pensions for those on fixed incomes should go up. This is one of the problems we face in adjusting a forward movement with some kind of harmony so far as the economy and living standards are concerned. Again it is a lesson to us, so far as this strike is concerned, to look at the basis of the strike settlement in the
DEBATES	7827
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters United States in terms of the long-range projected trend with relation to the expansion of productivity.
So long as the cost of living goes up and the purchasing power of the dollar goes down it is inevitable that wages will increase correspondingly. If they do not, then living standards must decline. However, in this instance it is imperative that this wage increase not proceed in any one area or in the general area at a more rapid rate than the productivity of the economy. This morning we read in the press that according to the present trend in Canada wage increases are moving ahead at about double the rate of the productivity growth in the country. This is something to consider when we look at the overall picture.
Again I mention these things because they apply to the over-all picture and the secondary legislation more particularly. In the first legislation which is before us at the present time we are charged with the responsibility of dealing with the national crisis which centres around the strike. I would suggest to members of this house that it is our responsibility to deal first with the crisis and then discuss these other things. It is imperative that the government present its policies to deal effectively with the inflationary trend and the increasing cost of living. It is imperative that the government take the initiative in bringing labour and management together in a new era of industrial labour relationships. Without this we cannot face the problems which undoubtedly are ahead of us and which we can see across the threshold.
I come back to the point that at this particular moment we are dealing with strike legislation. We have it before us in Bill C-230. I think it is our responsibility to face up to the fact that this emergency demands a cessation of the strike-it cannot continue-and a full opportunity for future negotiation for the benefit of the workers involved in the light of their needs and the ability of the economy. It should not be considered the responsibility of parliament to act as arbitrators except to see that in respect of working groups in other areas there is a settlement similar to that arrived at in respect of the working members of the railroad industry.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that compulsory arbitration as mentioned in the last part of this bill is something which is only a last resort. It is not a club; it is an assurance which must be given to the Canadian people that if necessary this matter will be dealt with by arbitration if the negotiations which
7828	COMMONS
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters are to continue do not come to a satisfactory conclusion. Let us leave it at that and deal with this legislation.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)


Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, with regard to Bill C-230, to which the Conservative party has seen fit to move an amendment, I would like to say a few words.
When I was called back here, Mr. Speaker, like all other members of this house, I came to Ottawa with a feeling of increased responsibility because we were faced with an emergency. In the first few minutes of yesterday afternoon's sitting, I think I noticed in most of my colleagues that feeling which made the atmosphere a little dramatic and I was very happy to hear, in the first remarks made, that desire of most of the leaders of the various parties, the various groups in this house, to do the impossible to expedite the settlement of that strike which is so costly for the Canadian economy.
And I naively thought-I confess that I have learned something and I still have much to learn-that with all that goodwill, the strike would be settled within 24 hours after which we would set ourselves to modernize the railway act, to deal with the increase in the cost of living and to provide for all the other urgent needs of Canada.
But in the course of the afternoon, Mr. Speaker, I had to sing a different tune when I saw the leader of the N.D.P. (Mr. Douglas) for instance ask for the adjournment until this afternoon, a proposal that seemed totally illogical to me but which could be explained by the fact that N.D.P. members had to hear their master's voice, the financial backer, in the circumstances.
In my opinion, in the face of such an urgent problem, our masters, the masters of members of parliament, are all the citizens of Canada. There are 20 million Canadian citizens who expect us to settle as soon as possible this strike which proves disastrous for our economy. Consequently, every hour counts.
Last night I was also surprised to see that the Leader of the Opposition refused to carry on with his remarks. There may have been extenuating circumstances in his case. I think I noticed that he remained late in his office last night. Perhaps he wanted to examine a little more thoroughly the implications of this bill. It may also be that he wanted to go

DEBATES	August 30, 1966
through the newspaper headlines this morning, for he likes to try the government with editorials from various papers. However, I do not believe that our editorial writers, though I respect them, are endowed with infallibility or have been entrusted with the administration of the country.
I believe this matter is in the hands of the government, and if the government fails, then the electors will have their say at the next election.
Mr. Speaker, these dilatory measures, this waste of time, while workers are forced to remain idle and suffer all kinds of hardships -indeed some railway strikers will not get this week's salary which they badly need- was a shock to me. I was scandalized to see that some members wished to hold up the debate for all kinds of reasons which do not appear to be very serious.
And I would like to add this, Mr. Speaker. I am making these remarks while fully conscious that I represent a working man's constituency, one of the larger labour ridings, and at least until the next election-one of the largest working class constituencies in Canada. I am also fully conscious of the fact that the workers gave me their support at the last election. We have some six or seven thousand workers, members of labour or trade unions; they did not vote for the N.D.P., but for the independent candidate.
So, I believe it is my duty to speak on their behalf. I think I know them because I have been associated with them for the past 20 years and I would like it to be borne in mind that I shall make these few remarks in the light of this awareness of my responsibility toward my workers. I shall be brief.
Mr. Spesker, I am not one of those who wish to defend representatives of the railways. L;ke many others, like most of the members in this house, I have w'tnessed their arrogance and greed, sanctioned by the gov-vernment, through which they have milked every last cent and through which they want to keep for themselves whatever is paying without giving the Canadian people services equal to those they have received from them. I know that. But I do not think this is the time to d scuss that question. We shall have the opportunity of discussing it in detail when we consider the second bill and I shall make it my duty to support any member of this house who seeks to criticize the railways fairly and rightly for their deficiencies.
I am one of those who know that a great number of railway workers are not treated
August 30, 19GS
fairly by those companies. I am one of those who have seen the dilapidated condition of railway stations which look more like shacks than anything else. I am one of those who have witnessed the disgraceful treatment to which are submitted certain employees who work, for instance, on new runs and who are housed in filthy box cars where the blankets are only washed every five or six months, where the people lack the basic sanitary necessities.
However, this is not the proper time, I think, to discuss that point. I am one of those also who thought the government was long in dealing with this problem. I was not aware of all the details, I admit, and if the last reports were not received by the government before August 22, it was perhaps difficult to intervene directly in this dispute.
I feel that the two old-line parties, Conservatives and Liberals, should acknowledge their wrongs. There does not exist in Canada a process likely to promote better relations between management and labour and to prevent a new outbreak of disastrous strikes such as we are now experiencing.
But I feel it is not time yet to settle this matter. We may be able to settle it later, but we are now faced with an emergency. I, like everybody else, know that the present inflation is absolutely unbearable and inadmissible, that the cost of living is fast increasing and that the governments must at all costs take drastic measures to prevent such an increase.
Mr. Speaker, I believe this is not the time to settle the question, since those who use these arguments are only confusing the situation and using of dilatory measures to prevent the government from settling the matter which is urgent and may prove disastrous.
Mr. Speaker, this reminds me of some of those witch doctors in certain tribes who, on pretext of curing a sick person start by burning various parts of his body, then beat him cruelly, sometimes even bleed him white, and drive him completely mad with an unbearable racket. More often than not the poor devil dies of exhaustion and misery.
Well, I believe that instead of giving the ailing Canadian economy a similar treatment, we should locate the abcess and drain it as soon as possible to prevent the infection from spreading. When this is done we will be in a position to take overall measures to solve all the problems put forward.
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters
Mr. Speaker, I am also one of those who deplores, as has been done a little this afternoon, the cynicism of certain labour leaders who advise their membership to flaunt the law, directly or indirectly, who already encourage them to break the law Parliament will adopt, if it is adopted by Parliament. I feel, Mr. Speaker, that it should not be allowed, it is not showing a truly Canadian spirit.
I am surprised to observe that some members of the opposition wanted to make the most of this emergency situation which, to my mind, should require all men of goodwill to unite in this national emergency which everyone recognizes and I believe that a large number could have refrained from comments or from petty politics pure and simple. The common good at stake seems to have been overlooked, Mr. Speaker.
But I think we should adopt this Government bill, even though it is not perfect, because there is nothing perfect in this world. Now, we have to take measures. Had we voted for the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition, to all practical purposes, it would have resulted in the rejection of the government bill and would have caused a further delay of a week or two. Think what this would mean to the economy of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I believe everyone should realize that this is a national emergency. Every one should realize that 20 million people are sending us an S.O.S. to please settle this strike which will affect every area of the Canadian economy.
I think everyone should realize that even the juvenile labour camps now on strike are anxious to find acceptable company but they are not anxious to remain two or three weeks idle and without getting their regular salary.
I think that the compromise proposed by the government is acceptable, though not perfect. It provides for a temporary increase, a small one I know, but which will undoubtedly be raised when the whole machinery of this bill has been put into force. Again, the government orders the parties to negotiate. Therefore, the government cannot be accused of imposing compulsory arbitration. And the government is submitting to us at the same time a second bill which, even though we have not studied it in depth, looks as if it might help solve problems in the railway crisis which is facing us right now, and the government has provided that, in case of non-agreement, there would be compulsory

7830	COMMONS
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters arbitration. Objection is taken to compulsory arbitration and yet, Mr. Speaker, in all fields of endeavour, we turn to compulsory arbitration. When we do not agree, we call on courts of law and accept verdicts. We have to. It is accepted at all levels of society; why would it not be accepted in the labour field, especially when the Commonwealth is concerned, when it has to do with strikes which affect the economy of a whole country and when things have come to such a deadlock that the parties cannot agree.
Otherwise, who will propose the solution, who will find the formula of agreement? I think that in such circumstances the government must assume its responsibilities, adopt measures which, though they may seem drastic, are hoped for today by the Canadian people.
I think that throughout Canada people are getting ready to condemn those who have wasted the time of parliament since it started its deliberations, those who did not understand that it was an emergency situation which might be disastrous. I think I just said that all Canadians are sending to the Canadian parliament an S.O.S. which should be heard by all. And here we take advantage of that situation to indulge in political partisanship, to create difficulties for the government. We will have contributed a little more, Mr. Speaker, to reduce the respect which the people feel for the Canadian parliament, the respect it should have. Otherwise where are we going, Mr. Speaker?
Therefore, I would like to call on the goodwill of all my colleagues and ask them to listen carefully to the voices coming from their ridings. Let them feel the necessity of taking immediate steps to end that strike and to enable those workers, who are on strike and who will not get their regular weekly salaries, to get them as soon as possible under reasonable conditions. I think that the government is giving them reasonable guarantees, and if the government does not keep its word, we will have all the time needed to blame it and to make it clear how it failed to keep it's word, Mr. Speaker.
[DOT] (7:00 p.m.)
For the time being we must agree to a sacred union and place our confidence in the government, vote them their bill to bring the strike to an end and then, tackle all the gaps and deficiencies in our labour legislation; we will grapple precisely with that problem of the increase in the cost of living. We will

DEBATES	August 30, 1966
tackle all the major problems submitted to
the house since yesterday afternoon.


Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, we have before us a bill calling for the return to work as soon as the legislation is passed, an increase in wages of 16 per cent for two years and compulsory arbitration. I do not intend in my remarks to take the tone taken during this debate by some hon. members who worked hard at setting forth a list of grievances concerning either the slowness of the present government or the 1960 Act which prevented the railway strike, or the 1950 measure bringing to an end a first general railway strike.
What counts, Mr. Speaker, is that we must not get bogged down in the winding paths of yester year, but rather look to the present and consider for the future more efficient structures and legislations in the field of labour and economy. As far as the recent dockers strike, the present railway strike and a possible postman strike in the fall are concerned, it is obvious that we must improve labour legislation, and administrative and judicial organizations. Bill No. C-230 before us sets forth three main purposes:
First, suspension of the rail strike; second, interim wage increase of 16 per cent over two years, for the railwaymen; and finally, compulsory arbitration. During the time at my disposal, I wish to elaborate a little on the bill's triple objective.
The first objective: suspension of the railway strike. Striking is not the normal means of establishing social justice, We must hope that another social measure will take away, as in the case of war, all reasons for its existence. Whether it be a classical strike, as is the present railway strike, a sit-down strike, a management strike, warning strike, slow-down strike, political strike, revolutionary strike, professional or sympathy strike, whether it be any kind of strike. A strike must be used as a last resort with due regard to social justice and Christian charity.
The state may intervene in a strike as protector of the common good. It is true that the wage-earner owns his job. If the wage-earner, by going on strike, decides to temporarily withdraw his services and if the state intervenes to force the wage-earner into going back to work, the state is legislating on a right of ownership, on an actual right belonging to the wage-earner, I agree.
August 30, 1966	COMMONS
Moreover, the Canadian Bill of Rights establishes the Canadian citizen's fundamental freedoms and his right to ownership.
Must we, for this reason, believe that the state, the federal government or the central government in this case, cannot suspend the right to strike?
The government may, by exception, legislate on this right of ownership if the commonweal makes it imperative and if there is no adequate legislation, adequate tribunals and organizations of balance.
But the government must bear full responsibility for its exceptional intervention, because who is to blame if there is no adequate legislation or tribunals. It is not the fault of wage-earners nor of management. But the responsibility is with the government and the legislators that we are.
In the case with which we are concerned, the present and former governments and the legislators who preceded this government did not create the legislation, the tribunals and the organizations that we require. And that is why, as far as those who have been holding a seat in this chamber for some time are concerned, we are all guilty. We are all responsible for the present situation.
Let us stop putting on one side of the house all the accusations or all the blame. Rather, let us have a better understanding of our great role as legislators. That is the main reason for our presence in this Canadian parliament, to do our main job, as legislators, as the makers of laws, solely for the commonweal and for the disappearance of all social and economic grievances. Let us start immediately to set up the law courts, the legislation and the organizations required.
Is the strike in the public services a move that is consistent with the human and Christian common sense or, if you like, with ethics, since the latter word implies human common sense and Christian common sense. I believe so, Mr. Speaker, every time that it meets the five conditions of the fair strike.
Those five conditions are as follows:
First, exhausting all the effective and existing peaceful means; second, the pursuit of '?ery serious advantages; the third condition of a fair strike is that the advantages sought must be greater than the disadvantages caused; the fourth condition of a fair strike is a serious hope to win; fifth, the use of honest means in the course of the dispute.
Let us make a few comments on this first condition of a fair strike in the public services, namely the exhausting of all existing 23033-496
DEBATES	7831
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters and effective peaceful means. We know what the peaceful means are: direct negotiation, conciliation, mediation and arbitration.
These are also the requirements to make these measures effective in promoting justice and preventing strikes. A progressive labour law is also necessary.
Those who spoke today have perhaps not stressed enough the gaps in our labour laws. Second, we need competence. Third, we must have impartiality and, finally, more expeditious procedures. Conciliation and arbitration procedures must be improved so that, in settling the different disputes, they may help labour laws to become more progressive as quickly as possible. Otherwise strikes or lock-outs must be allowed to settle conciliation cases, and arbitration will be unable to solve anything, for lack of adequate rules.
In a sense a strike, as we can see in this railway strike, can in its own way hurry the evolution of the labour laws which will finally lead to the elimination of the strike itself.
Employer and employee problems involve many legal angles: natural and positive laws, economic and sociological laws. A mediator or the chairman of an arbitration board who may be competent in one of these fields needs expert counsel in other fields. He should be able, legally and financially, to engage the services of experts according to his needs. This co-operation of competent men would help the evolution of labour laws and produce a greater confidence between the parties and the public.
With regard to impartiality, the separation of the judiciary from the executive and legislative powers should be maintained. A minister of the Crown representing, more or less in the case before us, the employer, that is the railways, cannot be appointed mediator or chairman of an arbitration board.
As to the pursuit of most serious objectives, let us say that the stake involved must be a very great injustice to correct. And, as for the third requirement of a just strike, that the benefits should be greater than the disadvantages, as far as a public utilities strike is concerned, it may be that benefits can be greater than the disadvantages, but such a balance is difficult to achieve in public utilities. It all depends on the character of the public utilities involved. For some people, such benefits will possibly never equal the disadvantages. The union may reduce hardship by allowing certain essential services to be maintained, by resorting to partial strikes rather than to total strike.
August 30, 1966
7832	COMMONS
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters
As to the fourth requirement of a just strike, the reasonable hope of winning it, let us say that this is a question of common sense. In public utilities, the hope of winning is almost a certainty as far as the unions are concerned because they represent an extraordinary pressure group while the people cannot long be deprived of essential services. But in regard to such pressure, the unions are taking on a heavy responsibility-the people must be spared excessive hardship-true, the unions have some rights, but the people also have rights which can be summed up in the right to essential services.
Public opinion has a major role to play and it may happen that a series of strikes will arouse public opinion in such a way that the people will clamour for legislation to restrict the right to strike. On the other hand, public opinion would be in sympathy with the unions if they were refused truly efficient arbitration to give them full justice.
Where does the responsibility lie for this railroad strike? I do not wish to belabour the point but let us say in brief that to my mind, it is the present federal government and the railroad, indirectly, as I observed at the beginning of my remarks, the previous governments also share in the responsibility, as well as the previous legislators and the labour unions.
[DOT] (7:10 p.m.)
The right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) has failed, in the present dispute, to take his responsibilities either in calling parliament before the strike, or in appointing sooner a mediator without ties to the executive, that is to say, in the present case, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) who acted as mediator between the employers and the unions while the employers are in a certain sense, related to the government, to the executive; well the mediator could not be considered by both parties, at least by the employees, as a competent mediator, as a mediator capable of looking at the problems objectively and impartially.
Since 1363, the present government and the Prime Minister should have acted to implement several recommendations in the MacPherson and Freedman reports. They should have acted since 1963. As the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) noted this afternoon, we are stifled here in the lap of the federal government, by quantities of reports. Let us take the case of the railroad dispute or the problems of railroad transportation in Canada. It is not a new dispute. We


received the last report in 1962 and before that, the two previous ones of the MacPherson Commission for the formulation of a railway policy in Canada. Well, the present official opposition was able to look into the recommendations and study for at least one year, if not more, the first reports, but no legislation was introduced. I understand that at the time the official opposition did not have as much time as the present government, then in the opposition, which came to the fore when those reports were submitted and has governed the country for the last three years. It is fantastic to say and a real shame to note that the persons responsible as legislators of the country have not introduced any legislation to implement the recommendations of the MacPherson Commission or some of them.
Therefore, the second bill tabled yesterday by the Prime Minister is more than four years late. During the nine months of negotiations previous to the present railway strike, the Prime Minister should have followed more closely and alertly the development of the dispute.
How disappointing are the answers obtained to the various questions we put in this house, to the government, to the Prime Minister and to most other ministers. There are some exceptions, because today I got an excellent reply from the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) when he gave me the assurance he would look into the 178 cases of injustice in the employment service and that in every case the person involved would be granted a personal interview.
This is a positive answer, a grievance faced squarely which will be redressed without delay. Not later than yesterday I put a question to the Prime Minister. I asked him to tell the house whether he intended to take immediate action to settle the dispute which threatens to bring about most certainly a strike of postal workers on October 18.
That is an impending thing, which is on the threshold of Canadian economy. And again, the right hon. Prime Minister stood up, charming as ever-he always has a very diplomatic and flexible answer, he is conversant with the situation-and answered me that he wanted to analyse the matter and consult with the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote). Well, that is the kind of questions that, during the nine months of negotiations, the hon. members directed to the Prime Minister and to other ministers of the present government concerning the impending railway strike, and
August 30. 1966

we were receiving the same evasive, the same irresponsible answers.
I think the Canadian people have had enough of those ways of administering the country, of that trend given to Canadian politics and the economy. We want action and frankness not only in words but in action, we want the government and public men to grapple directly with problems and to take efficient measures so as to arrive at a settlement before the mountain brings forth all its grievances and all its uneasiness.
The railway companies also, Mr. Speaker, have not assumed all their responsibilities, because they did not offer definite wages and labour conditions, leaving to the central government the burden of paying the bill, of showing imagination and leadership. That is why in that conflict, at the table of negotiations, the ghost presence of the central government could be felt.
In the face of that situation, considering the discussion on the strike in general, on the strike in the public services, the principles connected with the railway strike which must be settled rapidly, as a result of those considerations, it is in order to suggest a few reforms in the part we must play as legislators. That is our main function here in this parliament. We are not here to multiply political partisanships. We are not here to bring up like popcorn being made the positions taken by a political party when in the opposition if it takes the opposite position when in power. We are here to legislate and, in the field of labour, it is urgent, Mr. Speaker, to bring forth reforms.
I want to submit to the attention of this house a few reforms and I would greatly appreciate it if the government would consider them with all the other recommendations and judicious suggestions submitted by other members during the present debate.
First, it is urgent to set up an adequate labour legislation. Second, we need labour-management courts able to decide fairly with regard to professional conflicts.
Third, until we get that appropriate legislation and those labour-management courts, we must leave management and labour free to exercise their defence rights, namely the right to strike or appeal.
In addition, in the process of evolution, civil conflicts are settled today by the courts, whereas at the beginning of the world individuals took justice into their own hands. In the era of the cavemen, if another man stole his neighbour's cattle, there were no
DEBATES	7833
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters courts. The offended party took justice into his own hands: the right to own things. And that right goes with the right to defend oneself and that right must be exercised until the day when appropriate legislation and courts exist. Then the exercise of that right of defence in civil and criminal matters is given to the duly constituted courts which we have today.
That is why I say that the right to strike or lockout is temporary until we have adequate legislation and courts. It is false to think that the right to strike in itself or the lockout is absolute, eternal and unlimited. The responsibility falls on the state and on us legislators to create legislation and labour-management courts.
It is also incumbent on the state to promote the creation of organizations which will create a balance in the economic and social fields between the state, management and labour.
Here is my fourth reform or suggestion. I propose the setting up of a wisemen court which a national management confederation and a general labour confederation should put to work. I am thinking in particular of an organization similar to the labour market commission in Sweden.
That organization which we could set up should take into account our Canadian and constitutional characteristics. Mr. Speaker, this afternoon a few allusions were made to Sweden. I am not talking at all about the political system, socialist or otherwise, of Sweden.
But when we look squarely at the problems, we can take good ideas in every country and every political creed. We can take an idea or a structure which gave excellent results for the common good of a country without for all that accepting the philosophy or political theories of the Swedish government, since that one was mentioned this afternoon, if it is really a socialist government.
There is a wisemen court there wh;ch is called the labour market commission. It was created in 1937 between a national management confederation and a national labour confederation.
And I reach this point to say, as I pointed out a while ago, that in this dispute the unions also have some responsibilities, as well as the employers, the management, in Canada. At this time, in the dispute we are facing eight railway companies; on the other hand, we have 16 or 18 unions formed into
August 30. 1966
7834	COMMONS
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters four union groups. Then, how can we reach solutions with so much division. Well, I believe that Sweden sets an example for many countries, even for Canada. The management, the employers, got together into a national confederation, and the unions forgot their differences, their local or regional peculiarities and grouped together to consider the wider problems in a national trade unions confederation.
[DOT] (7:20 p.m.)
And the two organizations of both confederations met and established a basic agreement which has enabled them, since 1937, to set the labour disputes. And thus, since 1937, Sweden has had no strikes. Whether the government of that country be communist, socialist, or capitalist, we have there a wonderful idea which has been applied and I would appreciate it very much if the government and, mainly the management parties and the unions, instead of fighting so much, instead of acting in such an individualistic way would seek to pool their interests. We would have both levels of interest on a national level, with capital and labour meeting together and setting out standards in an agreement as was done in Sweden.
We could also consider renovating here, for instance, in Canada, if it took too long for the good faith of the Canadian labour and management to achieve this organization, the National Labour Relations Board and have it play a similar role.
It is absolutely necessary that there should be established, between management and labour in Canada, permanent structures which would enable them to achieve their goal, to promote better social and economic balance, and to make a contribution to the achievement of the commonweal. And in this fourth reform that I suggest, Mr. Speaker, I would see very favourably the government, in turn, co-operate with the provinces and establish an organization of experts who would analyse eventual disputes, which we can see coming, and who would then keep people informed.
Oh, how Canada lacks objective organizations which would be backed and encouraged by the government and which would comprise university professors, experts in economics, actuaries, experts in industrial relations and in the taxation areas, that is groups of perhaps 12 persons, who would work in co-operation with the provinces as soon as a dispute could be seen in the offing. Those experts would closely consider the question, make a quick assessment of the causes and
[Mr. Allard.)

the unrest and suggest the remedies and then make sure, as an organization, to publicize it throughout the country through television radio and the newspapers.
During conversations I had in a bus-I was going to say in a train, but there are not any for some hours to come-and on the street here, in Ottawa, and elsewhere, I asked several people this point-blank question: What do you think, sir or madam, of the strike- What would you suggest about the railway strike in Canada? Some would have no opinion, others would express very superficial opinions. We do not have the advantage of such an organization.
I know that some members will say that we have the Economic Council of Canada, others are going to say that we have the Quebec economic planning council and, in Ontario, another body along the same line. But the gap is precisely there. We have at the central government an economic planning council working alone and often without correlation as regards the economic planning councils of the provinces. What we need is for an organization to co-operate with the provinces so as to forestall such conflicts. As second point of my remarks, I wanted to deal with the second aspect of this bill, that is, the salary increase.
As mentioned in section 6, the provisional contract provides for 8 per cent a year for two years, that is, 16 per cent.
Mr. Speaker, I feel it does not rest with the state to set salary rates in a system of free enterprise. I realize that the government is in a tight corner and has to settle the matter without delay.
That is why, in the face of this nation-wide crisis, I shall vote for the bill. But I am taking the liberty of pointing out that it is not incumbent on the federal government to determine salary rates in a system of free enterprise. Such rates should be decided upon by the immediate employer and the union representatives.
Another point is this. That government and parliament be conscious of the common good and refrain from pursuing electoral goals. I do not know what was the intention of the present federal government in inserting in this bill an increase of salary amounting to 8 per cent; I wonder also on what basis such an 8 per cent increase was arrived at. If I refer to the recent statements made by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), I find that this second indication in the bill is
August 30, 1966

entirely contrary to his warnings about moderation and inflation. If the right hon. Prime Minister and his experts and advisers are really in a position to decide honestly and objectively that the economic and financial situation of the country has reached a point where-the mean salary in the country being, as for the railway workers, $2.20 per hour-in the face of inflation, we should practice moderation and tighten our belts, then a special budget for next fall should be prepared which would increase taxes and add a few more holes in the belt in order that the Canadian taxpayer may feel the pinch since we are living in an inflated economy. If these words were pronounced in all fairness and sincerity, how is it then that a few days later a bill is introduced by the same federal government, which has no jurisdiction on salary standards, announcing an increase of salary in that very bill?
For instance, it would be very amusing, in case the conflict is referred to the arbitration board, if it were decided by the members of the board that the salaries being what they were are corrected to such an extent. This increase appearing in the bill is very amusing. And it would be very amusing, if in the next debate that the right hon. Prime Minister has promised to us on the problems of inflation, and on the increase in the cost of living, it were established after due consideration and an extended debate, that, when some national average is reached, salaries must be frozen. It would be appropriate, however, to permit increase, that is, not to fix a limit for workers earning less than $1.93 per hour in Canada as is the case for the textile workers at Sherbrooke and in important Quebec cities, whose basic rate is $1.18 to $1.59 per hour. These workers are really far from the average rate prevailing in industry in the country, which is $1.93, if I am not mistaken; but with the railways we see already that this average is $2.20. And this is why I say that I will nevertheless vote in favour of the bill, because the situation is desperate; however, I do not approve of this, in other legislation where we could take the time to introduce amendments if we were not facing a national crisis, where the government must determine wages, while this is not its responsibility. This is providing an arbitration procedure before the conclusions are arrived at on the causes of the conflict.
Finally Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few remarks on this third objective of the bill concerning compulsory arbitration.
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters This is an exceptional and emergency measure under the circumstances, and consequently not perfect.
[DOT] (7.30 p.m.)
We have seen in the past, and hon. members mentioned it, labour leaders who, on many occasions, and over the last few days, have voiced grievances against some arbitration boards in general because they have failed, have not studied seriously the problems; it is true-for those who have followed the whole evolution of arbitration boards- often because political friends or greatly incompetent people were appointed, men who knew nothing about industrial techniques, labour-management relations, people who had no idea of economics and finance, taxation and social and economic problems. Such men were appointed there because they were friends and because they had influence, not because of their intelligence and judgment, but rather because of the roundness of their abdomen.
I agree with the hon. members who submitted grievances; it is because those arbitration boards failed in their duty, because their members showed themselves to be incompetent; it does not mean that the institution is not worthy or is basically faulty; far from it and I admit that under the circumstances it is an organization which must be accepted, a special body, and that the government however, if need be, will give us competent, objective and impartial arbitrators.
The arbitrators should be experts and not members of the government or parliament, to repeat what I pointed out at the beginning of my remarks, in order always to make a distinction between the executive, the judiciary and the legislative. The arbitrator should give his decision within a limited time.
I noticed in the bill that the whole thing is to go on through mediation until November 15 and that the mediator must report to the Minister of Labour who afterwards must set up an arbitration board. But no time limit is set, unless I am mistaken and do not understand the wording of the bill. We should find in the bill-and I hope that when it is studied in committee, the government will agree to amend that clause so that a time limit is set for the arbitrators to render their decision; of course, there is a deadline with regard to the arbitrator's decision; it must be given within five days to parliament, then parliament must submit it to the session within the five days which will follow a new session but how long are the arbitrators given, if the matter goes
August 30, 1966

Legislation Respecting Railway Matters that far, to take a decision? Can they postpone it for two years? Can they let the matter drag on for three years? Well, if the government can give me some assurance as to the wording, I cannot find any provision requiring the arbitrators to make a decision in a given time. I would appreciate it very much if a time limit were set for the arbitrators to hold their discussions and submit their report.
Also, the arbitrators should have the legal and financial capacity and secure advisers. Of course, it will perhaps be pointed out to me that this is not authorized by all the acts referred to in this piece of legislation. If it is impossible to proceed directly, indirect means should be sought. Three arbitrators could be appointed but it could happen that only one who would know all about transportation matters; but, not being an actuary, perhaps he would not be able to work out the calculations. He could have the legal and financial capacity of an actuary who could figure out the total cost of granting such a salary increase or of bringing about such and such results within the Canadian economy.
Mr. Ovide Laflamme {Quebec-Montmorency): Mr. Speaker, I only wish to take a few minutes to give the impressions which I was able to gather from the strikers in my riding during an informative meeting I held last night, and also to make a few remarks which I think appropriate concerning the bill now under consideration in this house.
On the one hand, the general impression I got from the strikers I met convinced me beyond doubt that they had no understanding whatsoever of the meaning of the bill under consideration, because they believed that it actually dealt with the salaries of the railway workers.
In my opinion, this bill-and I believe the salary question is a minor one-deals with only two essential and important points. First, the return to work of the railwaymen, because the strike must end at all costs; second, the resumption of negotiations through a process established in the bill. Thus, the government, in settling the problem of the strike which, of course, must end, was anxious to protect, in spite of everyone and even, I submit, against some members of the opposition and especially the N.D.P., the freedom of collective bargaining, even in the field of the public service. On that point, I believe that all Canadian workers presently on strike must understand me.
At the present time the Canadian government has taken care to protect the freedom of collective bargaining, even in the field of public service and railway transportation. Negotiations, of course, provide for a return to work, a sort of sit-down strike, and a salary increase which seems small; however, I believe this is not very important at present since, under this bill, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) will appoint a mediator who will report before two months and a half have elapsed; and consequently, if we are not here, and so that the problem does not have to be brought before parliament, there is a provision for compulsory arbitration because the situation naturally has to come to an end. And even then, the present government, which seeks to respect the freedom of negotiations and, in the public field, the freedom of debate, provides that ten members of parliament may, at the time the arbitrators' decision is handed down, raise the question again in the house to criticize or stress the weaknesses of the decision or, finally, to voice the feelings of workers who could be disatisfied with the conditions imposed in the decision.
But, Mr. Speaker, I really wonder if the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) has, in his own way, solved the problem this afternoon. He told the government: Your bill is worth nothing. Send it back and introduce another one. What does it mean on the part of the Leader of the Opposition? What have we got in the way of constructive criticism in such an important situation? I respectfully submit that we have absolutely nothing.
As far as the suggestions made by the N.P.D. are concerned, there is opposition to compulsory arbitration. If there is an area in which I think one can logically conceive compulsory arbitration, it is the area of railway transport, where the rates are determined by a government control board called the Board of Transport Commissioners.
And in the case of compulsory arbitration, the government with logic, has upheld the freedom of speech by allowing ten members to rise and the debate to resume and amendments to be moved by the house. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that this does not create any difficulty and I sincerely think, because I have spent part of the evening with strikers, that this bill, being logically and objectively set out, seeks to guarantee in the first place the respect of the right to strike, which is a sacred right of the workers, even in the public sector-as I respectfully submit-and

August 30, 1966


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. B. S. Mackasey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: A few minutes ago I listened to the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard) speaking on the present crisis and suggesting that we should not court the possibility of increasing the pressure of inflation on this nation by granting a wage increase of any substance to the railway workers.
As one who watches the Quebec papers I cannot help compare these remarks with the hon. member's remarks made during the last few weeks in connection with the strike in Sherbrooke involving the textile workers and Dominion Textiles of Canada. Judging by the remarks of the hon. member for Sherbrooke


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: But, Mr. Speaker, neither do I share the opinion of N.D.P. members, who have just endorsed my remarks, that this is the intent of the bill. Rather, as one who has been a union man for many years, I see something much deeper in the bill before us. I see an attempt made by the government to respect and continue the cherished rights of the unions to negotiate their own settlement, and I see the 4 per cent, and 8 per cent mentioned in the bill, as a very temporary settlement of the problems of the railway workers.
Many in my community work for the railway. Many in the gallery tonight are from my community and I know many of the
7838	COMMONS
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters problems facing men who have spent 10, 15 and 20 years working for the C.P.R. I know of their anxiety and uncertainty. I know of the concern of those working in the dining car section, who see national trains shunted away, who at times see an almost conscious effort to discourage passenger service. One can understand, appreciate, and sympathize with the problems of the workingman who is expected to work for the benefit of the railway, when he is confused, as are many in this house, with policies of the C.P.R. that at times discourage passenger service, rather than encourage it.
I think that the railwayman in Canada has been synonymous with respect and maturity for many years because of the fact that the unions that have been charged with the problems of the workingman have been amongst the more mature and responsible in this country, and I do not share the opinion of those who say there is no room in Canada for international unions.
Rather, I think the stability that has been synonymous with the railway movement in Canada is due in large measure to the maturity and wisdom of those men who have taken time out from their normal work to participate actively in the labour movement, and I for one share their anxiety and confusion at the efforts made in some parts of the country to chip away at the authority and jurisdiction of the international unions.
Much effort has been made in the house to confuse not only the railwaymen but also hon. members as to the intent and purpose of the bill. Speaker after speaker has talked about the 6 per cent and 8 per cent in the same breath as he talked about 30 per cent, but each has failed to mention that the 30 per cent settlement of the longshoremen, and the 30 per cent of the seaway workers, is not 30 per cent immediately but 30 per cent spread over a two year period. Until the unions and management begin to finalize negotiations nobody will know what the eventual and total settlement in wages will be for the workingman.
At the present moment we know that if this bill is accepted and the workers return to work there will be an immediate increase for the men. And I presume they will return, Mr. Speaker, although I imagine it is hard for many of them who have gone through nine tortuous months of negotiation, to do so. However, they are members of mature unions which, in the final analysis, know that the laws of the land must be respected. In this

DEBATES	August 30. 1966
respect this bill differs from the bill introduced in 1960. That bill simply froze the salaries of the men; it ordered them back to work with no immediate increase. That is the fundamental difference. This bill provides that if the men go back to work they will get some immediate increase. It provides that they go back and negotiate with the railway until November 15 in the light of the published amendments introduced for adoption, of certain parts of the MacPherson report, placing the railways in a better position to be more liberal and more conscious perhaps of the rights and needs of the workers.
The hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard) wanted to know where we got the figure of 8 per cent. That is the recommendation of Mr. Justice Munroe to this point, and it is significant that it is a higher settlement than the companies' representative on the board was willing to agree to. I must emphasize, even at the risk of being repetitive, that clause 9 provides for the appointment of a mediator for the distinct purpose of negotiating the increase that I am confident will come as the result of negotiation undertaken in the light of the recommendations that will be introduced, and I mean primarily the recommendations of the MacPherson report.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I must speak on behalf of labour. At first glance it concerns me a little bit that if the MacPherson report is accepted in its entirety, or even partially if it provides for the railways to become more efficient, it could conceivably provide for reduction in the work staff, and thus create more insecurity and anxiety, which leads us on to another historic document with which most hon. members are familiar, the Freedman report.
A month or so before the house recessed I said I thought that in time the Freedman report would become as historic in the annals of labour as the Rand report. I am one member of the house and one supporter of the government who thinks that certain aspects of the Freedman report should be introduced almost simultaneously with any segments of the MacPherson report that are going to provide added revenue for the railways and which-and this is more disquieting for me-could provide for a reduction of the working force.
The time has come for all of us to realize that Canada can only be great and prosperous if all segments of society are respected and their needs looked after. There are too many people in this house and outside it who get
August 30, 1966	COMMONS
up and castigate labour, who point out wildcat strikes and legitimate strikes, but who forget that for every strike that takes place there are hundreds of agreements signed quietly and fairly.
[DOT] (8:00 p.m.)
The government must do more than look at company profits if it expects labour in all fields, not only the railway labour field, to be responsible in its demands. We are duty bound to look at consumer prices, increased dividends and record profits. We can no longer treat the problems of Canada piecemeal. I would suggest, of course, that by the same criterion the unions themselves are morally bound to settle their differences with the railways by November 15.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of attention to the right hon. Leader of the Opposition who I am sure will be along in a few moments. On three or four occasions he pointed out that the railwaymen were responsible people and that he expected they would go back to work, but that he could not blame them if they did not. This reminds me a little of the funeral oration in Julius Caesar when they kept repeating "Brutus was an honourable man". If I was a cynical type and a real partisan, which I am not, I would say that at times I was left with the impression that the right hon. Leader of the Opposition might have been toying with an invitation to the men not to return. I was pleased at the change in his attitude over night.
I would imagine that some of the responsible members from the west who are concerned with the problems of wheat shipments and members from the maritimes who are concerned with the problems of the maritimes may have suggested to their leader that parliament is here to represent the rights of all Canadians, including the farmers and the workers.
The term compulsory arbitration has been bandied about by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition and by the leader of the New Democratic Party. I imag ne that this is supposed to be synonymous with sin; to a railwayman and a labourman it is. In looking back into labour matters which have appeared in Hansard, as far back as 1950, I was intrigued by the legislation introduced in the House of Commons in 1958 to settle the Canadian Pacific Steamships strike in British Columbia. I know that many members of the house who are here tonight were present in 1958. Those who were here will recall that
DEBATES	7839
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters this strike had existed for many many months and had been very disruptive in the field of communications in British Columbia. The minister of labour at the time, the present member for Ontario (Mr. Starr), was plagued by the problem of settling this particular strike; so he introduced a bill, a copy of which I have here, which was nothing more or less than compulsory arbitration. I do not say this to castigate the hon. member, the then minister of labour, because there are circumstances where compulsory arbitration is the only and the last method of settling a problem.
The main feature of that bill, which was introduced by hon. members who now sit in opposition, was that it gave the union members on strike so many hours to get back to work, at the risk of forfeiting their jobs. Since the summer recess was coming up, that same bill included the right to punish the union men by order in council if they disregarded the government's instructions to go back to work. All the way through the debate at the time hon. members, particularly the hon. member for, I think, Skeena (Mr. Howard) or, if not, his deskmate, kept referring to the fact that this was compulsory arbitration. I mention this because for the benefit of labour and the people in the gallery, the hon. member and other members of the Conservative party have tried to create the illusion that they never stooped to compulsory arbitration legislation. Yet that is what they did in 1958.
Mr. Speaker, I then looked through other papers to see what else I could find-what other examples of compulsory arbitration. I came across a rather appealing and interesting document put out by a member of the New Democratic Party, the hon. member for Skeena, in July of this year. Because the hon. member had accepted the invitation of the Minister of Labour to settle the dispute of the longshoremen, he proposed, for the better part of a week, to lay on the order paper a resolution to introduce a bill to settle the longshoremen's strike. It never reached the printing stage, but the hon. member was honest and decent enough to send a copy to this party. He did launch the bill in a very grandiose manner with a full fledged press conference graced by no less than the leader of the N.D.P. He proposed to settle the longshoremen's strike. How?-by ordering the longshoremen back to work; that is how.
August 30, 1966
7840	COMMONS DEBATES
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: But at wages the workers had already accepted, and without compulsory arbitration.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of semantics. I should like to read the explanatory note for the benefit of those who think it is not compulsory arbitration:
Clause 4 of the bill provides that the employees who are-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order.
The hon. member for Rosthern.


Mr. Nasserden:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member who has the floor table the copy of the bill from which he is quoting now?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: It is a pleasure, Mr. Speaker. I will also file a copy of the bill of 1958 which you people introduced in the form of compulsory arbitration. To continue with ihe explanatory note:
Clause 4 of the bill provides that the employees who are now on strike at the three ports shall return to their work under conditions as enumerated hereunder.
The words hereunder meant on terms more beneficial to the longshoremen than when the strike began. What is fundamental to the whole issue is that it insisted that the workers go back to work under the strength of a bill passed before the House of Commons. Furthermore it says:
Clause 6 provides that the parties shall Immediately enter Into collective bargaining in good faith and shall make every reasonable effort to conclude a new collective agreement. If at the expiration of 60 days this collective bargaining still leaves certain matters in dispute these matters shall be referred to an industrial inquiry commissioner who shall inquire into the matters in dispute and make recommendations from time to time concerning these matters with the proviso that all such matters be recommended upon by the 1st of June 1967.
In other words this bill of the hon. member for Skeena does precisely what the bill before us does.


David Lewis: Come on; you know better than that.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Let me finish.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
This says that if negotiations-


David Lewis: Do not be sanctimonious. The bill is not the same and the hon. member knows it.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to become involved in a cross-fire with the hon. member for York South. Let me finish

what I am reading and then let the people generally and those in the gallery judge for themselves. I have an editorial before me which I should like to read, or at least parts of it.
. To refer again to the bill proposed by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), one clause suggests that the longshoremen should go back to work with some increase in pay, which is precisely what the railway employees are expected to do. If they cannot settle their differences after they go back to work, the matter is then to be referred to an industrial inquiry commission. Surely that is the same thing.
There was also a time limit set in that bill of the hon. member to the effect that the governor in council could make regulations to ensure the continued operations of the longshoremen, which would expire when a new agreement came into effect. In other words, by order in council regulations could be introduced to continue the operations of the longshoremen-and if that is not compulsory arbitration I do not know what it is. If they decided to go out on strike, then an order in council could have been introduced to prevent them from doing so.
The Vancouver Sun, which keeps a very close eye on the New Democratic Party, had the following to say on June 11, 1966.


David Lewis: And it supports the Liberal party, do not forget that.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: This article states:
"The time has therefore come when parliament and the government cannot further postpone appropriate action to bring the strike to an end."
-New Democratic Party press release issued June 9, 1966, in Ottawa.
In this quotation the N.D.P. was explaining why it was submitting a draft bill to order striking longshoremen in eastern Canadian ports to abandon their legal strike and return to work on terms fixed by the bill.
The underlying principle of the bill, standing in the name of Frank Howard, N.D.P., Skeena, is that damage to the public interest justifies a compulsory back-to-work order.
The N.D.P.'s national leader, T. C. Douglas, was present at the press conference when the release was handed out and subscribed to its terms.
A great many people have long believed that the rights of the public must be asserted by government in cases in which organized labour and employers are unable or unwilling to resume the operation of vital services.
These people may be pleasantly astonished to find an ally in the New Democratic Party, which prides itself on being the political arm of organized labour in Canada. Mr. Douglas and his followers have apparently climbed to a philosophical divide beyond which they can see a responsibility to society as a whole which supersedes an ancient loyalty to a particular group.
August 30, 1965	COMMONS
That is only part of the editorial, Mr. Speaker, from which I have quoted; but I am prepared to produce it so that interested members can read it to verify that I have not left out anything which destroys the spirit of what I have read.
The point I am trying to make, in referring to the Canadian Pacific Steamship legislation of 1958, is this: It is apparent from the bill sponsored by the hon. member for Skeena that the N.D.P. felt the time had arrived when the rights of the country must be put ahead of the rights of the longshoremen. In 1958 the government felt also that the time had come to put the rights of Canada ahead of the rights of the operators of the steamships in British Columbia.
The time always comes when the rights of the nation must come first. I differ with certain members, however, who think that every time the railway employees feel they should take advantage of the right to strike we must send them back to work, because the rights of the country are paramount. If we expect that year in and year out, contract after contract, union members must assume this type of responsibility, but we must assume the responsibility of making sure that in exercising this responsibility these Canadian workers are not placed in an inferior position as compared to other workers, particularly with reference to wage structures and working conditions. This government and house have a responsibility to these workers to see that an eventual settlement is reached before November 15, and that that settlement is not only equal to what has been recommended by Mr. Justice Munroe, but equitable in comparison with the wage structures and working conditions of other comparable workingmen.
The part of this bill which makes it supportable to me and other labour men in this party is that part which guarantees the right to workers of at least another two months to settle negotiations with employers. There is an amendment now before the house. Anyone who votes for that amendment will be voting for the disruption of rail service. We have heard many members of the opposition parties speak honestly and with feeling about the rights and needs of their particular areas of the country in respect of uninterruptable rail service.
An hon. member from the maritimes spoke clearly and concisely yesterday, echoing the opinion of many members of this house and certainly the sentiments of the fishermen and
DEBATES	7841
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters potato farmers of Prince Edward Island as well as those of wheat farmers of the west. I will be interested to see whether his feeling for his constituents is such that he will vote against the amendment tonight. If it is in the interest of his riding that railway employees go back to work as soon as possible so that trains will again begin to run he cannot afford the luxury of eating his cake and having it too. The rights of the fishermen, farmers and men of industry throughout this land are such that Canada cannot afford a railway strike.
Let me say to the government that I think the time has come when we should stop putting the railway worker in such an unfair position, as a result of which he is required at least every two years to make a sacrifice which the companies and other members of the working force are not prepared to make. These railway employees have always lived in dignity and integrity, and their position should be restored in the community of labour.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, when this house debated the question of compulsory arbitration for dock workers, and again tonight when we are faced with the present bill, the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey), with whom I spent some very pleasant days recently on a trip to Poland, spent some time searching his soul in public. It is a painful sight to witness one go through the gyrations of mental and spiritual pain as he tries to justify the unjustifiable. The hon. member for Verdun said that when my colleague, the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), made certain proposals for the settlement of the dock workers strike he had reached the conclusion that the time had come then for the strike to end in the national interest.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
Let me say to the hon. member that we agree with the government and with every other member in this house that the time has come now, in the national interest, to bring the railway strike to an end as soon as possible. We do not fault the government for making an effort to bring an end to the strike, and it is obvious that if parliament is to bring an end to any strike it must pass a law which says to the workers: You must go back to work. There is no other way in which it can be done.
7842	COMMONS
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters
Mr. Speaker, that is not the reason for our strong opposition to the bill before us. The reason for our opposition is that the bill is a mean piece of legislation. It is an ineffectual piece of legislation. It is insulting and provocative to the workers now on strike. It is a piece of legislation to which the government could not possibly have given any intelligent thought and consideration. I would not be at all surprised if before the debate on this bill ends the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson)-who listens to reason-comes in with a new bill that will be much better than the one now before the house. I hope he does.
I hope that the representations made in this house, the news in the newspapers of the opposition of the striking workers, which he has read, and the representations made to him yesterday and today by the railway unions will persuade him to change this bill. But I regret with all my heart that for the umpteenth time since I have been in this house this kind of thing is what parliament has to go through, namely, a piece of legislation that has not been thought out, that has not been carefully considered, that does not accomplish what the government intends it to accomplish; and then the legislation has to be withdrawn and a new piece of legislation brought before us.
I say in all kindness to the right hon. Prime Minister that this kind of action on the part of the government, taking one step forward and two steps backward, has got to end. The newspapers have made clear that the workers who are on strike are not prepared to go back to work under this kind of law. I say to this house that no less a person than Hon. J. C. McRuer, for many years the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Ontario and one of the greatest jurists in this land, recently made a speech to the American Bar Association in Montreal. During that speech he said that unjust laws we have in abundance. I am not citing every word he used, but his is a story from the Globe and Mail of August 9, 1966, in which Mr. Justice McRuer said, of these unjust laws:
-some a legacy of other days-
He was referring to the unjust laws that we have in abundance:
-when standards of justice were different than they are today; others forced on us by impatient legislators who are more concerned with rules than justice.
fMr. Lewis.]
DEBATES	August 30, 1966
Hon. Mr. Justice McRuer later in his speech said:
Order, like law, to be respected must deserve respect. Disrespect for an order that does not deserve respect ought not to be condemned as degeneration but commended as healthy regeneration.
I suggest to the right hon. Prime Minister that it is the height of folly to place before parliament and the country a law which cannot possibly be accepted with consent, no matter in what other way it may be accepted, by any Canadian with a sense of justice and self-respect. There is every difference between parliament saying that this strike must end and immediately bringing in legislation providing for an adequate settlement of the strike-I will come back in a moment to the role of government in railway negotiations- and the kind of thing we have now, a miserly, mean 6 per cent for the first year of the contract and no guarantee of what will happen afterwards, with supposed mediation which will be fruitless and futile until November 15, ending in compulsory arbitration.
I should like to remind my friend the minister of manpower and immigration, for whom all of us have learned to have respect for the way in which he carries out his duties inside and outside the house, of his important words which are reported in La Presse for August 22 this year. He uttered these words during a political speech in connection with the by-election in Nicolet-Yamaska:

A general railroad strike is a serious thing, but let us not lose our heads. There are also human rights and a government cannot do whatever it pleases.
And he carried on:
When one group is deprived of the right to strike-
-he emphasized-
-who can say where it will stop? Today, the railway employees, tomorrow the postal workers or the longshoremen, and later, the right of association-

The minister is right when in that same story he said that he appealed to his colleagues in the cabinet to think seriously before imposing compulsory arbitration. He has not yet told us whether he agrees with the imposition of compulsory arbitration which is contained in this bill.
The bill itself, and the defence which the Prime Minister made of it, are based in my submission on two great, serious errors-first,
August 30, 1966
COMMONS DEBATES	7843
about the nature of railway service in any country, and second about the nature of collective bargaining on the railways. It is nonsense-and I learned this long ago when I was an undergraduate at McGill University studying transportation-in a country like Canada to apply the same standards to railways that apply to an ordinary private enterprise and to look at the profit sheet, whether the railway is publicly or privately owned. The price of Canada's unity-as was stated by a friend of mine, Mr. Pitman, who was a member of this house in 1960, and hon. gentlemen to my right no doubt agreed with him because they were in power-is a transcontinental railway system. This was the way in which this country was built in the first place.
To build a transcontinental railway system we gave the C.P.R. right at the start, if I remember correctly, $25 million in cash and some 40 million or 45 million acres of land from which they have benefited since. It is why we have made special provisions for rates in respect of the Crowsnest pass for the export of wheat, for special maritime rates and other special rates across this country. We have done this because we have realized as a nation that our industry in peace requires these transcontinental railways and that in war they are indispensable.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
The error that is made is to attempt to make the railways the same kind of proposition as an ordinary enterprise in this country. It is misleading to this country when the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill), when dealing with this matter, and the Prime Minister in his speech of the other day, suggest-I am not saying that the misleading was deliberate, but it is misleading the nation none the less-that the new bill and the new set-up will mean no subsidies from the treasury after a while. This is not so. There will not only be subsidies on a reducing scale for the first eight years, if I remember correctly, but also the bill provides a compensation to the railways for losses which they may incur in the course of certain of their services.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Will the hon. member
permit a question? Is it not a fact that what the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) said was that there would be no additional subsidies for the year 1966 and for subsequent years? Is that not what he said?


David Lewis: If that is all he said, Mr. Speaker, I apologize to him. I may have
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters misrepresented him, but if my memory serves me correctly the impression was given to the country by the Prime Minister in a speech which he made yesterday on introducing the bill, and on television and in other speeches, that when the new legislation comes in there will no longer be any need to subsidize the railways; that the railways will from then on take care of themselves. That is untrue and it is misleading. So long as there is a railway system in Canada which treats all parts of Canada fairly, so long will it be necessary to assist those railways, to recompense them for uneconomic services or for services which they will have to provide at less than what the traffic could bear if the regulations were not there.
That is why the Minister of Transport provides in his bill for a freezing of the maritime rates. I am sure the fact that he represents Newfoundland is a mere coincidence, but the fact remains that under this new bill the maritime rates are frozen. Why is that so? It is so because it is impossible to place the burden of the transportation system on the people of the maritimes. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it has been neither wrong nor unwise for the government to have always had something to say with regard to the settlement of wages on the railways, because even the Canadian Pacific Railway is not a private enterprise in the normal sense. No matter how much it is regulated, it must always be regulated for the benefit of the Canadian people.
No one in this house would dare suggest, if he had any sense, that the Crowsnest pass rate be removed because the railways could immediately make tens of millions of dollars per year more if they were able to carry the grain at rates which were even a cent per ton mile instead of the half-cent per ton mile which they are now. When the average freight rate per ton mile is about a cent and three-quarters, the railways carry the grain through the Crowsnest pass at rates established in 1897, and it is right that they should do so because the economy of the country requires it. It is also right that the parliament and the public treasury should give assistance in order that the burden not fall on the farmers alone.
The second error that the Prime Minister made and the government is making is to suggest that there has ever been anything like collective bargaining in railway labour negotiations since the end of the war. It was said with such aplomb as if it were really a
7844	COMMONS
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters matter of fact, although it is sheer nonsense to suggest that there has ever been anything like collective bargaining in railway labour negotiations. The railways just sit down and say "no". I am not guessing; I sat on about six or eight conciliation boards and I remember very distinctly the conciliation board of 1956, chaired by Mr. Eric Taylor and held during one of the most prosperous years in Canada. This was one of the best years for the railways. The railway representatives came before the board and said "We cannot make any offer of money". Mr. Taylor looked at one of the vice presidents of the C.P.R. who was on the witness stand-I think it was the late Mr. Emerson-and said "Mr. Emerson, can you not agree that at least a one-half cent increase might be possible for the C.P.R.?" And Mr. Emerson answered with a straight face, "no". This has been the standard procedure of the railway labour negotiations. The railways sat tight, they made no move either on wages or on fringe benefits, and ever since November 2, 1965 this has been their stand in the present case. As far as I know, and I am sure my information is correct, they have not offered a single cent of increase to the workers up to this very moment.
I ask hon. members and through them I ask the people of Canada: What would anyone here do if he were a member of a union which had served notice ten months ago, and at the end of the ten months not a single cent was offered by the employer? Would he not go on strike? Are the employees of the unions to be condemned for acting in this way in the face of this situation? The fact is that there is no collective bargaining between the railways and the unions. To say "We did not want to interfere with the normal collective bargaining process", as the Prime Minister said yesterday in justification for not having entered earlier into the picture is-and I say this with the greatest respect-sheer self delusion, if not worse. There was no normal collective bargaining process. What he is trying to do today he could have done six months ago. I say to him that six months ago he could undoubtedly have reached a much better settlement from his point of view-not from mine-and much better terms might have been achieved than he is likely to get today, after settlements which have taken place with the dockworkers and the seaway workers.
Now, Mr. Speaker, because such is the case in railway bargaining, people who have had

DEBATES	August 30, 1966
to do with the settling of railway disputes came to the conclusion in 1950 and 1952-such as Mr. Justice Wilson in 1950 and Mr. Justice Kellock in 1952-that the only way to be fair to the railway workers and the only way to-avoid railway strikes was to set a standard by which the railway employees' earnings may be measured.
It was the railways and not the unions which persuaded those conciliation boards that the proper standard for the earnings of railway non-op workers was a comparison with the earnings of employees of the durable goods industries as set out by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. We did this, and I was party to such a decision by boards on a number of occasions. We did this because we had no illusions that the railway workers really had the right to strike. They have it on paper, but every time they try it and every time they threaten to strike, the boom is lowered because a railway strike is so immediately disastrous to the economy of the nation, if it lasts for some time, that everyone knows that at some point parliament will have to step in and tell the boys to go back to work. Those of us who acted on these conciliation boards recognized this fact. We did not utter pious phrases about the right to strike being a sacred right and then propose legislation that takes it away. It is just sheer rubbish to talk about its being a sacred right if you do not intend to let people exercise it. What good is a right if there is no opportunity to use it? The fact is that it is impossible for the country to permit a long strike of the railway workers, a strike which would really give them victory, because sooner or later parliament would have to step in. We realized that and knew that was the case.
The solution to the problem was to set a standard by which the earnings of the railway workers could be measured. The railways suggested it in 1950 and 1952, and when the standard was applied, not totally, not properly or correctly but in some measure, then the railways started kicking against it and ever since then they have tried to destroy what they themselves originally proposed.
What this bill should have done, in my submission, Mr. Speaker, is to have provided a wage for these employees that measures up to the standard provided by the earnings of durable goods employees, properly adjusted in accordance with the sex distribution, the size of the firm, the greater skills in the railway work force and geographical location
August 30, 1966	COMMONS
which favours the durable goods industry. It should have provided not a dribbling "four and four" but a 25 per cent increase in rates over a period of two years, which is clearly what the arithmetic of the standard properly applied requires.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
Now, Mr. Speaker, somebody said that if we did that parliament would set the rates. I plead with members of this house, let us not fool ourselves; we are setting the rates, and in the long run the government will set the rates if parliament does not. There can be no settlement in a railway dispute about wages unless the government goes in and assists that settlement, and guarantees the railways a way to meet the settlement. So that whether the dispute is settled here or is settled later, it will be either this parliament or this government which will settle it.
I say that it would have been much more sens ble, if we are to pass a law which tells people to go back to work, to have the courage to set the wage increase to which these people are clearly entitled by using a standard which has been established by a number of conciliation boards over a number of years.
There is another problem in connection with the railway force which I feel I must draw to the attention of members of this house. Because of the way in which the increases to the railwaymen have been applied in the past number of years, the gap between the unskilled and the skilled workers on the labour force has continually narrowed. For example, today, in 1966 an electrician, a sheet metal worker, a boilermaker or a carman, people who undertake a five year apprenticeship, have a wage rate per hour of $2.49 and a fraction-less than $2.50 an hour. And these are skilled craftsmen who have had five years apprenticeship. These people are concentrated in the large metropolitan areas of Montreal, Toronto, and now Calgary, to a larger and larger extent as mechanization on the railways has eliminated most of the roundhouses and replaced them with large modern shops. As I say, these men work in large metropolitan areas where their counterparts in industry-I am not talking about people in construction here, but manufacturing industry-receive between 75 cents and $1 more per hour.


An hon. Member:: But for how long do they work?
DEBATES	7845
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters


David Lewis: As long as anybody else in industry, the regular 40 hour week.


An hon. Member:: In construction?


David Lewis: If the hon. member had been listening to me-I thought I was speaking loudly enough-he would have heard me say I was not speaking of construction but of craftsmen in industry. I am saying that all of them are earning 75 cents to $1 per hour more.
In this regard there must be some adjustment made. It is important for the welfare of the railways, let alone the men concerned, that these skilled craftsmen be paid the rate to which their skills entitle them, so that they have some pride in and some loyalty to their work, instead of going around embittered, as I know some hundreds and maybe thousands are doing across the country.
Let us not weep for the C.P.R., Mr. Speaker. The fact is that despite regulations and everything else the Canadian Pacific Railway Company made out of its total operations in the year 1964 some 61 per cent more by way of profits before taxes than it did in 1963, and 47J per cent more in 1964 than in 1963 after taxes. In 1965 the company made slightly less than 61 per cent in profits before taxes, but a great deal more in profits after taxes, namely 55 per cent. Their earnings in the first seven months of this year have been phenomenal.
I say without fear of any valid contradiction that, even without any help from this government, if the C.P.R. were willing to apply the profits made from all its enterprises, which all stem originally from its railway operations, the company could shoulder a 25 per cent increase in the rates without batting a corporate eyelash.


An hon. Member:: What about the C.N.R.?


David Lewis: The C.N.R. is a public enterprise. The C.N.R., as the hon. gentleman who interrupted me knows, has been loaded with a debt structure which is antediluvian and completely unjustified. When this government or any government has sense enough to recapitalize the C.N.R., then the C.N.R. will also show a great deal more profit than it does now.
If anybody shouts "inflation" at me, let me inform this house that the difference between the 18 per cent over two years as proposed by Mr. Justice Munroe and hon. Mr. Cameron, and 25 per cent over two years, would amount in total for all railways involved to
7846	COMMONS
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters about $30 million. Thirty million dollars is one sixteenth of 1 per cent of our gross national product; and I would challenge any economist on the other side of the house to tell me that an increase in wages of one sixteenth of 1 per cent of our gross national product will cause inflation.
This bill should have had included in it a solution to the problem of job security among these workers. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is shameful that this bill should in effect send to arbitration a problem which has been studied by Mr. Justice Freedman, -which is what it does. If I am informed correctly, there was a parliamentary committee in 1964-65 which found it necessary to provide for job security; the committee may have been earlier than that. There has been an investigation made by Mr. Justice Freedman who issued a report. Judge Little also told the government that legislation was needed. Mr. Justice Munroe also says legislation is needed. How many more inquiries does the government need? How many more arbitrators does the government require before it carries out the recommendations of Mr. Justice Freedman? A colleague of mine has just suggested to me that perhaps they are looking for somebody who will make the opposite findings to Mr. Justice Freedman. There is no reason in the world why this bill could not have amended the agreement in a way which met the job security fears of the workers.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I am sure the hon. gentleman would not want to leave this house with an erroneous impression. Is it not fair to say that Mr. Justice Munroe said that action at this time with regard to the Freedman report would be premature?


David Lewis: Action at this time by him would be premature. That may have been the case; I do not quite know-


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Did he not say that action by the government at this time would be premature?


David Lewis: If he did, Mr. Speaker, then I very strongly disagree with him. Because the one thing about the Freedman report we should bear in mind is this: Judge Little said in his report that there are wide implications. There are not any wider implications than those dealt with by Mr. Justice Freedman, because he dealt directly with the railways and not with any other industry.

DEBATES	August 30, 1968


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, all that I suggested to the hon. gentleman in asking my question was that I was sure that he did not want to misquote Mr. Justice Munroe.


David Lewis: If I have misquoted him then I am sorry. My impression was that he also agreed that legislation was necessary. I cannot recall his saying that it would be premature at this time, but if the minister says that he said that and is sure of his facts I will, of course, accept that. I will look it up after my speech.
In addition to the bill's not containing the provisions I suggested it ought to contain, it does not even give the workers what has been recommended by Mr. Justice Munroe and the hon. Mr. Cameron. As has been pointed out more than once on the floor of this house, all that the government does is to give the worker the "four and four" in the first year. There is no guarantee that the railway men will even get what Mr. Justice Munroe recommended for the second year. Mind you, Mr. Speaker, from my practical experience I cannot imagine that any arbitrator would go below that recommendation; but there is no guarantee of that in this bill and there will be no certainty of it.
Furthermore, Mr. Justice Munroe made other findings. He improved annual vacations, provided increased life insurance and made one or two other recommendations. Every one of those should have been contained in this bill. At least the matters I have mentioned should have been in the bill. Then the dispute over the 18 per cent recommended by Mr. Justice Munroe and the 25 per cent or so the unions are asking for should have been sent to mediation in order that a just and proper settlement could be achieved. It may be if that were done, the workers would look at the bill differently.
I warn the Prime Minister, if I may, that even if he changes this bill but still gives the workers only 4 per cent retroactivity to January 1, 1966, he will repeat the folly which this bill represents, because the workers are right in rejecting it. Four per cent retroactive to January 1 does not even cover their losses due to the rise in the cost of living, let alone improving their situation. The 18 per cent which Mr. Justice Munroe recommended ought, in my opinion to have been divided; it should have been divided, providing 9 per cent for the whole of the first year and 9 per cent for the second year. If
August 30, 1966	COMMONS
that sort of thing were produced I think the workers might look at this matter.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
A great deal has been said in this debate, Mr. Speaker, and a great deal has been written in newspaper columns and other places about labour's part in producing inflation. Let me deal with a number of statistical facts with respect to this matter if I may. In the Financial Times of Canada in the issue of June 13, 1960, there is a column by Robert Stewart entitled: 'Canadian Economy Stronger than Believed". In the column it is stated that a new method of calculating productivity in Canada has shown that unit labour costs-
-in direct contradiction to previous information -have not risen significantly for the better part of 10 years. Unit labour costs are vital to international competitiveness. This relieves fears expressed in the government's budget white paper this year that increases in these costs had endangered Canada's trading position.
The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that all the statisticians and all the studies made of labour costs in Canada by outside economists and by economists of the research branch of the Department of Labour have in recent years conclusively shown that actually the unit cost of labour, that is the labour cost per unit in production and manufacturing, has gone up very little, and in some cases has gone down, so that labour has certainly not been responsible for inflation.
What we are really suffering from in Canada, I suggest, is not fearful inflation in the economists' sense. What we are suffering from at this time is an increase in the cost of living for ordinary people, an increase in food prices, in rents, and in this kind of thing. These increases are due to the reasons that my leader, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) gave. They are due to administered prices; to increased mark-ups by the chain stores, and to profiteering of a kind which should not take place. This government and this parliament ought soon to do something about it.
I plead with the government, for the sake of this law, and for the sake of this country, to change this bill so that it carries with it some equity and justice. I plead with the government to propose a bill which will give a guarantee of some sort of adequate wage increase to the workers. I would prefer 25 per cent over two years, and something additional for the skilled crafts, who are entirely deserving of it. But at least the government ought to have, in this bill, 9 per cent for 1966
DEBATES	7847
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters and 9 per cent for 1967; or 8 per cent for 1966 and 10 per cent for 1967. I am not trying to bargain, but I think the 18 per cent that Mr. Justice Munroe proposed, divided almost equally over the two years, ought to be implemented in the legislation, with the difference between 18 per cent and 25 per cent to be later negotiated under an effective mediator.
I plead with the government, Mr. Speaker, to drop the compulsory arbitration clause, for the reasons given by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I cannot call for my proposition a more learned, and a more influential witness. I plead with the government to drop it also for another reason, namely that the period for negotiation provided in the bill is meaningless unless compulsory arbitration is removed.
It would be extremely naive for anyone to think that the railways would sit down to negotiate, knowing that on November 15 there is going to be an arbitrator in this matter. It would be naive to think that the railways would move a single inch, because they will know that if they make a proposal higher than 18 per cent, then the unions will go to arbitration and take the higher proposal as the floor. The railways know that, and will not make any proposals unless the compulsory arbitration clause is removed and the government is active and effective in mediation. Then, of course, the railways will have to negotiate sensibly and responsibly, because there will not be the stick of compulsory arbitration at the end. For these reasons, as well as for the general reasons I gave earlier, I urge the government to remove the compulsory arbitration clause.
I think that it is still not too late. I believe this government can produce a bill along the lines of the positive suggestions which I have made which will meet with the support of the strikers-perhaps not entirely-but which will be sufficiently palatable for them to decide that they must obey the law. This is what I want them to do. This is what every member of this house wants them to do. I am not one of those who will hypocritically tell people to accept an unjust law, if I know that if I were in their place, I would not do so myself. I ask the Prime Minister and the government not to force an unjust law on the striking worker, not to put him in the position of having to defy the law because of the strength of his grievance.
There is no worker in Canada more responsible, more law abiding-
7848	COMMONS
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters


Eric Alfred Winkler: Can I ask the hon. member a question?


David Lewis: Certainly.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Is the hon. member suggesting that if this bill becomes law the members of the union should not obey it?


David Lewis: Not at all. I am suggesting exactly the same thing that the right hon. Leader of the Opposition suggested-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David Lewis: -that he suggested not once, but a dozen times. He told the government that this law would not produce respect-I cannot quote him-that this law is in danger of being not obeyed. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin), in the debate in 1960 when the right hon. Leader of the Opposition was prime minister, warned the government of that time of the same thing. I have not time to pull out the quotation, but the record shows that the Secretary of State for External Affairs warned the then prime minister that the law he proposed was in danger of being disobeyed. That is what I am saying. I am saying precisely what the right hon. Leader of the Opposition said, that it is wrong to provide a law which is unjust and which will produce disrespect.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that is just exactly what I did not say. I said that once parliament decides, unless there is to be anarchy and chaos in the country, the law must be obeyed.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the speeches of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, often with great interest and amusement, though not always with approval.
I, too, am for virtue. I agree with this great declaration of his that the law should be obeyed. I agree with that. Everyone is against anarchy.
I remind the right hon. Leader of the Opposition that he said the actual increase would be 6 per cent. He talked of the 6 per cent boys, and of the six buck boys. He then said: "Will the men go back to work?"
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)


An hon. Member:: That is not what you are asking.


David Lewis: Oh, yes-this is what I am asking.

DEBATES	August 30, 1966


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: You are backing up.


David Lewis: I am not backing up. The great position of right hon. Leader of the Opposition does not intimidate me. Much as I respect him, just let him take it easy. I am saying the same thing, Mr. Speaker.


David Réal Caouette: That is not what you said.


David Lewis: I say the same thing, and I draw the attention of this parliament to the reports in the newspapers that the men have said they cannot accept this. And I say to the government that neither it nor this parliament-somewhere in the right hon. gentleman's speech this idea is expressed, even though I cannot put my finger on it-should put an act on the statute books which it may be difficult for Canadian citizens to obey, and which some of them have said they will not obey.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's time has expired.


David Réal Caouette: May I ask the hon. member for York South one question?


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give consent for the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) to ask a question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Réal Caouette: In the name of the freedom of the workingmen on the railways, or of any workingmen in Canada, the hon. member is strongly opposed to compulsory arbitration. Would he also be opposed, for the same reason, to the compulsory check-off which is entirely against freedom of any workingman who does not want to belong to any union in Canada?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member leave to answer the question?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


David Lewis: I think that in courtesy to this parliament I ought to answer a question which is addressed to me, if not always in courtesy to other things. I believe the hon. gentleman asking the question produced a typical antilabour red herring.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh
August 30, 1966


Some hon. Members:: Answer.


David Lewis: I would remind him and other gentlemen who are making a great deal of noise-I do not mind; I will wait, if you have patience, sir-


An hon. Member:: Answer the question.


David Lewis: I would remind them that a compulsory deduction of dues was established in this country in the first place, on the first important occasion, by no less a man than the then Mr. Justice Ivan Rand back in 1945 at the time of the united automobile strike in Windsor, as I am sure the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) will remember. I say to the hon. gentleman who asked this question that if he has any reason to doubt my own attitude toward some of these things, it is his privilege. But I, and many members of this house who know Mr. Justice Rand, are certain he would not have approved compulsory deduction of union dues if this was an erosion of freedom. In my own opinion it is not, and I therefore support deduction of union dues.


Mr. Webb:: May I ask the hon. member another question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would remind the house that the time allotted to the hon. member for York South has expired and that a question can be put to him only by unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: I should like to ask the hon. member whether he was a representative counsel for the union in years past at a fee of some $200, I believe, or $50 a day, though since the unions have been on strike his fee is now raised to $2,000 a day.


An hon. Member:: Explain.


David Lewis: I answer this question with a smile even though I think this kind of ungentlemanly attack on other members of this house is to be deplored. I merely say that I have not acted for these unions since I was elected to parliament. As a matter of fact, they asked me to act on the conciliation board and I told them I could not because I was a member of parliament. As to any charge for my fees, that is my own affair and the affair of my clients, as other people's fees and earnings are their affair.
Some hon. Memhers: Hear, hear.
DEBATES	7849
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Some hon. Members:: Filibuster.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I can understand the anxiety of hon. gentleman opposite in seeking a vote. My purpose in speaking is to secure a unanimous vote in defeating the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker).
I realize there is unanimity in the house as to the necessity of railway operations in Canada being resumed. I realize there is unanimity in the desire that the strike shall cease and that the men should return to their jobs. I hope that when this parliament has passed a law, not only will every member of the House of Commons expect his fellow citizens to obey the law, but that every member of the House of Commons will encourage his fellow citizens to obey the law that is passed by parliament.
In 1960 when the Leader of the Opposition introduced his railway legislation, or at least announced his intention of introducing legislation to avoid a strike, the present Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) made the following comment:
Mr. Speaker, we on this side share the Prime Minister's regret, a regret which I am sure is felt by every hon. member of the house, that in spite of the strenuous efforts that have been made in accordance with the best democratic practice it has not been possible to reach an agreement on this important matter. The Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) has announced that legislation will now be introduced to deal with this question. It goes without saying, as he has mentioned, that whatever legislation is passed by the house will be respected and obeyed by trade union members and anyone else who is covered by it. I think we can all count upon that.
That is the end of the quotation. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that if we cannot count on that in Canada, the result is anarchy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I listened with great interest to the earlier part of the remarks made by the hon. member for York South and I must say that since the former member for Eglinton was in the house I have not heard the words "nonsense" and "rubbish" repeated so often in a single speech.
I intend in dealing with the issues before the house to consider three aspects of the
August 30, 1966
7850	COMMONS
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters problem, first, the wage question; second, the pattern of parliamentary intervention in labour disputes and, finally, the Freedman aspect of this rail problem.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Dief-enbaker), in his skilful speech, attempted to tag 6 per cent on the proposed wage settlement implied in this bill. He has implied, if he has not stated, that this 6 per cent is a creation of the government, that it has no logical or judicial foundation, and he has claimed that it is less than the award of the conciliation board. In fact he said, as recorded at page 7,780 of yesterday's Hansard:
The actual increase will be 6 per cent. That is an interesting figure when one begins to realize the degree to which the 6 per cent bank interest rate has caused difficulty in recent months. Will the men go back to work? Those in the Liberal party used to be the six bucks boys . . . now they are the 6 per cent boys. They are offering to the workers far less than was actually offered or suggested by the conciliation board.


John George Diefenbaker: I immediately ask the minister this question. What about the failure to offer that portion beginning January 1, 1967. Why was that not included within this legislation? You are offering less because you are offering nothing for 1967.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I hope to deal with that aspect of the question later on, but I would say that if there is any impediment in the minds of the workers about returning to work, or any reluctance after this law is passed, it will be, in part, the result of the distortion that has been included in this statement by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, which has been repeated on the radio, over television and in newspapers-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Ricard:: Take your responsibility.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -that in the final settlement all the workers will get, and can get, under this bill is 6 per cent. The Leader of the Opposition thinks that is the case and he said so, and it has had an effect on the country. But the right hon. Leader of the Opposition is wrong and inaccurate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is all that is guaranteed under the bill.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the 6 per cent is not a creation of the government. It is not a figure picked out of the air. It is the recommendation of Mr. Justice Craig Munroe as chairman of the conciliation board who made a report to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson).


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: As part of a package.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It is also in accordance with the finding of former Mr. Justice Cameron who sat on another conciliation board; and in view of the fact that the 1966 proposal is based on the finding of Mr. Justice Craig Munroe I think we ought to know something about his credentials in this particular field.


An hon. Member:: We are not worried about that.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Filibuster.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: In 1962-


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask the minister a question? Does he not agree that all the bill
gives is 6 per cent for 1966?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is that not what the minister is saying?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, that is not what the minister is saying.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Well, what is the minister
saying?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have indicated to the house that I was dealing with the wage aspect of the settlement and I shall be quite happy at the end of my speech to answer any questions that arise on this particular subject matter. But I appreciate the reluctance of the hon. gentleman to have placed on the record the particular authority of Mr. Justice Munroe in this field because he, Mr. Justice Munroe, was selected by the right hon. gentleman and his minister of labour in 1962 to head the conciliation board of which the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) was the union nominee.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Munroe reported on that conciliation board and he reported the settlement. How does that square with the comment made by the hon. member for York South a moment ago that the railways always

August 30, 1366	COMMONS DEBATES	7851
say no, because Mr. Munroe on that occasion produced a settlement in a very complex issue by his work on the board, as I understand it, and reported a settlement.
In 1964, because of the success of this judge in securing a settlement in the previous situation, I recommended him to my colleagues to become chairman of the conciliation board. On that occasion he produced a majority award signed by the hon. member for York South as the union nominee, and that majority award became the basis of a settlement in 1964. This certainly illustrates that Mr. Justice Munroe is a competent person who has a record of success. Unfortunately, in this current dispute Mr. Justice Munroe failed to secure a unanimous report. He failed to secure a majority report, but he discharged his responsibility as chairman of the board and produced recommendations on the wage question and other matters in his report. All I want to argue is that-


Thomas Miller Bell: Why argue the obvious?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -is that Mr. Justice Craig Munroe had the confidence of the previous government, the present government, the unions and management because he was their nominee in this particular dispute. He has an intimate knowledge of the issues in dispute, as the result of extensive personal experience and successful settlements. I think it can be said, in the words of the hon. member for York South, without fear of valid contradiction, that there is no other person in Canada who could have approached this dispute with the knowledge, experience and judicial capacity possessed by this particular jurist.
Now, is the 6 per cent the creation of the government? May I read from the recommendation of Mr. Justice Munroe at page 8, where he says:
My recommendation is as follows:
To the hourly basic rates of pay in force at December 31, 1965, there shall be added:
(a)	effective January 1, 1966 add 4 per cent,
(b)	effective July 1, 1966, add a further 4 per cent-
That is his proposal for 1966.


Mr. Fullon:: Read on.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I will be glad to.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Now.


George James McIlraith: Just wait a minute.
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, that is the recommendation of Mr. Justice Munroe with respect to the year 1966.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I suggest
to hon. gentlemen that the minister should be given an opportunity to make his speech.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, bearing in mind the words of the recommendation of Mr. Justice Munroe I refer to clause 6 of the bill which provides in paragraph (b):
Each basic daily rate in effect on December 31. 1965, established by or pursuant to the agreement in the case of an agreement binding or entered into on behalf of operating employees by 4 per cent effective January 1, 1966, and an additional 4 per cent effective July 1, 1966.
That was the point of reference used by the government. The hon. member for York South says that we ought to accept his point of reference. But he was not charged with the responsibility the chairman of the conciliation board had. I believe the government was duty bound to accept the objective judicial finding of the most experienced person in this field as a basis for its proposal.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)


An hon. Member:: Then why did you not
accept it?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I think that if the right hon. Leader of the Opposition calls us 6 per cent people, then he ought to bear in mind the undue castigation he is making of the chairman of this conciliation board.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: As I stated at the very beginning, the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition has had its intended effect, because there has resounded throughout Canada the impression in the minds of the workers that 6 per cent is the final and last amount. That is incorrect.


John George Diefenbaker: I pointed out that the recommendation of Mr. Justice Munroe had not been incorporated in this legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: That is what I pointed out. I now give the minister an opportunity to answer. What offers are now being made to the union by the Prime Minister or by another
August 30, 1966
7852	COMMONS
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters member of the cabinet over that which is now before parliament?


Lester Bowles Pearson: You will find out.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Parliament is dealing with this matter and it is being changed outside.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am quite anxious to pursue this point to clarify the situation because-


John George Diefenbaker: Answer the question.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -this is an interim settlement for 1966 and because it is a provisional settlement-to use the words of the Minister of Justice on another occasion, referring to the 1958 bill. It is a provisional interim settlement for 1966. The parties are free to change this figure through the process of mediation provided under this bill.
The second inaccuracy made in the statement of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition is that the wage rates for 1967 are not covered in this legislation. I want to tell the house, Mr. Speaker, that the government carefully considered whether it would include a provision in the bill providing for the Munroe award for the year 1967. That was a choice open to the government. It rejected that course-


Gordon Minto Churchill: No confidence in the judge.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -because it took the view that the maximum opportunity ought to be left to the parties to work out an agreed settlement for 1967, and failing that there is the solution of the dispute between them by arbitration.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The lamest excuse we have heard tonight.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member for
Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) this afternoon accused us of destroying collective bargaining by imposing compulsory arbitration. His deputy leader told us that it does not exist. Maybe they ought to get together to reconcile their own differences.
The reference to 1967 is a clear illustration that the Leader of the Opposition has distorted beyond recognition the provisions of this bill with respect to the wage settlement. It is absolutely clear that Mr. Justice Munroe


recommended a settlement of 18 per cent for a two year period.


John George Diefenbaker: Why did you not put that
in the legislation?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Anyone who has any understanding of collective bargaining, as the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) has, will readily agree that it is unrealistic that any settlement reached through agreement or arbitration will be less than the total wage package.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, past experience teaches that-


James Ross Fulton: Does the bill say that?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -and I am satisfied that if the Leader of the Opposition had used the percentage of 18 per cent, as he would have been entitled to do on the basis of past experience, the effect among the workers in Canada would have been entirely different.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker-


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I accept the right of any hon. member to disagree with this bill; but I do believe it is totally irresponsible to misrepresent what we are doing.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: If it is so good, let us vote right now.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am satisfied that anyone who reads the proposals of Mr. Justice Munroe and looks at the proposal provided for 1966, and who examines what has happened in previous mediations and arbitrations will reach exactly the same conclusion I have reached and which the hon. member for York South obviously has reached. I wish the hon. member for York South would get up and say it, and tell the workers that this is a total settlement ultimately as prescribed by Mr. Justice Munroe.
August 30, 1966
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
I have explained the reason the government chose to provide a provisional settlement for 1966 in the expectation that the parties ought to be given a further opportunity to negotiate and mediate. The right hon. gentleman has to appreciate that approach because in 1960 he ordered the men back to work empty handed.


John George Diefenbaker: How much is the government offering today?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: He ordered the men back to work empty handed and he said: We are placing our total reliance on collective bargaining and on mediation, and his confidence was justified.


John George Diefenbaker: How much are you offering today?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: His confidence was justified because negotiations reached a settlement of that dispute. We have provided, as we stated was our policy during that earlier debate, for an interim settlement on the basis of the conciliation board award and left the remainder of the issues, including a settlement for 1967, to the parties. The right hon. Leader of the Opposition attacks us for having taken the wrong course. What is he asking us to do-give nothing as he did?


John George Diefenbaker: How much was offered this evening by the Prime Minister?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: My purpose in participating in this debate tonight, Mr. Speaker, is to assert what must be obvious to any person who examines this bill and examines the reports of the boards, that 6 per cent is not the final settlement: It is a provisional interim settlement for one year.


An hon. Member:: Then it is 6 per cent?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Six per cent here and 30 per cent there.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am not embarrassed by that kind of comment because I began by using this 6 per cent figure produced by the Leader of the Opposition.
May I continue my remarks by referring to a second aspect of the problem, namely the pattern of parliamentary intervention in previous disputes. Honesty, I am sure, must compel us to admit that when parliament intervenes in the settlement of a dispute the
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters processes of free collective bargaining are abridged. There is no doubt about that. When parliament must act to reach a settlement, as it has done on three former occasions the processes of free collective bargaining have failed, have broken down, resulting in parliament stepping in.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the minister answer a question?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I suggest that on the basis of a careful examination of all the past precedents, and there are only three of value to us-unless we refer to the Skeena precedent, which never became a full-blown precedent they teach us that this bill succeeds as well as if not better than any other that has been introduced in the house in reducing to a minimum the impact of interference in collective bargaining, respecting the rights of the workers, because it is based on an appropriate judicial finding.
It is instructive to look at the 1958 and 1960 bills brought forward by the previous administration. First, with respect to the wage aspect, the 1958 bill introduced either by the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) or by the Leader of the Opposition prescribed a wage settlement of 8 per cent. The union men had been on strike for 68 days. If I reproduced the words and the mood of the Leader of the Opposition I could only say they failed to act-for 68 days they failed to act.
One should read clause 4 of the bill which prescribed an 8 per cent settlement, in spite of the fact that the chairman of the conciliation board in that case recommended a settlement of 25 per cent, union representatives 31 per cent and the company 17 per cent. The government chose 8 per cent because the stewards union, one group in the bargaining complex, settled for 8 per cent.
That bill provided for compulsory arbitration by governor in council. I do not know what conclusion to draw from the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) and the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis). They both argued that, once there is compulsory arbitration, negotiations fail.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Will the hon. minister permit a question?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We have only two cases to illustrate this, one of which proves the hon. gentlemen right and the other of which proves them wrong.

August 30, 1366

Legislation Respecting Railway Matters


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask the minister a question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The one proves them wrong, because a settlement was reached without compulsory arbitration.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Will the hon. minister say where-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the one precedent-*


Edmund Davie Fulton: I should like to ask the minister where-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister has the floor. If the minister wishes to permit a question perhaps he will indicate his permission.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Will the minister indicate
where in the context of the statute of 1958 he finds a provision for compulsory arbitration by governor in council? There is provision for the appointment of a board of arbitration, but not for the acceptance of an order of the .governor in council.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, clause 7 of Bill C-42 as passed by the house in 1958 provides that:
The governor in council may make regulations for carrying out the purposes and provisions of this act and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, may make regulations.
(d) for referring to a board of three arbitrators appointed by the governor in council such matters relating to the revision or amendment of an existing collective agreement as the parties thereto may request or as the governor in council may deem *expedient, including the fixing of the term during which the new collective agreement shall operate-


James Ross Fulton: Surely that is by arbitration. That is very different from what you said.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: If I have misled the opposition I apologize. What I am suggesting is that this bill gave authority to the governor in council to refer matters to a board of arbitration, the result of which arbitration would determine the collective agreement.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is not what you said.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is exactly what is provided for in this present bill with respect to arbitration, except that we respect the parliamentary authority by giving parliament

the opportunity, if it sees fit, to revoke any order established under this bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I do not understand why hon. gentlemen opposite pound their chests in all righteousness about this bill, in view of the fact that the 1958 bill included precisely the same provision for compulsory arbitration except for the fact that it did not provide for parliamentary revocation of any order in council made by the governor in council. So I do not know that conclusion you draw from that. You draw one conclusion, that this bill is just about as good as any bill produced by the opposition; and for hon. gentlemen opposite to describe it otherwise is an act of hypocrisy.
In 1960, which is the other case, the Leader of the Opposition produced a bill in the house ordering the men back to work.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


John George Diefenbaker: Before the strike began.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Before the strike began. He ordered the men back to work empty-handed, with no wage increase whatsoever.


John George Diefenbaker: We did not make any offers such as were made this afternoon by the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Zero.


John George Diefenbaker: There were none of these under-the-table deals.


Eric Alfred Winkler: No 30 per cent deals, either.


Mr. MacEwan:: Read on.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I think the point has been driven home.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The Leader of the Opposition brought in a bill to stop a strike before the right to strike had been exercised. He ordered the men back to work and he sent them back empty-handed, without a red cent. I do not know why today he left everything to free enterprise and is asking us not only to fix the wage rates for 1966 and 1967 but to fix fringe benefits, to establish the recommendations contained in the Freedman report and to legislate a total settlement covering every aspect of these collective agreements, when the course he followed was to legislate on not a single item; and he sent the men back to work.
August 30, 1366	COMMONS
Where is the consistency, when the amendment before the house proposed by the Leader of the Opposition castigates us because we have failed to include fringe ben-ifits, have failed to legislate every item of the Munroe awards and have failed to legislate the Freedman report? How can the Leader of the Opposition square this amendment with his own conduct as prime minister, when he brought in the bill and refused to legislate in respect of a single item, a single term of a single collective agreement? All I am trying to prove, Mr. Speaker, is a very simple thesis.


John George Diefenbaker: That black is white.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am trying to prove a simple thesis, namely that nobody on the other side of the house ought to find any fault with this bill on any of the grounds that have been put forward against it, if they want to be consistent with their past conduct; because it is a fact that any government that intervenes in the process of free collective bargaining is bound to take steps that can be criticized, and easily criticized, by any opposition party.


John George Diefenbaker: What about the 30 per
cent formula?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I want to say a word or two about the Freedman report because I realize it is a very important issue in this dispute.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, before the minister continues, would he accept a question? I have paid his remarks the attention they deserve. The minister has stated how wonderful this bill is. Will he now tell the house whether the Prime Minister or any other minister of the government, while parliament sits, is offering to ra:se the ante to the unions far and above anything that is included in this bill?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I can answer that question at once. The right hon. gentleman, as usual, has been deceived by his headlines. No offer has been made.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: "No offers have been made." Does the Prime Minister say-he dare not deny it-that he did not make offers this very evening?


Eric Alfred Winkler: Whom have you been negotiating with?
DEBATES	7855
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) says that he knows an offer has been made today. I challenge him. I deny it, and I say he has no right to interject statements of that kind when the Prime Minister of this country has said that no offers have been made.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I would like to ask a question, then; Whom have they been negotiating with?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We should have order in the house. The hon. minister has the floor.


George James McIlraith: The continuous breach of the rules by the official opposition.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I said when I began that I wanted to say something about this bill in connection with the problem raised by the Freedman report. I believe it is wrong to state that the bill makes no provision for a determination of the Freedman-type issue. The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) made explicit something that is implicit in the bill, namely that there is provision for the arbitrator to deal with this particular aspect of the dispute which we face at the present time. The concern of, especially the trainmen, and others involved in this dispute is understandable with respect to the problem posed in the Freedman report. Personally, Mr. Speaker, I have expressed fully my views on the Freedman report and the kind of guidepost it will establish in the field of industrial relations and labour relations in Canada. This problem cannot be ignored. It is a fact that there is concern among the workers that the institution of technological change during the life of a contract may have consequences in respect of their job security. They have urged that they have an opportunity to negotiate on these changes during the life of an agreement.
Mr. Justice Freedman in his report made the proposal that the ideal solution of this problem is to permit the parties, the unions and the men, to work with proper procedures to cope with the problem. This is Mr. Justice Freedman's principal recommendation. He says that if this fails, legislation can be considered along the following lines; An arbitrator will be appointed to determine whether
August 30, 1366

Legislation Respecting Railway Matters any change contemplated during the life of the agreement is a material change. Then if he concludes that it is not a material change, management is entitled to institute that change. If he concludes it is a material change, it is to be negotiated at that time or at the end of the agreement. That is Mr. Justice Freedman's proposal.
Hon. gentlemen will have read another report involved in this problem, namely the report of the conciliation board headed by Judge Little. In my view there is an encouraging conclusion with respect to the Freedman report in that particular aspect of the conciliation board report, because there is a large degree of agreement between the union representative and the management representative on the way to cope with the Freedman-type issue. It has not been fully resolved but encouraging steps have been taken, and there is no doubt that further encouraging steps will be taken on a voluntary basis.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Did the Little commission not recommend legislation in this matter?


Mr. Speaker:: I regret I have to interrupt the hon. minister but his time has expired.


An hon. Member:: Keep up the filibuster by yourselves.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the minister not have unlimited time under standing order 31?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) has the floor on a question of privilege.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will rise only if the Minister of Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) has terminated his remarks. I do not want to interrupt him.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: My time is up.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time to suggest to the house that in view of the fact no one in our party has spoken for the past six hours, we should allow the previous speaker to continue and that we should then continue the debate beyond ten o'clock in order to give hon. members on the government side an opportunity to continue their filibuster of their own bill.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Kamloops.
r.Mr. MacEachen.]


Edmund Davie Fulton: On the understanding that the Minister of National Health and Welfare will not continue his remarks I wish to rise on a question of privilege with relation to something he previously said. He was quoting from the report of Mr. Justice Munroe and I asked him to continue reading the paragraph. It was certainly my impression from the remarks made by the minister that he had concluded the paragraph. I was therefore hesitant in suggesting there was something further. I wish therefore to place on the record the full paragraph from which the minister was quoting. It appears on page 8 of the report and reads as follows:
My recommendation is as follows:
To the hourly basic rates of pay in force at December 31, 1965, there shall be added:
(a)	effective January 1, 1966 add 4 per cent,
(b)	effective July 1, 1966, add a further 4 per cent.
That is where the minister stopped reading. The paragraph continues as follows:
(c)	effective January 1, 1967 add a further 4 per cent,
(d)	effective July, 1967, add a further 6 per cent.
Daily, weekly and monthly rates shall be increased in an equivalent manner.
The minister read none of the subsequent provisions of that paragraph, all of which are material to the consideration before us and all of which are referred to in the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition. It was a deliberate attempt to pretend to the house that the recommendation stopped there.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the subsequent remarks which I made clearly illustrated that these further percentages were included. If I did not read them, I intended to read them. They should be part of the total picture, the total 18 per cent that will likely be the ultimate basis of the settlement.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I move that this house continue to sit today until eleven o'clock.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I would agree to the motion only if the minister would alter it to read "until a later hour" because I think every opportunity should be given to the government if it wishes to filibuster its own bill. We are willing to sit as long as the government continues talking, in order to vote on this bill and reach a decision on it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the members of
this party would object to sitting beyond ten o'clock.
August 30, 1966


An hon. Member:: This is an emergency.


George James McIlraith: Standing order 6 (2) provides that:
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 10 or more members then rise, the question shall not be put on the motion.
The motion is not debatable.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. minister for his assistance. I was about to read standing order 6 (2) to hon. members. It was done on my behalf. Hon. members know the rule; it is that if any member objects to the motion, Mr. Speaker shall request those members who object to rise in their places and if 10 or more members then rise, the question shall not be put on the motion.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The motion, of course, is not debatable.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am not debating the motion, Mr. Speaker. I just wish to say that I objected on the ground I feel the government should have time to consider the recommendations we have made.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The rule does not provide for explanations as to why an hon. member objects. He can only rise and object. Is there an objection? If so it will be registered by hon. members.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


An hon. Member:: Let us get back to work.


Mr. Speaker:: If 10 hon. members rise, the question shall not be put.
And more than ten members having risen:


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question? The hon. member for Nickel Belt.


Mr. Norman Fawceil (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, it seems that every time I am on the floor I hear this roar of a filibuster from the other side.


An hon. Member:: You have never been up before.


Norman Edward Fawcett: There is too much filibuster. I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that I think perhaps I am better qualified to speak for the
7857
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion railroaders than anyone else in this house. It is quite obvious that particularly some of the hon. members on the other side do not want to hear a railroader's point of view. However, I will put it on the record. I was a railroader for 25 years and I have worked with other railroaders. For 15 years I represented one of the unions participating in this strike. I therefore think I am qualified to give some explanation regarding my knowledge of this situation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I suggest to hon. members that there are too many conversations taking place at the present time. This makes it difficult to follow the speech being made by the hon. member for Nickel Belt.


Norman Edward Fawcett: May I call it ten o'clock? Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Norman Edward Fawcett: My colleague tells me I will have to say I am a railroader all over again. I can do so, but I can assure hon. members that when I come back tomorrow I will probably tell you this all over again as well. My colleague, the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) as well as my leader, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) both made the remark today that railroaders do not like strikes. Mr. Speaker, I think it is now ten o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39(A) deemed to have been moved.

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I addressed a question to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) on the orders of the day this afternoon and it is in connection with this matter that I should like to say a few words, in the hope that he might amplify the answer which he gave. The answer was in itself satisfactory but I do feel-


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Will the hon. member permit a question? I think I am reasonably familiar with the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act to which the hon. member made reference. Would he draw my
August 30, 1966
7858	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion attention to the particular section which he would like me to invoke as a result of his question today?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I certainly intend to do that if the minister will just wait for two or three minutes. I am sure he will understand that any hon. member in this house who has had a long connection with the city of Winnipeg could not but ask the question I did today with considerable feeling.
In the year 1919 we had a strike situation in Winnipeg as a result of which a great many people suffered for many years, and many of them are still suffering. We experienced one of the greatest injustices that ever resulted from a strike situation. I am referring to the fact that the Canadian Pacific Railway cancelled all pension rights and privileges that had been earned by its employees up to the time of that strike. It went further and provided that from then on no one over 40 years of age could re-enter the pension plan. The total result, as I say, was that for many years there was a great deal of suffering, and there still is for many older men who have retired from the employ of the Canadian Pacific Railway.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
Because of this injustice the matter was brought up on the floor of the House of Commons for many years by my predecessor, the late Mr. Woodsworth, and I carried on the effort when I came here to try to get the government to do something to restore those pension rights.
We were not able to have that accomplished, but two things did result. One was a report prepared by an esteemed civil servant, who has been in the gallery both yesterday and today, and I see is still there tonight, Mr. Harris Johnstone, on the whole question. This report was made as a result of an investigation ordered at my request by Mr. Mackenzie King, and the report made it clear that the action of the C.P.R. was wrong. But the government still took the position that there was nothing it could do about the 1919 situation.
However, as a result of our efforts in this matter, as a result of Mr. Johnstone's investigation and report and as a result of the battles on the floor of the House of Commons, we did persuade the Liberal government of that day, under Prime Minister Mackenzie King, to put an amendment into the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation


Act. As a matter of fact, it was one of those rare occasions when a private member's amendment was accepted. Although it was subamended to some extent, the heart of the amendment, as I proposed it, was accepted and it is still incorporated in the act.
May I refer the minister to section 4 (3) (b) of the act. I do not need to read all of it, since some of the words are not relevant, but let me read the significant words:
No employer . . . shall deny to any employee any pension rights or benefits to which he would otherwise be entitled by reason only of his ceasing to work after the 1st day of September, 1948, as the result of a lockout or while taking part in a concerted stoppage of work due to a labour dispute where such lockout or stoppage of work has been enforced by the employer or called by the recognized representative of such employee, as the case may be, after all steps provided or contemplated by law have been taken through negotiation, collective bargaining, conciliation and arbitration to settle such dispute or by reason only of dismissal contrary to this act.
I must say that the wording of that section as it was passed is a lot longer than it was when I first moved the amendment to the statute, but surely the sum and substance of the amendment is very clear. I submit that when it was passed by parliament, parliament knew what it was doing. It did not want the 1919 situation ever to be repeated. It did not want workers to lose their pension rights because they went out on strike, particularly if they went out on a legal strike.
I read in yesterday's Toronto Telegram the terrifying item of news that Mr. Ian Sinclair, president of the Canadian Pacific Railway, has threatened that if employees of that company fail to go back to work in the event of the bill which is before the house being passed, they will lose their pension rights. It is this law of the land, which stands against the loss of pension rights to any workers who have gone out on a legal strike, that I should like the minister to convey to Mr. Sinclair.
I appreciated the minister's answer this afternoon when he said that he would send it to Mr. Sinclair; and I appreciated his inquiry tonight as to the precise section to which I was referring. I would point out to him that clause 4(b) of Bill No. C-230 to which the Minister without Portfolio referred this afternoon is really not very helpful because it does not cover what might follow from now on. But the section in the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act to which I have referred does cover the situation, the men having ceased work because of a strike that was legal in every respect.
Augusi 30, 1966	COMMONS
For any company to threaten that these employees might lose their pension rights is a defiance of the law. It is turning the clock back 50 years in a way, I am sure, this parliament would not stand for. In fact, I believe if by any chance there were any defect in the law, the government would want to correct it, so that no pension rights will be lost because of the present strike.
I would appreciate the minister's underlining his willingness to make it clear that this law must be obeyed.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased this afternoon to say that I would draw to the attention of the president of the Canadian Pacific
DEBATES	7859
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Railway the pertinent section of the act which has been referred to. Although I have no knowledge, or personal knowledge whether the statement attributed to Mr. Sinclair was in fact made, if the hon. member who has just spoken assures me that such is the case, that it was made, I of course would not hesitate to draw the section to his attention.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is in the press, in the Toronto Telegram of yesterday.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I will be very pleased to draw Mr. Sinclair's attention to this particular section.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.10 p.m.

Wednesday, August 31, 1966