1966-08-29

HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATES


[Stage Direction]
QUEEN*S PRINTER AND CONTROLLER OF STATIONERY

[Stage Direction]
23033-489*
[Stage Direction]


[DOT]	..		 1Y [DOT]
[Stage Direction]

[Stage Direction]

Monday, August 29, 1966

Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have the honour to inform the house that by virtue of a resolution passed by the house on Thursday, July 14, 1966, Votes and Proceedings page 782, dealing with the adjournment of the house, I caused to be published in an extra edition of the Canada Gazette dated August 22, 1966 a notice calling the house to meet this day, which is as follows:

After consultation with the Government, I am satisfied that the public interest requires that the House of Commons, which was adjourned on Thursday, July 14, 1966, until Wednesday, October 5, 1966, should meet at an earlier time. In pursuance to the order of the House of Commons passed Thursday, July 14, 1966, I hereby give notice that the House of Commons shall meet on Monday, August 29, 1966, at 2.30 o'clock p.m., and transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time.
Given under my hand and seal at Ottawa this 22nd day of August, 1966.
Lucien Lamoureux, Speaker,
House of Commons, Canada.

In addition, on the same date I sent a telegram to each member of the house containing the substance of the notice.



VACANCIES

Mr. Speaker:: I also have the honour to inform the house that during the adjournment of the house I received communications advising that vacancies have occurred in the representation:
Of Mr. Chesley William Carter, member for the electoral district of Burin-Burgeo, by reason of being summoned to the Senate.
Of Mr. Charles Ronald McKay Granger, member for the electoral district of Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador, by resignation.
I have accordingly issued my warrants to the chief electoral officer to make out new writs of election for the said electoral districts, respectively.



PRIVILEGE


Mr. Gregoire:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which may interest hon. members, that is my decision to sit as an independent, and to ask you to designate another seat for me in the house. This does not mean that I am no longer an ardent Creditiste; far from it. Whenever the discussion will turn to social credit, I will always be ready to co-operate with my former leader and colleagues for whom I still have the highest regard.
The main reason for the change, Mr. Speaker, is that I have decided to favour the independence of Quebec. My choice has nothing to do with the contacts I may have had with English speaking citizens I may have met in Ottawa. On the contrary, I think that during the five years I have been sitting in this house, I have made friends among all groups of members, an honour I consider all mine. Consequently, it is not a question of individuals but one of system and constitution.
To reassure everyone, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I will work toward independence by democratic means as long as we live in the confederation as it now exists.
I will urge my fellow-citizens of Quebec to live as good and honest Canadian citizens, respectful of Canadian laws as long as we have a Canadian confederation. I will disapprove acts of violence and terrorism, but I will devote from now on all my energy to convince democratically Quebec citizens that their best interest is to get out of confederation as it now exists.
Mr. Speaker, I have not taken without due reflection my decision to fight for the independence of Quebec. When I arrived in Ottawa in 1962,1 had the conviction that Canada was a country where good understanding would prevail if French Canadians could make themselves understood and if everyone would understand and co-operate.
Gradually and almost against my will, I became more and more convinced, after coming into contact with the facts, that the future
August 29, 1966

Legislation Respecting Railway Matters of Quebec and of French Canadians resided in Quebec independence.
I conclude by saying, Mr. Speaker, that it is the first time that this is said in the house: Quebec will have its independence, and soon.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Pursuant to the request of the hon. member for Lapointe, he can, if he wants, take seat No. 53 or No. 54 as he wishes.

[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)



CONSIDERATION OF LEGISLATION RESPECTING RAILWAY MATTERS

Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the house would expect a statement from the government on the reasons which led us to request you to alter the order adopted by the house on July 14, which you have just read. I regret, Mr. Speaker, that the government felt obliged to ask Your Honour one week ago today to alter this order. My regret is, of course, much greater because of the grave national problem which brought us here; the national railway strike.
A general railway strike is a national emergency and if prolonged, as I hope it will not be, could become a national disaster. That, Mr. Speaker, is not exaggeration or dramatization; it is merely a statement of fact, for Canada's economy is dependent on railway transportation.
There are those, Mr. Speaker, who say that parliament should have been called before this strike was called.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: To have recalled parliament before the decision to strike was made would have been taken, of course, as a proclamation by the government that there was no hope of any kind of a settlement between the parties, and it would have represented an interference in an unprecedented way with the collective bargaining process laid down by our law.
Once the strike date was set the government lost no time in calling parliament. We acted on the same day. We knew, of course, that in doing this we were making further bargaining and mediation more difficult, but we knew also that there were only four days for mediation before the date that was set for the strike.

There are also those, Mr. Speaker, who say
we should have had parliament meet on Thursday of last week so we could ask parliament to prevent the strike by legislation. Naturally that course was considered. It has been followed in the past. Apart from the fact that the time was so short between the calling of the strike and the date for the strike, to attempt to legislate last week in the circumstances of that week, to attempt to legislate before Friday noon in our view was not likely to have been an effective course for achieving the objective in mind.
We should not forget and I am sure we do not forget, Mr. Speaker, that under our laws the union leaders have an undoubted right to call a strike and the employees have an undoubted right to go on strike. They are acting, in doing so within the law, as I am confident they will continue to act. We should not forget and we do not forget that the right to strike is a cherished and integral part of our system of free collective bargaining, and neither government nor parliament should abridge, or would want to abridge, that right without the strongest reasons of national interest and public welfare, and not until every effort of persuasion and mediation has failed. This is why we felt that a final attempt at mediation even after a strike date had been set, under the auspices of the Minister of Labour, was not merely justified but was necessary in the public interest. That final mediation did not, unfortunately, avert the strike; it is continuing as we sit in this chamber.
Two alternatives faced the government, as they faced the country. We as a government could have abided by the ordinary law and allowed the strike to continue until the parties finally came to an agreement on their own with all the assistance the government could give them. Or parliament could be asked to intervene on the ground that a promulgation of the strike would do such great harm to the public interest, including the interest of the parties to the dispute, as to constitute a national emergency which justified a departure from ordinary practice and law.
We had no difficulty in deciding that it was our duty as a government to follow the latter course as now being necessary to restore an essential public service with the least possible delay and to get the railways moving again with the least possible interference with the process of free collective bargaining. For this
August 29, 1966

purpose we hope that by agreement immediate consideration can be given to a bill which is now ready and which, it is hoped and expected, will bring the strike to an end on terms which will be just and fair to all concerned and which will protect the national interest.
We have also, Mr. Speaker, a second bill ready dealing with railway matters. This bill has a relationship to certain of the problems bearing on the dispute which brought about this strike, as well as earlier ones, and if it becomes law we believe it will facilitate the success of the negotiations to which reference is made in the first bill.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
As members of parliament, Mr. Speaker, we have serious responsibilities to our country as we consider the issues before us. As members of the government we have special responsibilities and as Prime Minister I, of course, have the heaviest responsibility of all. I know all hon. members of the house will discharge their responsibilities at this time in the spirit of loyalty and service to our country which brought us here.
At this time I ask for the co-operation of all hon. members in making it possible for the government to place its proposals before the house for consideration without delay. I believe the strike emergency justifies this request, just as I believe the importance of the legislation deserves thorough and searching debate.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, the house will permit me to put again on the record of Hansard words that were used by Hon. George Drew, then leader of the opposition, in 1950, when the House of Commons was facing a similar emergency and was asked by the government of that day to deal with that emergency. Mr. Drew said then:
What the people of Canada want us to do Is get the railways working as quickly as possible. I believe that is the spirit of every member of this house. Collectively those who sit here represent all the people of Canada. It makes no difference what party we support in our own community; we represent all the people. Therefore-
-he added-
-we here have the great and proud and heavy responsibility of speaking for all Canadians. The well-being and security of the whole Canadian community is our supreme responsibility. When the well-being of the people of Canada is threatened in this or any other way, parliament, and the government, which is its executive branch, must take those steps which will preserve the national economy and the security of the home life of all our people.
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters
It is in the spirit of those words, Mr. Speaker, that I ask for the co-operation of all members of parliament at this time in facilitating and expediting the procedures so we will be able to discuss the legislation before us with a minimum of delay.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure Hon. George Drew, when he reads the words of the Prime Minister, will realize that those sitting opposite by whom he was condemned for so long, use his words today as the cornerstone of their argument.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I recall very well that debate in 1950. The attitude then taken by the Conservative party was that in so far as compulsory arbitration was concerned the party was against it, and members of this party voted accordingly when a vote took place on the motion made by the then prime minister.
I am rather surprised at the general attitude of the Prime Minister today. After the bumbling of his government for weeks I expected that instead of making a provocative speech, an alibi speech, he would have made an appeal not only to parliament but to Canadians as a whole. Instead of that he chose the course of a partisan speech.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes; it is shameful that this should be so, with the Prime Minister trying to explain the dilatory uncertainty of a government lasting for weeks on end. That is what they are attempting to do. From the end of July on, everybody except the government knew there was going to be a strike. Everyone in this country knew. It was made perfectly clear on July 11 and 12, after the initial report, that the terms of the report of Mr. Justice Munroe would not be accepted. It is understandable. In his speech today the Prime Minister forgot to deal with the Pearson formula, the 30 per cent basis of settlement which added to the problem of inflation, with the approval of the government, contributed to by its diplomatic forcefulness in bringing about a settlement. That is the reason why we And ourselves faced with this situation. He rushed in; he established the reputation of being the great conciliator, the conciliator who was able to offer
7734	COMMONS
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters everything in order to settle two situations. He made his policy at this time a basis for all requests by labour in all parts of Canada.
We meet in an atmosphere of gravity and crisis. The Prime Minister tried to explain why he and his government waited so long. They knew on August 21, after he returned from seeing the sunset in New Brunswick. He knew that night that the strike was going to be called for the following Friday. Where were the strike committee? They were on strike; none of them were here.


An hon. Member:: Gone fishing.


John George Diefenbaker: Gone with the wind, unable to take action.


Mr. Monleilh:: Not important to them.


John George Diefenbaker: He tried to explain why they waited until the strike got under way. If they have a formula that is fair and equitable, as he now says, did they not have it then? Why wait until the economy of Canada faces the serious paralysis of which the Prime Minister speaks? They just played around. There used to be a British king known as Ethelred the Unready. Now we have a Prime Minister and a government which richly earn that description.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: The excuse is that the government did not know there was going to be a strike. You would not expect the Minister of National Defence to know; he was so busy unifying. You would not expect any viewpoint by him. Surely there must have been some others in the cabinet sufficiently integrated with events to realize what every Liberal newspaper in Canada realized, that a strike was coming and action should be taken.
Why did they wait? Where were the members of that strike committee? I suppose they were looking around, Mr. Speaker, to find what planes they might consider under the new purchase plan whereby tens of millions of dollars of Canadian money is to be wasted on aircraft so that ministers can get around better.


Jay Waldo Monteith: So true.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)


John George Diefenbaker: In his opening remarks the Prime Minister made it clear that while he asked for co-operation he intended to defend what he and his government know is a course which is indefensible. The responsibility rests on the Pearson government and no one else. They expected that if they sat

DEBATES	August 29, 1966
around long enough the problem would settle itself. Now the Prime Minister tries to explain that indolence and uncertainty, an attitude not in keeping with the tremendous gravity of the problem.
The Prime Minister says we have another piece of legislation besides the bill to deal with the strike per se. We should like to see that other bill. The Prime Minister asks for co-operation. I offer him the most complete co-operation in order to bring this legislation before the house. There has never been any doubt about that. We are not standing upon any technicality. If there are any members of the house who want to prevent discussion taking place by denying unanimity, we will be able to get around it very easily by someone moving the adjournment of the house in order to discuss this matter of national importance. In that way we will not be wasting two days.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I do hope there is no one in the house-and apparently I am well justified in that expectation-who will do other than agree to give the government the right to proceed at once. We intend to do that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: We intend to go further than that. I am so impressed with the Prime Minister's words, with which I agree, regarding the gravity of the situation that I do not think ordinary hours of sitting are sufficient.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I am glad to note the Minister of Labour approves of that suggestion, because he has to share the official responsibility for the failure of this government in recent days. I do not want to single him out because that would be an unjust differentiation. We are prepared to sit longer hours because we want to do everything we can to assist.
We are now asking for a little co-operation on the part of the government. In view of the fact that everything will be done by consent, let us see the bill which the government has in mind in order to implement in part or in whole the MacPherson and Freedman commission reports. There is no reason why this should be held up if there is agreement among hon. members that we see this bill, because this second bill apparently involves a sudden decision. When the Minister of Labour spoke on television he said that in the last two days something had come up of a
August 29, 1966

most unusual nature-consideration of the MacPherson commission report - which changed government thinking. We want to see that second bill, and there is no reason why the government should not make it available at once. Naturally everyone wants to know its contents.
When an order is made in this house requiring men to go back to work I believe that those Canadians involved will do so. In spite of a few who argue to the contrary, labour has been law abiding in this nation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I ask the Prime Minister to let the house see this document that was found in an embryonic stage two days after the strike was called and which represents something, as it turned out, that had not been a previous consideration. We want to know the basis of this legislation. The government by resolution introduced a measure in this regard I believe in March of 1964. It was proceeded with again in September, but died a natural death. We want to see what the government has evolved and the changes it has in mind so we may know who is going to pay what. Is the principle that there shall be non-discrimination in freight rates in every part of Canada to be preserved? We want to know the answer to that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: We are not making a request that is unfair. After all, we are meeting because of an emergency. Rules are going to be put aside, as they should be. There are two bills; let us see them. I made that request on Friday and have been waiting ever since for an answer. Mr. Speaker, we shall co-operate in spite of the fact that we face a government which cannot govern; a government that is helpless in confusion; a government whose inaction which has culminated in this case not only in a crisis for Canada but a crisis of incompetence in the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, in the opinion of the New Democratic Party we cannot deal with the railway strike in isolation. This strike is the culmination of a long process of indecision and procrastination on the part of the government, and if parliament is going to deal with the strike situation at this time it is our contention that it must deal also with the basic causes which have produced the strike.
DEBATES	7735
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: For two years the members of this party have pointed out to the government that unless it grappled effectively with the rising cost of living and the demands for wage increases, labour disputes and strikes would inevitably follow. These strikes have taken place and we are now faced with the largest to date. The fact is that the government has sat idly by for ten months during which there has been no effective collective bargaining between the railways and the railway employees.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
Throughout this time the railway companies have stalled. To date they have not offered one red cent to their employees. No mediator was appointed until the strike had been announced and the Prime Minister then asked the Minister of Labour to bring the parties together. No action has been taken on the implementation of the Freedman report, which is a vital factor in providing some measure of job security for the railway employees; and throughout the more than three years that this government has been in office there has been no clear statement of a transportation policy. The Prime Minister said this afternoon that the government could not call parliament to introduce legislation to prevent a strike, but any time in the last three years the government could have done something about the recommendations of the MacPherson report. It could have provided legislation which would have enabled the railway companies to know their financial position and put them in a position where they could have made some definite financial offer in collective bargaining negotiations with their employees.
We contend that the railway strike is merely the top of the iceberg, and that underneath there are great disruptive forces at work within our society. We do not think the government can use the crisis psychology of a strike to force through legislation which will penalize one section of our population. We recognize that parliament must deal responsibly with the strike and with the effect it will have upon the Canadian economy. We contend at the same time that parliament must now, while we are sitting, grapple with the total problem and do something about the causes which have produced this strike and are likely to produce other strikes. If the government is going to introduce legislation to restrict wages and to determine wage rates for a certain group of employees in this
August 29, 1966
7736	COMMONS
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters country, we want to know what it proposes to do about restricting consumer prices.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What does it propose to do about restraining undue profiteering? Are dividends and profits to continue to spiral while wages are to be frozen at some level determined either by parliament or some tribunal appointed by the government? We are prepared to facilitate an early discussion of the government's legislation, but on the distinct understanding that we will also discuss the much wider problem of the economic situation in Canada which has produced this railway strike right across our nation.
We Will expect, and I think we have a right to expect and the Canadian people have a right to expect, some statement from the Prime Minister in the course of the next few days with respect to what the government's policy is regarding the steadily mounting cost of living. We think we are entitled to a statement from the Minister of Finance with reference to fiscal policy and the changes in his budget which are necessary in view of what has happened since he introduced his last budget. If the Minister of Finance is convinced that there are inflationary pressures and that there must be some restraint in the economy in order to prevent an overheating, this parliament has a right to see that the restraint does not fall solely upon one section of the Canadian people; this parliament has a right to demand a fiscal policy that will make for a fair and proper distribution of income in this country.
We have the right to insist that the Minister of Labour introduce legislation, while we are here in the next few days, to implement the recommendations of the Freedman report in order that these men who are on strike and who in the last eight years have been adversely affected by technological change will be assured that there will be some consultation and some amelioration of the condition of those replaced as a result of automation. We have a right to expect from the Minister of Transport a clear statement of a sane transportation policy. When I say a "sane" transportation policy, I do not mean an abandonment of responsibility by the government; nor do I mean turning the Canadian people, and particularly the Canadian shippers, over to the tender mercies of the railway companies.


I think volume 3 of the MacPherson report was brought down in July 1962. The government has had ample time in which to outline a policy that would make it possible for the railways in this country to operate efficiently and at the same time pay their employees wages that are commensurate with the wages paid in other sections of our industry.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to be as co-operative as possible, but we make two clear conditions. One is that we shall insist upon adequate time to study and examine both pieces of legislation which the Prime Minister has indicated will be brought down. We have no intention of allowing the psychology of crisis that is being built up to stampede or bully us into agreeing to legislation which will have a detrimental effect upon the Canadian people and will operate adversely to the interests of the railwaymen and their families across Canada.
Our second condition is that in addition to the legislation which the Prime Minister has announced, and concurrent with it, we want some statement from the government with respect to the measures they will bring down to deal with the underlying causes that have produced this unfortunate situation. Unless the government does this, any legislation they can introduce now will not solve the problem, will not necessarily end this strike, and will certainly not prevent other strikes in other segments of the economy. The time has come for the government to end government by diplomacy and evasion. The time has come for government by leadership and courageous action.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The time has come for the government to deal with the root causes instead of doing what they are asking us to do now, merely put on a patch which will blow off in the course of the next few months so that parliament will be facing another crisis in the matter of the next few weeks or months.
I cannot emphasize too strongly that in our opinion this situation is only part of a much larger economic problem, and unless parliament is prepared to grapple with that problem we will not have solved anything; we will only have postponed the evil day.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)


Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, we are called for an emergency
August 29, 1966
COMMONS DEBATES	7737
session at Ottawa to consider a most serious situation, paralysing to the Canadian general economy.
Indeed railwaymen are on strike, national railways have gone out of operation, and from all sides we hear people say that the government should have summoned parliament earlier, that the government does not know how to cope with its responsibilities etc. The government was right in letting employers and employees, through their own means of negotiation, seek an understanding which would benefit both the railwaymen and the Canadian economy as a whole. Had the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Dief-enbaker) been at the head of the government, I dare him to say he would have done better under the circumstances. He himself would have let employers and workers, through their bargaining agents, try in every way to find a solution, to come to an agreement. But it is easy to lay the blame on others.
Mr. Speaker, following negotiations, a conciliation board was appointed and failed as well. This railway employee issue is not a separate one; it is an all-embracing problem. All sectors of the economy are affected, and are in the same situation. The conflict between the railway employees and the national railways did not start today, or even two months ago. In fact, back in 1950, under the St. Laurent administration, certain problems had already arisen. In 1960, under the Diefenbaker government, difficulties also occurred. Both in 1950 and in 1960, why did not those who were at the head of the nation live up to their responsibilities in anticipation of possible events in 1960 or 1966?
Mr. Speaker, we are presently summoned to examine this very alarming situation and the government requires members to make a decision that will end this strike which ultimately will be detrimental to the strikers themselves.
They are the ones who are losing wages, and the farmers and all the social classes in Canada are losing through such a strike.
But, Mr. Speaker, under the pretext that the government must fight inflation, parliament is recalled and two bills will be submitted to the members later on. We have no idea of what is in them. Do they deal with compulsory arbitration or with a definite policy to get the railways to deal adequately with their employees? Do they contain appropriate and reasonable solutions to help the Canadian workers in general? We do not know. But I
23033-490*
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters know one thing, Mr. Speaker, namely that the railway workers and the textile workers are not the only ones on strike in Canada; we have also had farmer's strikes against some provincial governments. As a matter of fact, we have had all kinds of strikes and the most important one so far in Canada, which happened many times, is that of the financiers when they impose credit restrictions and force the Canadian people to live in misery. In the case of those strikes, the government never recalled parliament so that steps could be taken to put finance at the service of the Canadian people, human beings which include the railway workers, industrial workers, miners, settlers, farmers of all classes of society.
Mr. Speaker, the government does not call us back to deal with those strikes, but we are called back to discuss the impossibility of the railways to grant a 30 per cent wage increase. We are now complaining about inflation and its dangers but, Mr. Speaker, the dangers of inflation are not recent; they existed many years ago when, for instance, the government is deprived each year-the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) is well aware of it-of $1.25 billion in interest only on the national debt. That is inflation, Mr. Speaker. The 11 per cent tax on building materials, that is inflation, Mr. Speaker, and the government is responsible for that.
What is the government doing about inflation? Absolutely nothing. On the other hand, the workers are asked to accept low wages which barely enable them to make ends meet, wages which barely enable them to live decently in a country like ours.
We know that the cost of living is exorbitant, everyone knows that we must do something, but why always do it at the expense of the working classes? That does not mean, Mr. Speaker, that I support the strike which is now on in Canada. No, because I have the deep personal conviction that in the whole world, strikes have never settled labour problems. Usually, and generally, the end of one strike marks the beginning of another. And those who pay for the strike are not the labour leaders who give the strike order, but those who work, the workers themselves. On this point, I call to witness the Minister of Manpower (Mr. Marchand) who knows all about this strike. When has a labour problem been settled by a strike? Never.
I have no intention, Mr. Speaker, to speak at any length on this question at this time, because I insist that the government bring
August 23, 1966
7738	COMMONS
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters down its bills at the earliest possible moment, and let us know what is being proposed to restore order, and not spread disorder nor impose economic or government dictatorship on the workers.
No. But let the government bring down its bills so that we made consider them. That is why we have been called. It is clear that at the same time we will be touching upon the question of inflation while we are discussing these bills, because the bills are directly related to inflation.
But, Mr. Speaker, to enable the government to bring down its bills and to enable us to discuss them according to the facts, then we will be in a position to discuss at greater length the details, the points and the suggestions of the present government.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I say that we will let the government introduce its legislation at the earliest possible moment. This does not mean that we will be giving a blanket approval to the government proposition; not at all. It means, however, that we are anxious to bring an end to this railroad strike, to achieve a settlement because at the present time neither the executives of the Canadian National or of the Canadian Pacific, nor the union leaders are footing the bill for this strike. The strikers are the railroad workers themselves, and the farmers who are left with produce that cannot now be sold for lack of transportation.
Well, Mr. Speaker, we hope this strike will come to an end at the earliest possible moment and that is why we are anxious for the govermnent to bring down its legislation so that we may consider it and arrive at beneficial results for the economy of the country as a whole.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, we have been called to deal with a national emergency, an emergency that has arisen in the form of a national strike but behind which is a far greater emergency affecting the whole economy and the entire operation of our railroads and transportation system. However, it would be a futile waste of time to delay in dealing with the first crisis. Every day that the trains do not run adds to the burden on the economy and to the hardship caused to innumerable innocent people whose livelihood is dependent upon reliable transportation. The trains must get back into operation and parliament should hear immediately what steps the government proposes to take to solve the immediate crisis and the long-range problems behind it.


[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
Unfortunately, there are third parties who are suffering as a result of this strike. There are the travellers, the fruit growers, the farmers, business people, students and citizens generally of the two island provinces and the entire nation. This has forced the reconvening of parliament. Most important of all is the hardship this strike is inflicting upon those people with fixed incomes who have no way of fighting for their own needs.
In my opinion no one person or group can be held solely responsible for the state of labour unrest in Canada. The demand for more material benefits and the accompanying decrease in responsibility for one's fellow man have been fed by the advertising media which foster dissatisfaction as a spur to sales, by labour leaders who know of no other way to hold their jobs than to offer their men more wages and fringe benefits, by management which has boasted of the wonders of automation in raising productivity, and by a government which has promoted the theme that all the welfare needs of the people should be met by state schemes.
In such a situation it is not surprising that neither labour nor management are prepared to take realistic action but turn to the gov-ment to make the difficult decision for them. Such a decision faced the government last spring during the Quebec longshoremen's strike and the threatened strike of seaway workers. The government muffed it and we are meeting in emergency session to pay the price. Compulsory arbitration may be unpalatable to the unions but when their own representative on a conciliation tribunal agrees that there can be no settlement short of government intervention, what other solution remains? Regardless of what has happened in the past and whatever the weaknesses in government action have been, the government must take a strong line now and call upon responsible people in the country to support it. The call has come to us to deal with legislation and we want to see that legislation. We give our assurance of co-operation in dealing with it because it is the national interest that must be considered. If parliament had been called prior to the beginning of the strike, in our opinion we would have been discriminating against the railway unions and their workers. In addition, this action would have been contrary to the basic right of collective bargaining and the the right to strike. This is of particular significance in view of the fact the union
August 29, 1966
COMMONS DEBATES	7739
leaders have acted strictly according to the rule of law up to this point. They are to be commended for that. The tragedy of the situation has been the failure of the government to take strong action prior to this crisis. It is five years now since the MacPherson report was tabled in this house. In his first Throne Speech more than three years ago, the Prime Minister promised that railway legislation would be brought forward. The Throne Speech in each subsequent session has contained the promise that railway legislation would be implemented. There has been no action.
The railway employees do have a legitimate complaint. They have gone now for eight months without an agreement with railway management. It is my impression that even more important than wage increases are the complaints of railway workers with regard to working conditions, conditions which have been neglected for years. In addition, the cost of living continually goes up and up. However, at this time the responsibility of parliament is to get the trains rolling again, to outline the basic terms on which further negotiations may be based, and to provide a time limit for those negotiations, after which arbitration must take effect.
We have a second responsibility, and that is not only to deal with the railway legislation but to deal with the underlying causes of the strike, namely, the cost of living which is continually going up and inflation which depreciates the purchasing value of the dollar. Therefore we expectantly wait to see the first phase of the legislation that will be brought forth. The second piece of legislation to which the Prime Minister referred is something which I believe will need weeks of study and will necessitate the bringing together of all aspects of the transport industry, labour and management in order that a solution can be worked out. Some positive steps will also need to be taken by the government with relation to financial policy to solve the problem of inflation and the rising cost of living.
We remind ourselves, Mr. Speaker, that we are here to deal with the strike and we must deal with it effectively. We trust the government will now be able to bring forth this legislation and let us get on with it. I believe that the eyes of the nation are upon us. So far as our party is concerned, we pledge ourselves to get on with the legislation.
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters


Lester Bowles Pearson: I know, Mr. Speaker, that under the rules I have no right to speak again. However, there have been one or two procedural points raised and if the house so desires I could deal with them at this time. It might shorten the debate later.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) said it would be helpful-I think he used stronger words than that-if members of the house could have the railway bill available to them before the strike legislation is debated.
This seems to be a reasonable request. The right hon. gentleman may recall that I have indicated to him that if the house could forgo debate on the resolution stage of that particular bill, which debate we know is often redundant, pass the resolution and begin debate on that bill on second reading, then perhaps this afternoon we could get first reading of the strike legislation and the passing of the resolution and first reading of the railway legislation. Then we could go on with second reading of the strike legislation and debate it or, if the members felt it desirable to have a look at this legislation for an hour or two, that could be arranged.


John George Diefenbaker: Before the Prime Minister goes on, and in order to get at the heart of this matter which is the strike situation, perhaps the Prime Minister would agree that it would be beneficial if we had available to us what I might call the railway bill. There is no reason why we should start in part way and accept the resolution without debate. If the house were in agreement we could have a copy of the bill given to us. We are trying to co-operate. There is no reason why these two bills should not be made available. Otherwise the position is going to be that the government will simply introduce the resolution and then there will be no debate on it. We will not have that information we usually have on these matters. We will be passing something about which we do not know anything.
We might be denied a speech by the Minister of Transport and that might put us into a transport of woe. On the other hand, it might not. What possible reason is there for not allowing us to see this bill, even without following the usual formality? Let us have it and then go on with the strike bill.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


Lester Bowles Pearson: There is only one difficulty in following that course, and if that difficulty
7740	COMMONS
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters can be overcome I have no objection whatever to making the railway bill available at once. It is quite contrary to the rules to make a bill available to the house before it has been introduced and given first reading. If the house unanimously wished to change this regulation to make it possible, then that could be done. I suggest that there would be very little delay indeed if the house gave first reading to the strike bill, moved forward the resolution relating to the second bill and then began the debate on the second reading, the resolution stage and first reading being completed, so that both bills would then be before the house. The second bill would be before the house before the first bill had been considered, which seems to me a reasonable proposition.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I again make a suggestion to the Prime Minister in the form of a question? Would the Prime Minister consider the advisability of having the legislation relating to the strike given first reading, the Prime Minister or whoever introduces the bill making his statement on second reading, then adjourning the debate to give members an opportunity to examine both the legislation and the statement of the minister and all its implications, and then moving to the general railway legislation on which we would be prepared to forego the resolution stage? However, if that is not generally acceptable could we have a statement from the minister, either on the resolution stage or on second reading, and then adjourn the house to give members an opportunity to examine the legislation and the statement of the minister? It is important that we have the opportunity to study it. It seems to me that the legislation will be long and complicated, and it would be useful to have the minister's statement on the record before we begin to discuss the legislation itself.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we would be very glad indeed to follow that procedure.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, with respect, all that we would have before us would be the Prime Minister's exculpatory statement without any opportunity of replying thereto. Exculpatory statements are something that we have had enough of in the last few weeks. We now want facts and the opportunity to debate them, not a postponement. We do not have to look over this long and complicated document, as it has been described by the leader of the N.D.P. If it is

DEBATES	August 29, I96B
a long and complicated document it would be a most unusual thing for him to know that unless he has had a preview.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, there has been considerable discussion today about the introduction of one bill and the resolution relating to a second bill. Has the Prime Minister given consideration to whether or not the whole question of the railway crisis and the important, special leg'slation he is going to introduce are to be given priority over other business of the house? I am partial to the proposition that d'scussion should be strictly confined to the emergency legislation.
These matters involve a great number of points which will require consideration and co-operation. In my opinion this can be better achieved if the Prime Minister will give an indication to the house of what he intends to do during the next few days in relation to the legislation he is introducing. The Prime Minister really has not said whether this legislation is to be considered separately from our regular business or whether we are now resuming the adjourned session. While I realize that orders of the day set out the pattern,
I think this question should be discussed and considered before arrangements are made for the future.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to suggest two things. One is that the second bill be circulated so that members will see it before the discussion on the first bill begins. Then the discussion on the first bill, which I call the strike bill, can begin and continue until the bill is decided upon. I think that for that purpose we should waive all the ordinary business of the house because, I quite agree, of its emergency character.
When the bill has been decided upon we can then go back and discuss the railway bill which will have been before members while the first bill is being considered. If that bill commends itself to the house, receives second reading and goes to a committee, I would agree entirely with what the leader of the New Democratic Party said, namely, that we should then begin a thorough and comprehensive discussion of inflation, inflationary dangers and rising costs, matters which are worrying us all.
I also agree with him that wages are only one element, and not necessarily the most important element, in these inflationary pressures. We should go on to discuss that subject. We on this side will make this provision, which I hope will be agreeable to the other
August 29, 1966	COMMONS
house leaders, so that there can be a discussion immediately after the railway legislation has been considered.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, it would seem that there is a general consensus of agreement that both bills should be brought before the house prior to first reading. After all, they are related to each other, so I hope there will be agreement to this course. We could then proceed with our discussion on the first bill. We agree with the suggestion that the Leader of the Official Opposition has made.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I understand there is general agreement in the house as to the circulation or distribution of what has been called the railway bill even before the introduction of this bill in the house. Is that agreed?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, so there will be no confusion later, I sought to ask the Leader of the Opposition a question. Would he agree that the resolution stage grants permission to the government to present a bill to the house for its consideration?


John George Diefenbaker: But we are waiving
rights and rules now.


George James McIlraith: Yes. I think what is in order, is to waive debate on the resolution stage so that the government will have permission to introduce and give first reading to both bills. As I understand it, that is the point.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there agreement with the proposition now put forth by the Minister of Public Works?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker,
I think the question at this time is to secure the unanimous consent of the house to bring the two bills before the house. If this was the sole question, I, for one, would agree but the fact is that the standing orders carry new provisions that the house leaders may also agree on setting a time limit on the discussion. If we agree to eliminate the resolution stage, it means that less time will be available to consider this legislation. And if, later, the house leaders unanimously agree to set a one- or two-day limit on each stage of these two bills, it may mean that we, the independents, may be entirely deprived of the opportunity to express our views on either one of these two bills.
DEBATES	7741
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters
In this case, Mr. Speaker, I feel that before the unanimous consent of the house can be given, we, or at least I, should like to know whether it is the intention of the government house leader to proceed in accordance with the new standing orders in such a way as to set a limit on each stage of consideration of the two bills and I should also like to know whether we, the independents, will have the opportunity to speak on these bills which we consider important and on which we would like to have an opportunity to express our views.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, a question seems to have been directed to me. There have been no suggestions made that the opportunity of a member to debate these measures should in any way be abridged or restricted. It was the procedural matter of getting the bills before the house which was under discussion. There was nothing done by the house leaders that would limit the right of a member to debate either bill.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mcllraith) to make one pomt clear. He has told us that there has been no consultation with a view to limiting debate at each of the stages. I should like to ask the Minister of Public Works if he will give the undertaking that discussion will not be limited at any of the stages and that we will have the opportunity to speak on these bills.


George James McIlraith: That is a matter for the house, Mr. Speaker. The procedure is there in the rules. I cannot envisage a situation where hon. members would take such a lengthy time in debating either bill that those rules would have to be used. But I would not think of giving any such guarantee on any bill in advance. With debate just started, I cannot see any possibility of this provision being used.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The question for the Chair now is whether we should terminate consideration of the item before the house, which is motions. If there are no further motions, then this matter could be raised under introduction of bills. I would think it is the will of the house that we conclude the item of motions

August 29, 1966
Proposed Legislation
and then proceed to the following item, introduction of bills. Perhaps a motion might be made to that effect.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, there is a matter I should like to bring up under motions, if I may.
I am now tabling copies in French and in English of Mr. Justice Rand's report concerning Mr. Justice Landreville. Before doing so I wish to give notice that it is my intention to make a motion in accordance with the rules of the house at the first opportunity for an address to His Excellency praying that the judge be removed from office on the grounds set forth in the report. It is also the intention of the government to refer the motion to a committee of parliament so that the fullest inquiry can be made by parliament itself and so that the judge can be given an opportunity to appear and speak on his own behalf.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the minister have leave to table the report?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



MAINTENANCE OF RAILWAY OPERATION ACT


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to present 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.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of the house that the Prime Minister shall have leave to introduce the said bill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the second time?


Mr. Starr:: Later this day.


Mr. Speaker:: By consent, later this day?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, we should have some clear understanding whether or not it is to be later this day. We want every opportunity to discuss and examine this bill before we debate it. So far as this party is concerned we would be prepared to proceed with second reading to the extent of having the minister introducing the bill make a full and clear statement. We think, however, that the debate should certainly be adjourned then in order to allow hon. members an opportunity to digest it. Otherwise we shall ask that the debate on the bill be left over until tomorrow.


George James McIlraith: Could I ask a question of the hon. member by way of clarification. Would his remarks apply equally if the house were to proceed with the second reading stage to the point of the presentation of the bill by the government followed by the reply by the Leader of the Opposition before the adjournment?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If the official opposition are going to reply I think the other parties must have the same right at the same time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: You are holding it up.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It seems to me that before we have the debate on this legislation we should have an opportunity to study it and examine it in detail. If the feeling is that the house does not want to adjourn after the minister has introduced the bill and made his statement, I should think it would be better to leave the debate until tomorrow.


An hon. Member:: Why wait?


Mr. Speaker:: The question before the Chair is whether, by unanimous consent, the said bill is to be read a second time later this day.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



TRANSPORTATION


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that in conformity with the order of the house it is now in order for me to ask leave to move the first reading of Bill No. C-231, to define and implement a national transportation policy for Canada, to amend the Railway Act and other acts in consequence thereof and to enact other consequential provisions.
August 29, 1966


An hon. Member:: Four years too late.


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker,
I have a feeling of great unease as to what we are now asked to do by the suggestion of the Minister of Transport. As I understand it, we all want to see the bill and the government is prepared to facilitate that by having it circulated. I suggest that consent should be confined to having the bill circulated for the information of hon. members. I say this because I have very grave reservations that we cannot, without violating the constitution, proceed with the bill as has been suggested by the minister because under the constitution there is a provision to the effect that there must be a resolution before we can proceed with a bill of this sort.
If we were just waiving a rule of the house, that would be different but we would be disregarding a constitutional provision. Therefore I think it would be much simpler, with less danger of creating such a far reaching precedent, if we simply consented to circulating the bill so that we can see it, to which the leaders of all parties have consented.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I fear that the house is going to put itself, or the government, into a very awkward position by following the suggestion of the hon. member for Kamloops. A resolution, as he well knows, asks the house to decide whether it is expedient to introduce a bill. It has always been the practice that the expediency is based exclusively on the financial conditions of the bill. Unless there were some understanding that we were not to debate the bill on the resolution stage but on second reading, matters would be complicated still further.
I think the suggestion I have made meets the wishes of all hon. members. It is that we formally accept the resolution. I have a very lengthy description of the bill which I do not think I would be permitted to read at the first reading stage but which I had intended to use in committee on the resolution if the committee stage had been held. I would be quite happy, without reading it, to have it circulated with the bill to all hon. members.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
The bill itself, I might say, is 68 pages long. It contains nearly 100 clauses, and it is very difficult to get through quickly without a guide of some sort. My suggestion is that we be permitted to deal with the resolution stage and get first reading of the bill. It seems to me that this would in no way abridge any
Proposed Legislation
opportunities for debate. Since it seems to be the universal view that it is expedient to have this legislation introduced-maybe it will not be considered expedient to pass it but at any rate we agree it should be introduced-I would be glad to have this mimeographed document, which I assure hon. members is simply a description of the bill in layman's language, distributed with the bill itself. This would help all hon. members to comprehend it. There are plenty of copies of the bill and of this document available, and if we could pass the resolution and then be given leave to introduce the measure I would be glad to make them available at once.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the Minister of Transport
unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to define a national transportation policy for Canada suited to modern transportation requirements and to establish a national transportation authority to effect the objectives of the national transportation policy; to provide for new methods of fixing freight rates and for the rationalization of branch lines of railway and passenger train services; to authorize the payment from the Consolidated Revenue Fund by way of assistance to permit of orderly adjustment to the new freight rate of structures and the removal of other forms of assistance to railways; to authorize the payment of assistance from the Consolidated Revenue Fund to railway companies where they are required to maintain uneconomic branch lines or passenger train services in operation for the public good; to authorize payments to maintain the prevailing level of At and East freight rates on grain; to permit certain grants to be made from the Railway Grade Crossing Fund for a further period of three years beyond January 31, 1967; to authorize agreements relating to the carriage by rail of Her Majesty's mail and members of the Canadian Forces and police travelling on Her Majesty's service; to provide for the administration of commodity pipe lines, extra-provincial motor vehicle transport and water transport within the context of the national transportation policy, and to provide further for other matters consequential upon or related or incidental to any of the foregoing.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Batten in the chair.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make it perfectly clear that in agreeing to the passing of this resolution we are doing so solely for the purpose of seeing the bill and having the opportunity to discuss it. Our

August 29, 1966
Proposed Legislation
agreement to the passing of this resolution does not necessarily constitute an endorsement of the principles of the legislation which is to follow.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is clearly understood and no advantage will be taken of the indulgence of the house to suggest there was anything more than the desire to see the bill quickly.


John George Diefenbaker: That is the undertaking which was made originally. Therefore no further undertaking of any kind is necessary.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Exactly.


Robert Norman Thompson: On behalf of this group may I also say that permitting this resolution to go through at the present time does not involve any commitment to or agreement with the bill itself. It will merely facilitate our having the bill before us.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Pickersgill thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-231, to define and implement a national transportation policy for Canada, to amend the Railway Act and other acts in consequence thereof and to enact other consequential provisions.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



SUPREME COURT ACT


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-232, to amend the Supreme Court Act (payment of costs).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I introduce this bill because I am opposed to practices which discriminate against any Canadian people whether on grounds of race, creed or colour, or because of educational differences-by the way, I happen to be one of those who do not possess much education and therefore would suffer from this limitation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Under our system of law every person has the right to appear in person before the courts of justice and tribunals and handle his case personally. However, if a decision is rendered in his favour he may

be unable to be reimbursed his costs, disbursements and reasonable expenses in the same manner as if he had a lawyer handling his case.
The purpose of this bill is to provide that in the Supreme Court of Canada, which is the keystone of our judicial system, the private individual who, after having pleaded his own case, is awarded his costs will be entitled to the same costs as a lawyer handling his own case.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Speaker:: Questions.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, it was my understanding that in respect of the agreement given to the introduction of the railway legislation the Prime Minister had agreed that the railway legislation was of an extremely important nature and therefore other business of the house would be suspended until that business had been concluded. But now we are proceeding as though this is a regular session, which I believe is not in keeping with the remarks of the Prime Minister unless he misunderstood the question I asked him. I would like the house leader to give some indication of whether or not the government intends to embark on regular sessional business.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member knows we are just going through routine proceedings. I assume that in due course, after routine proceedings, we shall get to government orders at which time I gather the legislation in question will be debated. If it is the desire of the house that routine business be suspended today this procedure could be followed, but there has been no such request or suggestion made until now.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I did not understand that the hon. member's remarks were meant to apply to routine proceedings. Perhaps he may want to clarify that. It never occurred to me that the agreement was meant to exclude the answers to order paper questions.


John George Diefenbaker: Or anything else.
August 29, 1966


William Arnold Peters: I think we should concentrate on the other legislation and leave the routine proceedings until later. I know we have the routine proceedings before us but we should waive them until these other two matters are settled. I understood that was the agreement. If we embark on the adoption of committee reports we shall be back in a regular session and it will be said that we are not handling the railway strike as an emergency.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry if I said anything that was misunderstood. I thought I had agreed-and of course all I could do was agree because it was for the house to decide-that we should waive consideration of all legislation until we had finished the railway legislation so that we could go straight ahead with that legislation. I was not of the impression that that covered routine proceedings. That would be a matter for the house to decide^ not the government.
If we could carry on as we are now doing today, perhaps the house leaders could get together and see if any further agreement is needed to proceed with the railway legislation. I suggest that if we can carry on today perhaps we can do away with private members' hour, which would give us an extra hour for discussion of the railway legislation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is my understanding that we continue with routine proceedings. Is it an order of the house that we suspend the private members' hour?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


George James McIlraith: I wonder if we could have that order concerning private members' hour extended throughout the discussion of both the strike bill and all stages of the railway bill up to the conclusion of second reading?


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Cashin: 1.	What moneys, if any, have been paid or refunded to Victor Spencer by any agency of government since termination of his employment in the Post Office Department?
Questions
2.	If any moneys were paid, on what grounds was such payment or refund made to Victor Spencer?
3.	What civil service pension would Victor Spencer have received had his employment been terminated in the normal way?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cole (Postmaster General):: 1. (a) Balance of salary due at time of separation because of vacation leave to his credit and which he had not taken.
Gross amount	$162.27
Less deductions
Supplementary death benefit premiums for 6	months	12.00Canada Pension	Fund	2.92Income tax	24.32Net amount of cheque	$ 123.03(b) Return of superannuation contributions Gross amount	$4,759.07Less income tax	475.91Net amount	$4,283.16
2. (a) Section 63 (1) of the Civil Service
Act provides for the granting of vacation pay. At the time his sick leave with pay was exhausted he had eight days vacation pay to his credit, (b) Mr. Spencer was dismissed under section 50 of the Civil Service Act on grounds considered as misconduct under the Public Service Superannuation Act and section 11 (e) of the Public Service Superannuation Act provides for a return of contributions.
3.	He would have been eligible for an annual allowance of $1,833.70 less a deduction of $120 per annum covering arrears payments for service in world war II, had his employment been terminated in the normal way.


BONUSES TO BILINGUAL POLITICIANS
Mr. Allard: Does the government intend to grant bonuses to political party leaders, members of the House of Commons and senators who use both of Canada's official languages?


Mr. John R. Matheson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.


BRANCHES OF FOREIGN COMPANIES IN CANADA
Mr. Allard: 1.	When a foreign company wishes to open a branch in Canada, must it apply to any federal department or agency and, if so (a) to which one.

August 29, 196S
Questions
(b) what are the names of the senior officials or of the persons in charge in such department or agency with whom foreign companies must discuss their plans?
2.	Under what conditions may foreign companies establish branches in Canada?
3.	Is there continuing liaison or a two way information service between the federal government and the provinces with regard to the establishment in Canada of branches of foreign companies?
4.	Does the federal government operate publicity or recruitment offices in foreign countries for the purpose of attracting new industries to Canada and, if so (a) in what countries (b) how do these industrial recruitment offices operate (c) what are the standards or principles applied by the federal government or the department or agency concerned to promote the establishment in Canada of branches of foreign companies (d) are there any financial or other instructions in existence in regard to this, and. if so, when were they established?
5.	What assistance may the city of Sherbrooke obtain from the federal government or from the department or agency concerned in bringing foreign companies to establish branches within its limits?
6.	When a Canadian company or branch wishes to resettle or open a new branch in another province, must it comply with any formalities established by the federal government or by one of its departments or agencies?
7.	In 1964 and 1965, how many foreign companies opened branches in Canada, how many in each province, and from what countries?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Departments of Industry, Trade and Commerce and my department as follows:
1.	A foreign company which wishes to open a branch in Canada does not have to obtain or ask for a licence or other similar authority from the federal government. This is a provincial matter. Subparagraphs (a) and (b) become not applicable.
2.	Under provincial laws.
3.	Copies of general inquiries received from foreign industry concerning area development benefits and locations of designated areas are referred to the various provincial departments of industry. Any enquiry relating to a specific province is sent on to that province for direct reply. Provincial departments of industry are also advised of any applications for area development benefits received from foreign companies provided such disclosure is agreed to by the companies.
4.	The Department of Trade and Commerce, through its trade commissioners stationed abroad, assists foreign industrialists interested in establishing operations in Canada. The trade commissioner processes any inquiries received through the Department of Trade and Commerce to the Department of Industry.

5.	The area development agency employs a number of officers trained in industrial development and promotion techniques who are available to assist provincial and municipal governments in formulating programs designed to attract industry, whether domestic or foreign, to designated areas.
6.	No.
7.	Information on the number of foreign companies opening branches in Canada is not available in the Dominion Bureau of Statistics.


CENTRES WHERE BILINGUALISM REQUIRED
Mr. Ricard: What are the centres in Canada where the knowledge of both official languages will be necessary in order to hold a post in the civil service of Canada, according to the requirements of the declaration made by the Prime Minister on April 6. 1966, on the subject of bilingualism in the civil service?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I have been given the following information by the Civil Service Commission: Appendix No. 7 to the staffing manual of the Civil Service Commission has been compiled for the guidance of staffing officers in reaching decisions as to the official language composition of the clientele served by any given office. This appendix was submitted as an attachment to the answer to Mr. Bell's question No. 944, Votes and Proceedings No. 33, March 3, 1966.


INDIAN PAVILION, EXPO '67
Mr. Thompson: 1.	Did an Iroquois chief claim that the Tekakwitha Island, proposed for a permanent Indian pavilion near the Expo '67 site, was donated without the authority of the Indian council on the Caughnawaga reserve and, if so, is this claim correct?
2.	What are the arrangements for the distribution of profits from the commercial aspects of the proposed Indian centre on the island?
3.	Have the Indians of the Caughnawaga reserve co-operated with the R.C.M.P. in investigating the activities of certain Montreal business interests in connection with the commercial aspects of this venture?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police as follows:
1.	The Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources did not receive any submission claiming that the Tekakwitha island was donated without the authority of the Caughnawaga band council. The alienation of the Indian reserve land can only be authorized in accordance with the provisions
August 29, 1966

of the Indian Act and the department did not receive a request to donate land on the Caughnawaga Indian reserve.
2.	Chief Andrew Delisle of the Caughnawaga band informed the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources that no arrangements have been made.
3.	The R.C.M. Police has not been requested to carry out, nor has it carried out, any investigation with respect to the activities of certain Montreal business interests in connection with the commercial aspects of the proposed Indian centre on Tekakwitha island.
DEMURRAGE CHARGES, VANCOUVER *


Mr. Horner (Acadia): 1.	What was the total amount of demurrage paid by the grain companies to the railroads at the Vancouver port for the months of August, September, October, November, December, January and February of 1965 and 1966?
2.	What were the total demurrage charges paid by freighters at the Vancouver port waiting at the docks for grain for the same months?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Departments of Agriculture, Finance, Trade and Commerce and Transport as follows: 1. No information available.
I am informed by the Department of Finance as follows: 2. The time allowed in Canadian ports for ships waiting to load grain for export before demurrage is charged and the rate of demurrage charged, is a matter of contract negotiation between the shipping company and the exporting company. Information with respect to the amount of demurrage charged is not available.


AIR CANADA-FLIGHT ACCOMMODATION FROM OTTAWA
Mr. Mongrain: 1.	Has the government received any complaints lately to the effect that there exists at present a shortage of seats on Air Canada aircraft leaving Ottawa for all destinations?
2.	Will the government consider adopting measures to improve this service?


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. No.
2. The Air Transport Board has the general question of the availability of seats on Air Canada's routes under review. Air Canada is aware of the shortage of accommodation on
Questions
certain flights and its purchase of new equipment which is currently being introduced into service should improve the situation.


ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT CATEGORY. PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Bell (Carleton): 1.	What occupational groups are in the administrative support category?
2.	How many public servants are in this category?
3.	What specifically are the new classification and pay plans for this category?
4.	As of what date will they be effective?
5.	What standards have been used to support the new plans?
6.	Has a point rating approach to job evaluation been used in any of the groups?
7.	If so, in what groups and what is its basis?
8.	What is meant by a holding classification and how is an employee affected in the matter of pay and progress by being placed in such a classification?
9.	How many persons in each group have been placed in a holding classification?
10.	What is meant by a position being "red circled" and how is an employee affected in the matter of pay and progress by being placed in a "red circled" position?
11.	How many persons in each group have had their positions "red circled".
12.	What is the procedure available to an employee for review of his position affected by these procedures?
13.	How many employees have adopted such procedure seeking review?
14.	What has been the result of these reviews?
15.	Were the staff associations consulted about the various aspects of the new classification and pay plans mentioned above and, if so, did they agree thereto?
16.	What other categories are under study at the present time for classification revision?
17.	When is it expected the plans for each of these categories will be approved?
18.	As of what date is it proposed the plans for each of these categories will be effective?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Civil Service Commission as follows: 1. Communications Group; Data Processing Group; Clerical and Regulatory Group; Office Equipment Operation Group; Secretarial, Stenographic, Typing Group; Telephone Operation Group.
2.	57,305 positions are being converted.
3.	Communications Group: Level 1, $3,242, $3,352, $3,462, $3,572, $3,682; Level 2, $4,116, $4,252, $4,388, $4,524; Level 3, $4,598, $4,750, $4,902, $5,054; Level 4, $4,827, $4,986, $5,145, $5,304; Level 5, $5,281, $5,455, $5,629, $5,803. Data Processing Group: Level 1, $2,613, $2,730, $2,847, $2,964, $3,081, $3,198, $3,315, $3,432,

August 29. 1966
Questions
$3,549, $3,666, $3,783, $3,900; Level 2, $3,941, $4,071, $4,201, $4,331; Level 3, $4,232, $4,371, $4,510, $4,649; Level 4, $4,714, $4,869, $5,024, $5,179; Level 5, $4,940, $5,103, $5,266, $5,429; Level 6, $5,366, $5,543, $5,720, $5,897; Level 7, $6,164, $6,367, $6,570, $6,773; Level 8, $7,988, $8,251, $8,514, $8,777. Clerical and Regulatory Group: Level 1, $2,480, $2,571, $2,662, $2,753, $2,844, $2,935, $3,026; Level 2, $3,352, $3,462, $3,572, $3,682; Level 3, $4,116, $4,252, $4,388, $4,524; Level 4, $4,598, $4,750, $4,902, $5,054; Level 5, $5,281, $5,455, $5,629, $5,803; Level 6, $5,735, $5,924, $6,113, $6,302; Level 7, $6,822, $7,047, $7,272, $7,497. Office Equipment Operation Group:	Level 1, $2,472, $2,582,
$2,692, $2,802, $2,912, $3,022, $3,132, $3,242, $3,352, $3,462, $3,572, $3,682; Level 2, $4,116, $4,252, $4,388, $4,524. Secretarial, Stenographic, Typing Group: Level 1, $2,571, $2,662, $2,753, $2,844, $2,935, $3,026; Level 2, $3,123, $3,226, $3,329, $3,432; Level 3, $2,593, $2,709, $2,825, $2,941, $3,057, $3,173, $3,289, $3,405, $3,521, $3,637, $3,753, $3,869; Level 4, $3,834, $3,960, $4,086, $4,212; Level 5, $4,116, $4,252, $4,388, $4,524; Level 6, $4,598, $4,750, $4,902, $5,054; Level 7, $5,281, $5,455, $5,629, $5,803; Level 8, $6,107, $6,308, $6,509, $6,710; Level 9, $7,053, $7,285, $7,517, $7,749. Telephone Operation Group: Level 1, $2,461, $2,562, $2,663, $2,764, $2,865, $2,966, $3,067, $3,168, $3,269, $3,370; Level 2, $2,594, $2,701, $2,808, $2,915, $3,022, $3,129, $3,236, $3,343, $3,450, $3,557; Level 3, $3,436, $3,549, $3,662, $3,775; Level 4, $3,806, $3,931, $4,056, $4,181; Level 5, $4,172, $4,310, $4,448, $4,586.
4.	October 1, 1965.
5.	Written standards for each group, incorporating category and group definitions, definitions of level determinants, or rating scales, and, except for the Telephone Operation Group, descriptions of bench mark positions were developed by the Civil Service Commission's Bureau of Classification and Revision in consultation with interested staff associations. The standards were reviewed by the Classification Policy Group, which consists of the Civil Service Commissioners, the Secretary of the Treasury Board and the Chairman of the Preparatory Committee on Collective Bargaining in the Public Service, prior to being given formal approval by the Civil Service Commission.
6.	Yes.
7.	Clerical and Regulatory Group, and Data Processing Group. The factors and the maximum weights assigned to each factor are:

Clerical and Regulatory	
Group:	Maximum
Knowledge	350
Complexity	300
Consequence of Error	100
Responsibility for Contacts	100
Supervision	150
1,000
Data Processing Group:	Maximum
Skill and Knowledge	350
Complexity	300
Consequence of Error	150
Responsibility for Contacts	50
Supervision	150
	1,000
8.	A holding classification is a classification established to provide for an employee whose position has been evaluated under the new system as belonging to a group and level with a lower maximum salary than that applicable to his old classification. An employee is assigned to a holding classification in order that he may continue to receive his existing rate of pay and progress in the normal manner to his old maximum rate. The rates of pay holding classifications are not revised. An employee in such a classification is moved to the classification associated with his position when it becomes financially advantageous for him to do so. In the meantime he is eligible for promotion to higher level positions in accordance with the merit system.
9.	Since not all departments have completed the allocation of their personnel to the new groups, statistics are not yet available.
10.	"Red-circled" positions are those assigned to a holding classification as described in 8.
11.	Final statistics are not yet available.
12.	The employing departments are informing all employees in the Administrative Support Category of the effects on them of the conversion program. Any employee assigned to a holding classification who feels that the new standards have not been properly applied in evaluating his position is expected, in the first instance, to discuss the matter with his immediate supervisor. If he is not satisfied with the result of this, he has a right to raise the matter with his personnel office. If he is still not satisfied, the personnel office refers the matter to the Civil Service Commission for review by the Senior Classification Review Officer.
August 29, 1966



13 and 14. No requests for review have as yet been referred to the Chief Classification Review Officer. Employees were not notified of their right to request reviews until after May 4, 1966. They are required to initiate the request for review within 30 days after being notified. No information is available on the number of employees who are processing requests for review at the departmental level.
15. Yes. They indicated agreement with the classification plans. They were not in agreement with the policy of basing the levels of pay for the new groups on the level of pay in effect for the old classification at the time of conversion.
16, 17 and 18. The other categories under study with the expected date of approval of classification and pay plans and the effective dates of conversion are:
Category Administrative Operational Scientific and Professional Technical Executive
Expected Date of Approval Sept. 15, 1966 not established
not established not established not established
Effective
Date
Oct. 1, 1965 Oct. 1, 1966
July 1, 1967 July 1, 1967 July 1, 1967


JOE BONANNO-VISITS TO CANADA
Mr. Nielsen: 1.	Has the R.C.M.P. and/or the Department of Justice any knowledge that the Mafia leader, Joe Bonanno, has been in Canada on a number of visits during the past year?
2.	Has there been any communication received in this connection by the R.C.M.P. or the Department of Justice at any time during the last 18 months from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and, if so, on what dates?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Department of Justice as follows:
1 and 2. No. It is not the policy of the R.C.M. Police to disclose knowledge of individuals entering or leaving the country, unless a charge has been laid, or unless requested by another police force or relatives.


OPERATIONS IN CANADA OF U.S. INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
Mr. Brand: 1.	Has the Solicitor General any information to indicate that the central intelligence agency has had operatives in Canada during the last year?
Questions
2.	If so, does the C.I.A. operate in Canada with the knowledge and consent of the government of Canada?
3.	Has the Solicitor General knowledge of any critical and unacceptable statements made by representatives of the C.I.A. regarding Canadians who are members of various ethnic organizations and, if so, have any official protests been made to the administration in Washington?


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: 1
and 2. As the Secretary of State for External Affairs indicated in the house on May 20, the central intelligence agency does not carry on operations in Canada. There is however a continuing reciprocal exchange between Canadian and United States officials having responsibility for matters of mutual concern in the field of national security. There have been discussions in Canada from time to time with C.I.A. representatives in this context.
3.	This question presumably refers to the judicial proceedings not yet completed in the United States involving Eerik Heine. The Secretary of State for External Affairs indicated in the house on May 6 that the matter was under discussion with the United States and that he would share the concern of the Leader of the Opposition if the facts as they eventually appear warrant the conclusion which the Leader of the Opposition placed upon them.


PRODUCTIVITY INCREASE IN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY
Mr. Hees: 1.	On what date was the industry branch transferred from the Department of Trade and Commerce to the Department of Industry?
2.	On what date did the productivity council cease to operate?
3.	What was the percentage increase in productivity in the manufacturing industry in Canada during each of the years 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Department of Industry, the Privy Council Office and the Department of Trade and Commerce as follows:
1.	October 1, 1963.
2.	Subject to section 22 of the Economic Council of Canada Act, the national productivity council ceased to operate on August 2, 1963.

August 29, 1966
Questions
3.	Annual Percentage Increase of Productivity Relative to Preceding Year Manufacturing, Canada, 1961-65:
Output per
Year	Person Employed
1961	4.0
1962	4.3
1963	3.8
1964	4.3
1965	(preliminary)	4.0
Note: These	figures reflect the latest revisions in the index of industrial production. Eor instance, the 1964 gain over 1963 on the old basis was 3.3 per cent compared with the revised figure of 4.3 per cent.


DEATH AGES
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What was the average age of death for all Canadians-male and female-for the last year for which figures are available?
2.	What was the average age of death for Canadian Indians-male and female-for the same year?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1 am informed by the Departments of Trade and Commerce and National Health and Welfare as follows:
1.	The average age of death for Canadians in 1964 is as follows: Male, 60.8; female, 64.5.
2.	1964-Male, 33.67; female, 36.82.


EMPLOYMENT SERVICE OFFICERS, ONTARIO
Mr. Saltsman: Have any employment officers of the Unemployment Insurance Commission and the National Employment Service been examined for the new positions of employment service officer of cities over 30,000 population in Ontario and, if so (a) how many (b) how many have passed exams (e) how many of those who passed possessed university degrees?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Except in the case of the competition noted helow, only officers of the National Employment Service have been examined, (a) 645; (b) 446; (c) 65.
Note: A closed competition open to employees of the Unemployment Insurance Commission and the Department of Labour, including the National Employment Service, was held to fill approximately 75 vacant manager positions at various offices of the National Employment Service throughout *Canada, including seven offices in cities in

Ontario with population over 30,000. The classification levels of the positions advertised in this competition range from employment service officer 3 to employment service officer 8.
339 applications were received in this competition; 10 applicants subsequently withdrew, and 329 applicants were considered.
The number of successful applicants in the competition for each level of position is as follows:
Employment service officer 8, 2 (None have a university degree); Employment service officer 7, 2 (One has a university degree); Employment service officer 6, 13 (None have a university degree); Employment service officer 5, 16 (Two have university degrees); Employment service officer 4, 32 (Three have university degrees); Employment service officer 3, 43 (One has a university degree).


NATIONAL INDIAN DAY DURING CENTENNIAL
Mr. Diefenbaker: Will the government set aside a day during the centennial year, 1967, to be known as "national Indian day", so that the deserved honour will be done to Canada's first citizens?


Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: I am advised by the board of directors of the centennial commission that consideration was given to the establishment of special national days during 1967 and the idea rejected by the board on grounds it would be improper to single out any one group for such honour, and virtually impossible to provide special days for all groups which make up Canada's social fabric.


NAVIGATION SURVEY, NELSON RIVER
Mr. Stefanson: Has the federal government carried out a survey on the Nelson river to ascertain if navigation is possible and feasible and, if so, when and by whom was this survey conducted and what are the findings?


George James McIlraith: Yes, in 1909 by Mr. E. S. Miles. The survey showed that to establish nagivation would be an undertaking of considerable magnitude which could not be economically justified.
August 29, 1966


NAVIGATION SURVEY, SASKATCHEWAN RIVER
Mr. Stefanson: Has the federal government carried out a survey on the Saskatchewan river to determine if navigation is possible and feasible and if so, when was this survey conducted and by whom and what are the findings?


George James McIlraith: Yes, between the years 1910-1915 by Mr. L. R. Voligny. A review of the report was made in 1961 at which time it was concluded that there would not be a sufficient volume of traffic to provide significant transportation savings to set against the heavy capital and operational costs which would be involved in the construction of the waterway.


STAFF HOUSING, SPRINGHILL PENAL INSTITUTION
Mr. Coales: 1.	Has the government initiated any action to develop new housing in the Springhill area to provide accommodation for employees of the Canadian penitentiary service who will be located at Springhill, Nova Scotia, when the young offenders' penal institution is completed and in operation this fall?
2.	Has C.M.H.C. initiated any special action that would be of assistance in providing the required housing for the new personnel who will be associated with the penal institution in Springhill?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Solicitor General and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows: 1. No.
2.	Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation have held discussions with officials of the town of Springhill to assure them that the full provisions of the National Housing Act are available to meet the needs of the community.


POLLUTION OF WINNIPEG RIVER
Mr. Schreyer: 1.	Has the federal government involved itself in any way with a study of pollution on the Winnipeg river in regard to pollution of the river in the areas in near proximity both to Kenora, Ontario, and to Pine Falls, Manitoba?
2.	If there has been involvement, what action has been taken by the federal government to deal with this problem in these two areas mentioned and have the provinces of Ontario and Manitoba joined in any such anti-pollution program?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by several departments as follows:
1.	No. The Department of Mines and Technical Surveys operated a water quality sampling station for a few years up to 1962 near
Questions
Pine Falls. Data were obtained on chemical character of the water but not specifically related to pollution.
2.	Not applicable.


ARDA PROJECTS, KAMOURASKA-L'ISLET CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Dionne: To date have any projects been submitted to government authorities under the provisions of ARDA by the south shore development board or any other organization representing the constituency of Kamouraska-L'Islet and, if so, how many?
Answer: Ten.


APPOINTMENT OF WHARFINGER, GRAVENHURST, ONT.
Mr. Aiken: 1.	Has a wharfinger recently been appointed for Muskoka Wharf on Lake Muskoka at Graven-hurst, Ontario?
2.	If so, what is the name of the appointee?
3.	How will the wharfinger be paid for his services, and what amount?
4.	What person or corporation requested the appointment of a wharfinger?
5.	How many persons applied for this position?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1. Yes.
2.	Charles A. Miller.
3.	For his services, the wharfinger retains a portion of the tolls and dues collected for use of the wharf at the following annual rates:-100 per cent of the first, $100 collected; 90 per cent of the next, $300 collected; 50 per cent of the next, $300 collected; 25 per cent of the next, $1,800 collected; 15 per cent of the next, $13,500 collected; 5 per cent of any remainder.
4.	The corporation of the town of Graven-hurst.
5.	Three.



FUEL SUPPLY, HALIFAX AIRPORT

['No. The question of Canada establishing an immigration office in the West Indies was not raised during the commonwealth Caribbean-Canada conference. With the present volume of applications, prospective immigrants in the Caribbean can be serviced as effectively, and at less cost, by travelling teams despatched from Canada.\n[Mr. MacEachen.l']
James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1. Imperial Oil Limited.
2.	(a) and (b) Equipment is not specifically allotted to individual airlines. Available equipment is as follows:-2, 7,000 gallon trailers supply JP 4 fuel; 1, 7,000 gallon trailer supplies JP 1 fuel; 1, 2,000 gallon trailer spare; 1, 4,000 gallon trailer supplies 115 Octane Avgas.
3.	Not in so far as the Department of Transport is concerned.



Mr. Forrestall: What is the annual total operating cost to the Department of Transport of maintaining each of the following aerodromes (a) Lac Des Loups (b) La Macaza (c) Bonnechere (d) Muskoka (e) Earlton?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The latest available figures, fiscal year 1965/66 are: (a) Lac Des Loups $18,622; (b) La Macaza, Nil; (c) Bonnechere, $19,032; (d) Muskoka, $26,218; (e) Earlton, $52,134.


SHORTAGE OF COMMERCIAL PILOTS
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Is there a shortage of commercial air pilots in
Canada?
2.	Will the government consider having the Canada Student Loans Act amended in order to permit those citizens, intent on making commercial air piloting their profession, to be eligible for government loans?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Departments of Transport and Finance as follows: 1. The situation in this regard fluctuates from time to time but at the present time a shortage exists.
2.	The Canada Student Loans Act authorizes the Minister of Finance to guarantee loans to students in need of financial assistance. The loans themselves are made, however, by branches of the chartered banks and by designated credit unions across the country, and only to students to whom certificates of eligibility have been issued by the appropriate authorities of participating provinces. A measure of this nature in order to be effectively administered, must be general in its scope. The act was designed to assist that large body of students who wish to carry on university and other regular forms of postsecondary education. To this end, the act applies only to students who are engaged

in post-secondary educational courses and in courses that last throughout an academic year of not less than 26 weeks. While the benefits of the act are available to the large majority of students, it could not be designed to incorporate many special and deserving courses. An amendment specifically to make pilot training eligible is not considered to be appropriate in these circumstances.


FLIGHT DIVERSIONS, HALIFAX AIRPORT
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Have any intended international landings been diverted from Halifax international airport during the next two months and, if so (a) how many (b) for what reason were these flights diverted (c) what action has been taken, or will be taken, to correct the reasons for the diversions (d) was there any discussion regarding such diversions either before or after a decision to divert from Halifax was taken between Eagle-Lion and the Department of Transport?
2,	If there were discussions, was any reference made to the adequacy of refuelling services by either the responsible government authority or the affected airline authority?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1. The following intended international landings diverted from Halifax international airport as reported by Allied Aviation, New York are (a) five (b) three diversions on account of refuelling times, one diversion due flight plan change (no reason given), one diversion due weather, (c) Imperial Oil has already taken appropriate action to ensure adequate availability of fuelling trailers at all times at Halifax international airport (d) no.
2. No discussions re refuelling services.


REPRESENTATION AT HUMAN RIGHTS CONFERENCE
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	Has the government received a request from the Canadian Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs regarding appointments to the planning committee of the Canadian conference on human rights that approximately one half of the membership should be women?
2.	Has the government agreed to this reasonable request?


Albert Béchard: 1. The president of the Canadian Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs wrote to all members of the government on June 17 asking that women be represented, and I quote:
-in proportion to their numbers in the total population-
-on any such planning committee.
August 29, 1966

2. The Prime Minister in his reply of June 21 noted that the government was giving consideration to the question of a Canadian conference on human rights in 1968, but that no decision had yet been made and no planning committee established. He offered the assurance that should such a committee be established the interest of women in this subject would be fully taken into account.


'ESCROW ACCOUNT, WORLD WIDE AIRWAYS
Mr. Bell (Sainl John-: Alberl):
1.	Were certain funds held in escrow by the Air Transport Board for World Wide Airways on special overseas passenger flights and, if so, what disposal has been made of said monies?
2.	Were employees of World Wide Airways paid their full salaries prior to disposal of said monies and, if not, for what reason?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The Air Transport Board advises as follows:
1.	Funds were not held in escrow by the Air Transport Board. At the direction of the Air Transport Board World Wide Airways Inc. were required to deposit in an escrow account with the Bank of Montreal 50 per cent of all advance payments received from international charter groups. On completion of each portion of the charter the company was permitted to transfer from the escrow account into its general funds account 50 per cent of the original deposits.
On August 12, 1965, because World Wide Airways Inc. was unable financially to complete its outstanding charter commitments its licence was suspended and arrangements were made with Nordair Limited to complete these flight. All funds in escrow account to which World Wide had entitlement were paid to that company. Subsequently the funds remaining in the escrow account were transferred to Nordair as partial payment of its costs in completing the World-Wide charters.
2.	The Air Transport Board does not have information relating to the settlement of outstanding salaries. The escrow account was established purely to protect the travelling public from failure of the carrier to perform flights for which payment was made in advance of services rendered.
Questions


C.N.R. COASTAL BOATS UNDER CHARTER
Mr. Douglas: 1.	Has the Canadian National Railway any boats under charter and engaged in coastal trade on the east coast and, if so, how many such boats are under charter?
2.	Has the Canadian National Railway any boats under charter and engaged in coastal trade on the west coast and, if so, how many such boats are under charter?
3.	Has the Canadian National Railway any plans for increasing its own fleet of coastal boats?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1. Yes, in the Cabot strait and Newfoundland coastal service. The vessels are on a trip to trip charter and the number varies according to freight commitments which exceed what the railway operated boats can handle. During 1966, the number of boats under charter has ranged from three to fifteen.
2.	No.
3.	No. However, the federal government has under construction three ferries for subsequent service on the east coast.


DROUGHT AID, OTTAWA VALLEY FARMERS
Mr. Horner (Acadia): 1.	What was the total amount of money spent by the federal government in 1965 in aid of drought-stricken farmers in the Ottawa Valley?
2.	How much money was spent in the specific effort of trying to make rain and did these efforts produce any rain?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: 1.	The provinces of Quebec and Ontario are not required under the terms of the agreements, with respect to special cost shared crop loss assistance programs, to provide a breakdown of payments to farmers by areas and final costs of these programs will not be known until the provinces complete the redemption of coupons provided to farmers to secure feed and fodder requirements from suppliers.
During the fiscal year 1965-1966, the province of Ontario presented claims for, and was paid, $3,322,829. The province of Quebec presented claims for and was paid $2,726,902. In addition, the government of Canada made direct payments to some 7,050 Quebec farmers totalling $988,795.
Provincial claims for reimbursement continue to be paid as they are received from the provinces concerned and as funds are available.

August 29, 1966
Questions
Total amounts paid to June 27, 1966 are: Quebec, $4,219,073; Ontario, $3,700,000; total: $7,919,073.
The total federal cost of these programs will, it is estimated, be $13,000,000.
In addition the net cost of providing emergency water supplies was $21,793.
2.	The federal government was not involved in any efforts to produce rain.


EXTENSION OF RUNWAYS, MONCTON AIRPORT
Mr. Coates: Is it the intention of the government to initiate the construction and expansion of runways at Moncton, New Brunswick, earlier than was otherwise expected in order to provide a suitable landing strip for DC-9 jet service by Air Canada and, if so, when will tenders be called and what is the expected completion date of the runway extension?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The need for extending the runways at Moncton, N.B. to accommodate Air Canada's DC-9 aircraft is currently under study and it is expected that the necessary improvements will be undertaken sometime in 1967. It is not possible to estimate the date that tenders will be called or when the project will be completed until a decision has been reached as to which runway or runways should be lengthened or strengthened.


WAGE RATES ON FEDERAL CONTRACTS. P.E.I.
Mr. McQuaid: 1.	Did the federal government receive a request from the Minister of Labour of the province of Prince Edward Island to respect its prevailing minimum wage rates in all federal contracts performed in Prince Edward Island and also for the work to be done on the P.E.I. causeway?
2.	If so, is it the intention of the federal government to ensure that minimum rates on federal projects and on the causeway construction will not be below the provincial standards?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Department of Labour as follows:
1.	No. But the minister of welfare and labour of the province of Prince Edward Island sent to the Department of Labour's office in Fredericton, N. B., a copy of a minute of His Honour the Lieutenant Governor in Council dated June 7, 1966, applicable to certain provincial projects, with the request that wage rates for federal projects be brought up to provincial government standards.
2.	Minimum wage rates on all federal government construction contracts are established on the standards set by the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act.


DISPOSITION OF ST. CHRISTOPHE ISLAND, ST. MAURICE RIVER
Mr. Mongrain: 1.	Did the federal government assign St. Christophe island, situated at the mouth of the St. Maurice river, to the municipality of Trois-Rivieres?
2.	If so, under what terms and conditions was this assignment made?


George James McIlraith: 1. and 2. The Department of Public Works has approved "in principle" to grant a renewable long-term lease (21 years) to the city of Trois-Rivieres regarding a portion of land owned by the department at St. Christophe Island. The lease would stipulate that this piece of land may be used as a public park or for recreational purposes, but cannot be used for commercial or industrial purposes.
We are also proposing to dedicate to the city other parcels of land on lie St. Christophe as road allowances for accesses or approaches to the St. Quentin Bridge and the lie Caron Bridge. The proposed transfer would be conditional upon the city assuming the good maintenance of these road accesses to the bridges for the interest of the public and that of our other lessees on He St. Christophe.


MAIL TENDERS, R.R. 2, MATAPEDIA, QUE.
Mr. Keays: 1.	Have tenders been called recently for mall delivery on rural route No. 2-Matapedia, Sellars-ville, Broadlands and Kempt Road?
2.	If so, how many bids were received and in what amounts?
3.	Has the contract been awarded and to whom?
4.	If not, for what reason?
5.	Were there any representations made that the lowest bidder be not accepted?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General):: 1. The recent call for tenders on Matapedia Rural Route No. 2 closed on June 8, 1966.
2. Two bids were received within the time limit specified in the tender notices: James Randolph Adams, Matapedia, $2,995; William Edgar Downs, R.R. No. 2, Matapedia, $3,200.

August 29, 1966

One tender was received after the time limit: Arnold Georges Firlotte, R. R. No. 2, Matapedia, $2,950.
3.	Yes. To James Randolph Adams at $2,600 per annum to commence September 1, 1966. Original amounts bid were considered to be too high. As provided for in section 26 of the Post Office Act, an endeavour was made to obtain more reasonable offers from each of the two tenderers who had submitted their bids within the set time limit. Mr. Adams submitted the lowest offer.
4.	See No. 3 above.
5.	No.


C.P.R. &quot;DOMINION-TERMINATION OF MAIL CONTRACT
Mr. Reid: What was the date on which the C.P.R. gave notice to the Post Office Department to terminate their contract to carry mail on the Dominion train?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: December 31, 1964.


TECHNICAL OFFICERS, ARMED FORCES
Mr. Enns: 1.	How many technical officers are there in each of the three armed services?
2.	How many of these are engineers possessing university degrees?
3.	How many technical officers of each of the three armed services have (a) applied for release since February 1, 1966 (b) have been retired, having reached the compulsory retirement age (c) have been recruited since February 1, 1966?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associate Minister of National Defence):: 1. 30 June, 1966: RCN, 469; CA(R), 914 (This is the total number of officers serving in the technical corps RCE, RC Sig and RCEME); RCAF, 1652 (This is the total number in the technical list.)
2.	30 June, 1966: RCN, 188; CA(R), 417; RCAF, 539.
3.	Statistics prior to 1 April, 1966, did not reflect this information. However, from 1 April to 30 June, 1966, the following have applied for release: (a) RCN, 6; CA(R), 37; RCAF, 32. (b) 1 February-30 June, 1966: RCN, 16; CA(R), 27; RCAF, 43. (c) 1 February -30 June, 1966: RCN, Nil; (CA(R), 2; RCAF, 6.
Questions


PROFESSIONAL PAY FOR TECHNICAL OFFICERS. ARMED FORCES
Mr. Enns: 1.	Is there any serious intent to introduce professional pay for technical officers of the armed services?	-
2.	If so (a) when is this likely to occur (b) what categories of personnel will be affected (c) will there be any distinction made between university graduate engineers and non-university technical personnel as regards such professional pay?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: The over-all pay structure and pay rates of the Canadian armed forces are under study now. Until this study is completed and approved, the date of introduction and the categories of personnel which might be affected cannot be determined.


COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENTS. ARMED FORCES
Mr. Enns: 1.	Have any studies been undertaken to determine whether or not there are significant disparities between the cost of living in Ottawa and other Canadian areas where military personnel serve, exclusive of those areas where special allowances are in effect?
2.	If significant discrepancies have been found to exist, are there any plans to adjust pay or allowances of the armed forces to compensate for these differences in cost of living indices?
3.	If no studies exist, is there any intention to initiate such a survey?
4.	What is the official cost of living index for each Canadian forces base in Canada, exclusive of those bases for which special allowances are in effect?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: 1. No.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	No.
4.	There is no official cost of living index applicable to Canadian forces bases in Canada.


BASIS OF WIDOWS' PENSIONS, ARMED FORCES
Mr. Enns: 1.	Are members of the armed forces officially considered to be on continuous duty while they are in the service?
2.	If so, are they also so considered for the purpose of computing the eligibility of a widow for a pension?
3.	If so, is this fact officially recognized and accepted by the pension board?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: 1. Members of the regular

August 29, 1966
Questions
forces are on "service" at all times, but are only on duty when so ordered and are liable to be required to be on duty at any time.
2 and 3. Not applicable.


ASSISTANCE TO UNEMPLOYED, BELL ISLAND, NFLD.
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	What measures of dominion government assistance have been extended to the people of Bell Island, Newfoundland, who were former employees of the Dominion Steel and Coal Co. mine?
2.	How many said employees have been assisted finding employment in Newfoundland?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration as follows:
1.	Bell Island has been designated under the manpower mobility regulations as an area in which residents can obtain grants for their transportation, the cost of moving their household effects and resettlement allowances to move to other areas in Canada where there is employment for them.
2.	As of 8 July 1966, 29 former employees of the Dominion Steel and Coal Co. Ltd. had been assisted in finding employment in Newfoundland under the manpower mobility regulations.


PENSION CALCULATIONS, ARMED FORCES
Mr. Enns: 1.	Precisely what portions of the present pay and allowances of a serving member of the armed forces are used to compute his service retirement pension?
2.	Specifically, what would be the pension for an R.C.A.F. squadron leader in the technical branch who has served 30 years and has been drawing eight years of progressive pay up to his normal retirement age?
3.	What is the formula used to compute the pension, and what constitutes each element used in this
formula?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: 1 and 3. The rate of pay prescribed in the tables to Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian forces articles 204.21, 294.215 or 204.30, as applicable to officers other than pilots, pilots, and men respectively, and the allowances constituting part of pay as set forth in section 6 of the Canadian forces superannuation regulations. The formula used to compute the pension or annuity of a member of the Canadian armed forces under the provisions of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act is set

out in subsection (1) of section 9 of that act. The amount of the pension, or annuity, is arrived at by multiplying the number of years of pensionable service, not exceeding 35 years, by the average annual pay, as defined above, received by the member during any six year period of pensionable service selected by or on behalf of the member or during any period so selected consisting of consecutive periods of pensionable service totalling six years and dividing the product by 50.
2.	In computing the amount of a pension for a squadron leader who has served for 30 years and who has been drawing eight years of progressive pay up to his normal retirement age, the following assumptions have been made: Date of release-30 June, 1966; drew progressive pay at the eight level for the last three years of service, which would permit progressive pay to have been drawn in the rank of squadron leader for eight years. Based on these assumptions the amount of a pension or annuity of a squadron leader with 30 years service would be $5,370 if single and $5,809 if married.


C B C. EMERGENCY NIGHT BROADCASTING-LANGUAGES USED
Mr. Allard: 1.	Is emergency night broadcasting over the C.B.C. carried out in both languages and, if not, in which language and for what reasons?
2.	Is the director of information in the international service of the C.B.C. at Montreal bilingual and, if not, in which language are directions in that service given?
3.	At head office of the C.B.C. in Ottawa is (a) the head of programming for both networks bilingual (b) the head of the foreign relations service bilingual (c) the head of the information service bilingual (d) the head of the publicity service bilingual; and, if not, in each case which language does the officer speak?
4.	At head office of the C.B.C. in Ottawa, how many bilingual persons are employed in (a) the purchasing department (b) the foreign relations department (c) the personnel service?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	(a) Partly (b) No (c) No (d) Partly. All are basically English speaking.
4.	(a) One out of three; (b) None; (c) Nineteen out of forty-one.
August 29, 1966


FRENCH TELEVISION PROGRAMS, STATION CJOH, OTTAWA
Mr. Allard: Has T.V. station CJOH undertaken at any time with the B.B.G. to produce French language programs and, if so, which programs have been produced since January 1, 1966?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The licensee of CJOH-TV Ottawa appeared before the board as an applicant for a licence at the public hearing which commenced on June 23, 1960 and undertook to try to produce some French language programming. The station experimented with French language programs for approximately two years. No programs have been produced in French since January 1, 1966.


MEAT SLAUGHTERING REGULATIONS
Mr. Allard: 1.	Does the federal government require registration of establishment in each province of Canada where slaughtering and meat trading are done?
2.	Does the federal government also require inspection of meat at all levels from slaughtering to sale in retail butcher shops and, if so, what role do federal inspectors play in such inspection and what type of slaughterhouse do they inspect?


John James Greene: 1. No, only meat slaughtering and meat processing plants that engage in interprovincial or export trade. These are required to operate under the provisions of the Canada Meat Inspection Act.
2. No, except in the plants referred to in part 1, where federal inspectors carry out full meat inspection procedures.


PENSION RECOMMENDATIONS, ARMED FORCES
Mr. Enns: 1.	Has the Department of National Defence recommended that pensions be granted to widows of serving members of the armed forces when death is attributable to any of the following causes: (a) having contracted a communicable fatal disease from a civilian neighbour at his place of residence during normally off duty hours (b) having drowned or been killed in an auto accident during a week end (c) a military aircraft accident while the member was either proceeding to or returning from leave and riding in the aircraft as a passenger with no official aircrew duty (d) a heart attack while on the way home after duty (e) having committed suicide during normally off duty hours?
2.	If so (a) has the pension board turned down any such recommendation and (b) for what reason?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: 1. When a serviceman dies while serving in the Canadian forces, a
Questions
summary investigation, or board of inquiry is held to investigate the circumstances surrounding the death. The proceedings of the investigation are forwarded to the Canadian Pension Commission. The Department of National Defence does not recommend to the Canadian Pension Commission what its decision should be when adjudicating a claim under the Pension Act.
2. Not applicable.


DISPOSITION OF PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS SEWAGE
Mr. Enns: Is raw sewage from the parliament buildings directed into the Ottawa river rather than into the Green creek sewage plant system and, if so, for what reason?
Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public
Works): No. All such raw sewage is directed to the city of Ottawa sewer system.


DREDGING OF ST. MAURICE RIVER
Mr. Mongrain: 1.	Has the government of Canada conceded the right to dredge the bottom of the St. Maurice river at the point where it joins the St. Lawrence river to a company which would thus be gathering supplies of sand for making concrete?
2.	If so (a) what is the name of the company (b) when and under what conditions was this right conceded?
3.	Has the government determined whether the dredging at the mouth of the St. Maurice river may not possibly cause erosion damage to the neighbouring island of St. Quentin?

Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public
Works): 1. No.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	No study was made by the department.


BILINGUAL STAFF, SUNNYBROOK HOSPITAL, TORONTO
Mr. Allard: 1.	How many French speaking physicians are there at Sunnybrook hospital in Toronto to look after the admission and examination of French speaking veterans?
2.	What is the total number of physicians or specialists treating at that hospital, and what is the proportion of French speaking physicians or specialists?
3.	What are the admission requirements at that hospital for a physician or a specialist?
4.	Is correspondence between the physicians or the specialists or the administration office and the French speaking veterans carried on in French and always in French?

August 29, 1966
Questions
5.	Among the personnel (nurses, nursing assistants, nursing sisters, maintenance employees, office employees and others) at that hospital, what is the total number and proportion of French speaking persons?
6.	At that hospital, of all those who work there, under any title, what is the proportion of bilingual persons?


Hon. Roger Teillef (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1. Four.
2.	There are 145 full time and part time attending medical staff and 56 resident staff, 2 per cent are French speaking.
3.	Physicians must be licensed to practice in a province of Canada. Specialists must be licensed in a province of Canada and be acceptable to the University of Toronto for participation in the university teaching program for medical students and graduates.
4.	Correspondence in French is received rarely. In the past it has been the custom to answer it in English but in the future it will be answered in French.
5.	The number of French speaking persons on the staff is 15, 1 per cent of the total staff.
6.	Approximately 1 per cent of the staff are bilingual in English and French.


BILINGUAL STAFF, WESTMINSTER HOSPITAL, LONDON, ONT.
Mr. Allard: 1.	How many French speaking physicians are there at Westminster hospital, London, Ontario, to look after the admission and exammation of French speaking veterans?
2.	What is the total number of physicians or specialists treating at that hospital and what is the proportion of French speaking physicians or specialists?
3.	What are the admission requirements at that hospital for a physician or a specialist?
4.	Is correspondence between the physicians or the specialists or the administration office and the French speaking veterans carried on in French and always in French?
5.	Among the personnel (nurses, nursing assistants, nursing sisters, maintenance employees, office employees and others) at that hospital, what is the total number and proportion of French speaking persons?
6.	At that hospital, of all those who work there, under any title, what is the proportion of bilingual persons?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: 1. Eight.
2. There are 84 full time and part time attending medical staff and 19 resident staff, approximately 8 per cent are French speaking.

3.	Physicians must be licensed to practice in a province of Canada. Specialists must be licensed in a province of Canada and be acceptable to the University of Western Ontario for participation in the university teaching program for medical students and graduates.
4.	All correspondence received in French is answered in French.
5.	The number of French speaking persons on the staff is 38, 2.6 per cent of the total staff.
6.	2.6 per cent of the staff are bilingual in English and French.


PAYMENT OF PREVAILING RATE EMPLOYEES
Mr. Groos: 1.	How frequently are prevailing rate employees at H.M.C. Dockyard, Halifax, Nova Scotia, paidweekly, every two weeks, bi-monthly?
2.	How frequently are prevailing rate employees at H.M.C. Dockyard, Esquimalt. British Columbia, paid-weekly, every two weeks, bi-monthly?
3.	How frequently are prevailing rate employees at the R.C.A.F. station, Trenton, Ontario, paid- weekly, every two weeks, bi-monthly?
4.	How frequently are prevailing rate employees at the Canadian army base at Camp Gagetown, New Brunswick, paid-weekly, every two weeks, bimonthly?
5.	How frequently are prevailing rate employees at the Canadian army camp at Valcartier, Quebec, paid-weekly, every two weeks, bi-monthly?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: 1. Weekly.
2, 3, 4 and 5. Bi-monthly.


DEPORTATION OF SEAMEN DESERTING SHIP
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
1.	Of the 900 persons stated by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to have Jumped ship, how many are at present in Canada whose cases have not been disposed of by the department, and what are the racial origins of each?
2.	Is it a fact that persons of Yugoslav origin have, in the last year, been deported while those of other racial origins are not and, if so, for what reason?
3.	Was a Yugoslav seaman by the name of R. Lakos deported to Yugoslavia on June 6, 1966 and, if so (a) had he made an appeal (b) on what date was the appeal made (c) on what date was the determination of his case made?


Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: 1. 904 seamen were reported as having deserted their ships in Canada during 1965. Of these 355 have been issued with deportation
August 29. 1966

orders. The remaining 549 have escaped detection and are presumed to be still in Canada, though some may have left the country without our knowledge. Ship deserters are recorded by citizenship rather than by racial origin and the attached table shows the citizenship of the 549 not apprehended.
2.	No.
3.	Yes. (a) Yes; (b) March 29, 1966; (c) his appeal was dismissed by the immigration appeal board on May 9, 1966.
Seamen who deserted their ships at Canadian ports during 1965 who have not yet been apprehended or who have left Canada other than as a result of a deportation order being issued:
Citizenship	Number
Algeria	1
Austria	1
China (People's Republic)	36
Colombia	1
Cuba	16
Cyprus	1
Denmark	4
Finland	1
Germany	14
Greece	329
Ireland (Eire)	2
Italy	5
Jamaica	1
Korea, South	1
Morocco	1
Netherlands, The	4
Norway	18
Pakistan	1
Panama	1
Peru	1
Poland	1
Portugal	11
Spain	21
Sweden	2
U.K. and C.	29
U.S.A.	3
Yugoslavia	43 549


AIR RESCUE SERVICE, VANCOUVER AIRPORT
Mr. Basford: 1.	Is the Department of Transport taking action to provide air rescue operations for the tidal flat areas surrounding Vancouver international airport and, if so, what action is it taking?
2.	Has the department investigated the suitability of hovercraft for such rescue operations and, if so, what do these investigations indicate?
Questions


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1. The question of the feasibility and best method of providing rescue services for the tidal flat area off Vancouver international airport is being investigated by the Department of Transport. In the meantime interim arrangements are that the Coastguard crash boats stationed at the Kitsilano base, a very short distance away from the mud flat area, can be called on for help. In addition light rubber boats are being provided at the airport itself.
2. The suitability of other types of craft for coastguard work generally is also being investigated in this connection.


DRY SKIM MILK
Mr. Harkness: 1.	How much (a) spray process, and (b) roller process dry skim milk has been purchased by the Agricultural Stabilization Board in each of the six month periods from January 1, 1964, to June 30, 1966?
2.	How much of this dry skim milk is presently being held by the stabilization board?
3.	What quantities have been sold during the period January 1, 1964, to June 30, 1966, to whom and at what prices?
4.	What were the prices paid for this dry skim milk during the same period?


John James Greene: 
TESTING OF CIGARETTE FILTERS
Mr. Howe (Wellinglon-: Huron):
1.	Does the Department of National Health and Welfare have the necessary facilities for testing cigarette filters?
2.	If not, is there any other government agency where proper testing could be made?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. No.
2. There is no government agency currently equipped to routinely test cigarette filters.

August 23, 1966
Questions


PORT HOOD CAUSEWAY, NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
1.	What progress is being made in regard to the completion of the Port Hood-Port Hood Island
causeway?
2.	When is it the intention of the government to complete this project?


George James McIlraith: 1. A Port Hood-Port Hood Island causeway if proceeded with would become part of the provincial highway system and therefore the project is a provincial responsibility.
2. Not applicable.


REPRODUCTION OF PAINTING OF FATHERS OF CONFEDERATION
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Has the Secretary of State been asked to approve of reproductions of the Rex Woods painting of the Fathers of Confederation which is to be hung in the parliament buildings, for display in government buildings across Canada?
2.	If so, what decision has been reached?
Answer: 1. No.
2. Does not apply.


SALARIES OF OFFICIALS ON BILINGUAL COURSES
Mr. McCleave: With regard to the answer to starred question No. 1,832, given to the house by the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister, is it the intention of the government to make full salary payments while senior officials are attending courses to promote or perfect their bilingualism?


John Ross Matheson: Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes.


IMMIGRATION OFFICES IN WEST INDIES
Mr. Dinsdale: Following the recent Canadian-Caribbean commonwealth conference, is it the intention of the government to open immigration offices in the West Indies and, if so, where and when will these offices be established?


John Carr Munro: No. The question of Canada establishing an immigration office in the West Indies was not raised during the commonwealth Caribbean-Canada conference. With the present volume of applications, prospective immigrants in the Caribbean can be serviced as effectively, and at less cost, by travelling teams despatched from Canada.
[Mr. MacEachen.l



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Laprise: 1.	How much money has the C.B.C. spent each year since 1955 for the expansion of (a) its radio network (b) its T.V. network (i) French (ii) English?
2.	For each of these years, how much was spent in each province of Canada for extending (a) the radio network (b) the T.V. network (i) French (ii) English?
Return tabled.


CIVIL SERVICE SALARIES OVER $11,000
Mr. Sherman: Within the federal civil service, by departments, for salary classifications of $11,000 or more (a) how many positions existed on January 1, 1964 (b) how many were added during 1964 and during 1965 (c) how many new positions are provided for 1966	(d) where are they located (i) in
Ottawa (ii) elsewhere, by provinces?
Return tabled.


AIRCRAFT AND SHIP CONSTRUCTION
Mr. Godin: As of April 1, 1966, were any ships and aircraft intended for use by Canada being built at that time in Canada or abroad and, if so (a) how many in each case (b) what is the cost of these ships (i) being built in Canada (ii) being built abroad (c) what is the cost of these aircraft (i) being built in Canada (ii) being built abroad?
Return tabled.


JUDGES APPOINTED TO INQUIRIES
Mr. Fulion: 1.	Since January 1, 1965, how many judges appointed under the provisions of the Judges Act and who were or are still serving as judges, have been appointed or nominated to commissions of inquiry, arbitrations, conciliations, or other similar boards or commissions (a) by the government of Canada (b) by provincial governments?
2.	What is (a) the name of each such judge (b) the name of the board, commission or other body on which he is or was serving (c) the date of his appointment to such board, commission or other body (d) the date when such extra-judicial service was completed?
Return tabled.


ASSISTANCE TO PROVINCIAL ANTI-POLLUTION PROJECTS
Mr. Coates: Has any assistance been made available by the federal government toward anti-pollution projects initiated by provincial governments and. if so (a) what is the amount (b) what is the breakdown from a provincial point of view?
Return tabled.
August 29. 1966


ASSISTANCE TO PROVINCIAL ART CENTRES
Mr. Gauthier: 1.	Has the federal government spent any money in the past ten years to help centres for the arts in the following provinces: Ontario, Quebec, Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and, if so, how much in each province?
2.	Did the federal government provide funds for the Place des Arts in Montreal and, if so, how much?
Return tabled.


COST SHARING PROGRAMS
Mr. Davis: 1.	How many federal-provincial cost sharing programs are now in effect?
2.	What are they?
3.	When were they first instituted?
4.	What is the cost sharing formula (i.e., the relative federal and provincial contributions in percentage terms) used in each of these programs?
5.	What was the federal contribution, in total, and by program, for the fiscal year 1963-64?
6.	What was the federal contribution, in total and by program, in each province for the fiscal year 1963-64?
Return tabled.


REQUEST FOR OLD AGE PENSION INCREASE
Mr. Howe (Hamilton South): Has the government received representations from the senior women's committee for pension increase, requesting an increase in the old age pension to $100 a month and, if so, what has been their reply?
Return tabled.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister and ascertain from him whether, in view of the frightening acceleration of inflation and the veiled undertaking given by the Minister of Finance last spring that if the then budget did not work out further action would be taken, he would say now that, at the conclusion of the matters that are before us the government intends to bring before the house a supplementary budget that will be effective as contrasted with one that has produced nothing but heartaches?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated that when the present legislation has been disposed of the government would be very glad to facilitate an arrangement whereby there can be a discussion of this very important and worrying matter. At that time the Minister of Finance, or perhaps the Prime Minister, will be able to indicate the government's approach to this problem. I cannot go any farther at this moment.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the determining of prices, wages and the like is a matter within the jurisdiction of the provinces and in view of the fact that co-operative action could be taken between the federal and provincial governments, would the Prime Minister say whether the government will, in view of the very serious inflationary situation which prevails, call together the provinces with a view to ascertaining whether an agreement can be arrived at for co-operative legislation, if I may use that term, on the part of the federal government and the various provincial legislatures.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, on September 14 there is to be a meeting between the federal and provincial ministers of finance. This very important matter is on the agenda and will be discussed with the provincial ministers of finance at that time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the government has given any further thought to the proposal we advanced last year that the government should set up a prices review board to review price increases with a view to seeing whether or not they are warranted. At that time the government did not accept the suggestion but the Prime Minister indicated that consideration was being given to it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the matter is still being investigated by the Economic Council and this will be one of the matters we will be discussing in the debate to which I referred when our views on this and related matters will be made known.


David Réal Caouette: A supplementary question. Could the Prime Minister could tell us quite clearly whether parliament

August 29, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry has been called to consider specifically the bills concerning the railway strike and the new piece of legislation dealing with the national railways and whether the matter of inflation, etc. could be studied when the regular session resumes on October 5? If I am not mistaken, we have been called specifically to look into the matter of the railway strike and nothing else. Could the Prime Minister give us fuller information in this connection?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, beyond what I have already said, that is, that we would be quite willing on this side to discuss these matters of inflationary pressures and rising costs immediately on the conclusion of the debate on the railway bills. It will be a matter for the house leaders to get together in an effort to decide whether that course is agreeable to all parties. If so, we will be able to facilitate this kind of discussion.



NATIONAL SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister inform the house when he expects to be able to name the commissioner or commissioners who will conduct the promised inquiry into security?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, during the recess we have had several discussions within cabinet. I am not in a position to make an announcement now but I will just as soon as it is possible.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Because of the reason given by General Motors that the lay-off of some 2,600 employees at the Oshawa plant was mainly due to the United States-Canada auto trade pact agreement, would the Prime Minister have a very close scrutiny made of the effect of the United States-Canada auto pact to determine whether it is having a detrimental effect upon the Canadian economy and its work force?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister

of Industry to deal with that particular point. I might say that I have received a letter from the hon. member on this and related matters, to which I have sent an interim acknowledgement. I hope to be able to give the hon. member more detail on this shortly.


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, according to the Dominion Bureau of Statistics employment in the automotive industry in Canada for the three month period, January through March of 1964, totalled 69,750. For the same period in 1965 the figure was 76,700 and for 1966 the figure is 88,150. That is an increase of some 20,000 new job opportunities in the automotive industry during the initial period of the agreement. I do think that in respect of over-all employment there is no question that this agreement has operated materially to the benefit of Canada.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question? In view of the fact that for the past six years employment in the automobile industry has been rising without this pact, how can the minister now say that the lay-off of 2,600 people is not serious and quote figures to prove that there has been a rise in the employment ranks of the automobile industry?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I did not say the lay-off at Oshawa is not serious. It is very serious indeed, particularly for those concerned. The government, particularly through the departments of manpower, labour and industry, is doing all it can to mitigate the effect of this lay-off. The fact of the matter is that production of automotive vehicles and parts in Canada has been substantially increasing over the past three years and so also has employment. There have been changes in employment brought about by rationalization of the motor car industry which has made it more efficient and consequently able to export. These changes, however, do cause dislocation, but the government has a program designed to mitigate these effects and it is in operation.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the legislation to end
August 29, 1966

the railway strike, which is about to come before the house for debate, is based on recent consultation with labour leaders and have they assured the government that the terms of the legislation will be effective in getting the men back to work?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, of course it would be improper to discuss the terms of a bill with anybody outside the house when the bill has not been submitted inside the house. There have been discussions in respect of these difficulties with labour leaders as recently as this morning, but the terms of the bill have not been submitted to anybody outside of the house.



POSSIBILITY OF POSTAL WORKERS GOING ON STRIKE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the impending strike of postal workers which would be called around October 18, can the Prime Minister assure the house that the government is now taking all possible action to settle the disagreement before the start of this further strike in this country?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to look into this particular matter and discuss it with the Minister of Labour.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I
have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is it now the policy of the government to employ force if necessary to dislodge the present government in Rhodesia?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I know of no
basis for that question.


CANADIAN CENTENNIAL
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. In view of the regrettable decision of the government not to
Inquiries of the Ministry proceed with the youth parliament in Canada's centennial year, may I ask the Secretary of State whether she would give consideration to reconvening the ad hoc committee at an early date, in view of the fact that this committee recommended the holding of a youth parliament, to see if this whole matter should be canvassed again?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to give consideration to that matter.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. Will the issues raised by Admiral Landymore and others in respect of integration and unification be referred to the committee on national defence and will retired high ranking officers such as Admiral Landymore have an opportunity to be present?
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National
Defence): Mr. Speaker, it is the intention of the government to introduce in the house later this session amendments to the National Defence Act to permit the unification of the Canadian armed forces.


John George Diefenbaker: You found out you could not do it without legislation.


Mr. Hellyer:: It will be the intention of the government at that time to refer the bill to the standing committee on national defence, and it will be within the prerogative of that committee as to what witnesses it may care to call from outside the armed forces, including retired officers, who may wish to express their opinions.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I have a supplementary question. Can the minister assure the house that no action will be taken in respect of common ranks and a common uniform until the committee has had an opportunity to study the proposed legislation?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, we have given an assurance that common ranks and a common uniform will not be introduced, except in so far as user trials of a common uniform are perhaps concerned, until the legislation has been dealt with by the house.
August 29, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry
The only other reservation I should like to mention relates to the fact that the defence staff has been making plans and giving consideration to certain details of this question in order that we will be able to answer fully questions posed by members of the defence committee when it is considering this legislation.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Does the minister mean that the government has no intention of referring the whole matter of integration back to the defence committee so that witnesses from both inside and outside the services may testify on this and related matters? In view of the events that have taken place since June 22, does the minister say that he will not advise his colleagues to ask for the permission of the house to so refer this matter?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I have just indicated to the contrary, Mr. Speaker, that when the legislation is introduced we will in fact refer it to the committee so it can hear the opinions of individuals who may wish to express them.


Mr. Lamberi:: The minister has not said when that legislation will be introduced. Will he consider introducing it forthwith?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I have just indicated that this legislation will be introduced later this session. This was also indicated in the Speech from the Throne. My hon. friend may have forgotten that fact. This legislation will be introduced as soon as possible.


Mr. J. M. Forreslall (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker,
I have a further supplementary question for the Minister of National Defence. May we take it from his remarks that the defence committee will not be reconvened until such time as this new legislation is brought before the house? Must we wait until some subsequent date before-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that this question is repetitive, having been asked and answered.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, this is a very urgent-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With all due respect I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. member that I never suggested this was not an urgent matter. I merely suggested that the question had been asked and that the minister had given an answer.
(Mr. Hellyer.J


OLD AGE SECURITY
[Stage Direction]
INQUIRY AS TO LEGISLATION THIS SESSION On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg Norih Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to either the Prime Minister or the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Will the government be in a position during this part of the session to bring forward its legislation to increase old age pensions and will there be any change in the plan announced on July 14?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the government's legislative program for this part of the session will be made known to the house just as quickly as possible.


NATURAL GAS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister related to his announcement the other day that permission has been denied by the government for the building of a gas pipe line from western Canada to central Canada following a route south of lake Superior. My question is in two parts. Has the government any alternative proposal in order to gain access to the additional United States markets which would have been available had this pipe line been authorized? Does the government have some proposal to assist in holding down the cost of gas to consumers in central Canada and the additional cost of building such a pipe line somewhere north of lake Superior?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I hope there will be an opportunity to discuss this whole matter very shortly. It is difficult for me at this moment to deal with these specific points, but I will discuss them with the minister concerned.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. J. Orange (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Can he indicate when he expects to receive the Carrothers commission report on the development of government in the
August 29, 1966	COMMONS
Northwest Territories and when he expects to make this report public?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker,
I believe I am correct in saying that it is the intention of Dean Carrothers to present me with a copy of this report tomorrow morning.
I would hesitate to table such a report in this house until it was available in both languages. Inquiries have been made as to the possibility of obtaining a French translation at an early date. If that should be unduly delayed, I will give an explanation to the house.


DEFENCE PRODUCTION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Defence Production. Can he inform the house as to the accuracy of the statement that his department has authorized Canadian companies to enter into contracts to supply bombs and military components for use by the United States in Viet Nam?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think the answer to the question as it is phrased is no.


Harold Edward Winch: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Are Canadian companies producing supplies under contract for the United States for use in Viet Nam?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, some Canadian companies are producing military equipment for the United States which goes into what is known as United States inventory. What becomes of that equipment once it enters that inventory is beyond the control of the Canadian government.


Harold Edward Winch: I have a further supplementary question. In view of the reply just given, are bombs being produced in Canada which go into United States inventory?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, when a somewhat similar question was asked before the adjournment it was pointed out that Canadian companies were not manufacturing bombs for the United States government.


UNITED NATIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to
DEBATES	7765
Inquiries of the Ministry ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he will clarify the rather conflicting statements that have been ascribed to him and others in connection with the seating of communist China at the United Nations? Does the Canadian government intend to vote for the seating of communist China during the coming session of the United Nations?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I do not know the basis for the first part of my hon. friend's question. Having regard to the second part, as my right hon. friend knows, that question has already been asked and answered. The government's policy will be announced in due course.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that answer is about as satisfying as any answer one can get from the minister. Has the government not yet determined what course it will follow in this matter or is parliament to find itself faced with a decision made in New York that has not been brought in advance before the House of Commons?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, my right hon. friend knows that his question is not really a proper one in view of the answer I made.


John George Diefenbaker: Why not?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I just told my right hon. friend that the government will announce its policy in due course and he must accept that. I do not believe he can see any change in the procedure we are following from the procedure he followed. I asked him this question on three or four occasions when he was the prime minister and his replies were in precisely the same practical words.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing more flattering than imitation and I commend the minister for it; but I say to him that his statement is not borne out by the facts.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweaiher@Royal: Mr. Speaker, did the minister note the very sensible and realistic statement made recently by Mr. Chester Ronning, who has been described by the minister as a responsible public servant, to the effect that there should be an exchange of ambassadors between Ottawa and Peking and that the People's Republic of China should now be seated at the United Nations?
7766	COMMONS
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: I had the pleasure of hearing Mr. Ronning.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Fairwealher:: I had the pleasure of hearing both of them over the C.B.C. But does the government not feel now that the time has come to act?


Murdo William Martin: The question has already been answered, Mr. Speaker.


MAINTENANCE OF RAILWAY OPERATION ACT
[Stage Direction]
On the order: Special Order No. 1:
August 29-The Prime Minister-second reading ol Bill No. C-230, an Act 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.
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, without unanimous consent the house cannot proceed to second reading of a bill which was given first reading only today. I indicated earlier that we were prepared to give unanimous consent only if there was agreement to adjourn after the main statement had been made by the minister introducing the bill. Apparently that was unacceptable to certain members in the house. We therefore objected and when Your Honour said "Later this day?" we said "No". We certainly made it cear that we were not giving unanimous consent to second reading of this legislation today except under the conditions I specified.


Mr. Speaker:: I have to say that I did not hear the negative comments which may have been made when the call was made from the Chair and my understanding is that there was unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Certainly this is a very serious matter and I would not want to proceed unless there were a clear understanding that there is unanimous consent. Hon. members at this end of the chamber will confirm that there was no stout opposition heard from the other end of the chamber when the motion was put by the Chair. Certainly no such opposition was heard by the Chair, and I called the motion as having
[Mr. Fairweather.l
DEBATES	August 29. 1966
been carried by unanimous consent. I should like to hear from other hon. members on the point raised by the hon. member for Bur-naby-Coquitlam.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Speaker, I was one of those who objected and I would say I am almost as stout as anyone in the house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might make a suggestion on this point. In view of the desire of hon. members to study the bill, we might proceed with second reading and adjourn from six o'clock to eight o'clock to give hon. members an opportunity to do so. Perhaps that course would be agreeable to the house.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, this is very important legislation. We have agreed to waive the 48 hours notice; we have agreed to first reading being proceeded with. But I think hon. members are entitled to have the period overnight in which to study this legislation before expressing an opinion on it. There can be no possible excuse for ramming this legislation through without adequate time for close scrutiny and examination. We are not going to be rushed or bullied into passing legislation which we have not had an opportunity to examine carefully. We have only had it put on our desks. It is not simple legislation; it has far reaching repercussions. It will lay down precedents for the future in dealing with labour matters, and certainly members of the house should have the period overnight in which to study it.
On behalf of our party I would say that we are quite prepared to have second reading called if it is merely for the purpose of allowing the Prime Minister or the minister introducing the legislation to make a full statement, but we are not prepared to proceed with the debate today. We think hon. members have the right to study this bill in order that they may make comments which are intelligent and as a result of careful examination. It should not be done on the basis of a very hasty and cursory glance at this very complicated legislation.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I am fully mindful of the co-operation we have had from the house in removing some of the procedural difficulties in getting this legislation before the house today. I thought that was made clear earlier. The government has
August 29, 1966

no desire whatsoever to ram through legislation. We appreciate its importance and significance. We are seeking a way to get the legislation dealt with in the shortest possible time consistent with the rights of hon. members to study it and discuss it. My suggestion was an attempt to put forward a formula that might do that.
I am wondering, since the hon. member is not the one who speaks next after the member of the government presenting the legislation, if it would be agreeable to adjourn for a number of hours after that member has spoken to permit the legislation to be studied. I wonder if that course is agreeable to other members of the house. As an alternative we could sit until six o'clock and then adjourn until tomorrow, if hon. members consider that a better course.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could make a suggestion that may find some agreement in the house. The government house leader has suggested that we sit until six o'clock and then adjourn until eight o'clock. I wonder whether the house leader and members of the other parties would agree to adjourn now so that hon. members could have until eight o'clock to look at the bill. This would be useful in following the Prime Minister's remarks respecting the bill. Because of the urgency of getting on with this legislation we could perhaps debate it between eight o'clock and ten o'clock tonight, and certainly the debate will continue tomorrow. I wonder whether this would satisfy hon. members.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not find this bill very difficult to understand.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I am amazed at the attitude of the leader of the New Democratic Party. They have been asking for action. Now there is an opportunity. All this bill provides for is two payments of 4 per cent, or 8 per cent in all, and compulsory arbitration. Nothing else is involved. This is not difficult to understand or debate. Why should there be any necessity to adjourn in order to permit an examination of the bill. It is simplicity itself. All the workers are going to get now is 8 per cent and then there is to be the setting up of a committee of arbitration whose decision is to be final. As I say, the legislation is simplicity itself. In saying that, however, I would point out again that our attitude in the past has always been one of opposition to this
7767
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters type of thing. But there is nothing difficult about the legislation.


Lester Bowles Pearson: What about 1958?


John George Diefenbaker: I do not want to answer, but the only reason hon. members opposite did not follow what we did in 1960 was that members on their front benches voted against it at that time and they therefore had to sacrifice the needs of Canada to political expediency.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) when he says that the bill before us is relatively simple, very easy to understand, and in fact comprises only two items: an 8 per cent increase and the establishment of a conciliation committee.
Now, the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Douglas) has been saying for three weeks that the government is slow to take action and is not assuming its responsibilities, and now that we are all gathered here, it is the leader of the New Democratic Party, again, who asks us to adjourn the debate to allow us to study a situation which his group has been well aware of for at least six years. Why should we put off until tomorrow what we can do today? Mr. Speaker, I believe we are gathered here to study these bills, even if the leader of the New Democratic Party were to go to bed at six and sleep until eleven tomorrow morning. He already has an opinion and he could very well express it now; what he is asking for now would only hold up the business of the house.
I support the government which wants the debate to take place immediately, so that we may deal conclusively with these matters concerning the strike and the Railway Act.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The necessity for speedy action, Mr. Speaker, does not mean we are prepared to see legislation passed without giving it due consideration and careful examination. We have had this legislation for only a matter of minutes, and to ask hon. members to deal with a matter of such fundamental importance without giving them adequate opportunity to study the bill seems to me quite improper. I think the suggestion made by the government house leader that
August 29, 1966
7768	COMMONS
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters we deal with second reading now with the understanding that the house will adjourn at six o'clock would be acceptable. This would give us an opportunity to examine the bill carefully. There are many implications in this bill in spite of what the Leader of the Opposition has said. We still recall our experience with reference to the longshoremen's strike when we found, weeks after the supposed settlement, that there was a joker in the deck, and some things came up later about which we had not been told.
We want to study this legislation carefully to see what are the implications with respect to the welfare of the railway men, the welfare of the people of this country and the precedents which we are setting for future action by future parliaments. I think, Mr. Speaker, it is not an unreasonable request to ask that in respect of legislation as important and far reaching as this hon. members be given sufficient time over night to study it and then continue the debate tomorrow. The suggestion of the house leader to proceed with second reading and adjourn at six o'clock is sensible. May I point out, Mr. Speaker, that one of the conditions on which we agreed to waive the 48 hours notice was that there would be no attempt to ram this legislation through without being given every opportunity for most careful scrutiny and examination.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, regardless of whether or not we adjourn we are not going to ram this legislation through tonight. A while ago we agreed to suspend private members' hour and go on with the debate. It seems reasonable to hear the Prime Minister's explanation on the introduction of the bill. If we want to adjourn for the supper hour that is fine, but we should then continue with the debate.


Mr. Speaker:: There is obviously disagreement in the house. I do not see how we can proceed with second reading of the bill without unanimous consent. We obviously require it.


An hon. Member:: We have it.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members say that
unanimous consent was given. Quite honestly, this was my understanding, but hon. members of one of the parties represented in this house insist they did not agree to it. I have to accept their word that they did not agree to a debate on second reading. In the circumstances, unless there is agreement now I cannot put the motion.


An hon. Member:: Put the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: We will put the motion and see what happens.


Lester Bowles Pearson: 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.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt this motion?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Winkler:: Who said "no"?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the Prime Minister going to make a statement on the motion or is the Chair to understand that we are not going to proceed with the debate at
this time?


Mr. Barneti:: Mr. Speaker, I was one of the
members who said "no" to unconditional agreement that we proceed with second reading today.


An hon. Member:: Why?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I understood at the time that the Leader of the Opposition had not agreed to the suggestion made by my leader that we should first hear the statement of the Prime Minister and then adjourn the debate. It was on that basis that I was one of the members who did not give consent to second reading. It does seem to me that what we need at this point, if I may say so, is a statement from the Leader of the Opposition on whether or not he is now prepared to agree to hear the Prime Minister and then have an adjournment of the debate.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentleman and
those associated with him are looking for an alibi. They now find themselves in a predicament created by themselves. They are trying to find somebody else to blame. We want to go ahead with second reading with no postponement.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: It is my impression there is
more unanimity now than there was before. Perhaps we should now hear the Prime
Minister.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, on a point of
order, may I be made clear as to what
August 29, 1966

procedure Your Honour is following? Does
this mean the Prime Minister will now make a statement and that we are now in debate on second reading? We cannot go into debate on second reading without unanimous consent and unanimous consent was not given and is not being given now. If the house agrees to hear the statement of the Prime Minister and then adjourning-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -that is all right, but if there is to be a debate following the Prime Minister's statement we do not agree to proceeding with second reading. I want this clearly understood.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member opposing second reading or debate on second reading?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am denying unanimous
consent to proceed with second reading. The house cannot proceed with second reading without unanimous consent and unanimous consent has been withheld.


John George Diefenbaker: By whom?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: By the members of this party.
I want to make it clear that we are opposing it just as the Leader of the Opposition has made it perfectly clear that he is prepared to go ahead and rubberstamp the legislation of the government.


Michael Starr: You are speaking out of the wrong side of your mouth.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not want that statement to go unchallenged. The hon. member speaks as if he had a solution to everything. Let me point out that when he was premier of Saskatchewan 95 strikes took place in that province.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We did not settle any of them by compulsory arbitration.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the point of order; since the members of the New Democratic Party seem to find it very difficult to understand anything, why does the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) not suggest that the house adjourn until October 5?
This would allow the members of the New Democratic Party to study the legislation and find an adequate solution.
23033-492J
DEBATES	7769
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters [DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Mr. Crouse:: The suggestion has been made by the leader of the N.D.P. that we delay consideration of this legislation until tomorrow. This is a stand which I, as the member for Queens-Lunenburg, find intolerable. It is indicative of the fact he is unaware of the emergency situation that exists in Canada. I regret to have to say this because he is one member I hold in high respect, but I must say he is using this situation to play party politics at the expense of the citizens of this country.
We have been called here in emergency session to deal with the strike which was called on Friday. We have been called here to deal with a national emergency. In my view the welfare of the people of Canada demands that we take immediate action on this matter. In my province of Nova Scotia we have farmers who are feeding chickens and they are dependent upon the shipment of western grain. If these shipments of grain do not arrive within the next three days, some half million pullets will starve. We have fishermen at sea who must land their catches and who will then be forced to tie up their ships because fish cannot be held indefinitely. We can freeze a certain amount of our catch, but the bulk of it must be shipped immediately while it is still in its fresh state. If we cannot ship our fish, we must tie up our fleet.
I say to the house and to the leader of the N.D.P. that it is time we set aside partisan politics and dealt with this national emergency. I know that the members of my party are prepared to sit here all night and all day tomorrow. If we fail to do this at this time, Mr. Speaker, then we fail to live up to our responsibility. I say this is an urgent matter. Let us co-operate with the government in dealing with this problem. Let us get the railroads functioning and restore service to the people of Canada because that is what they expect us to do.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: In so far as the point of order that has been raised by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam is concerned, Mr. Speaker, I know that you are in a difficult position because you did not hear unamimous consent being denied by some members who now claim that they voiced their opposition at that time. I recall very distinctly that when the bill was being introduced and given first reading you drew the attention of the
August 29. 1966
7770	COMMONS
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters house to the fact that it would require unanimous consent that it be proceeded with later this day. I can remember that very distinctly, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure that Hansard will bear out my statement. I say, therefore, that while we may have a dilemma on this point of order we have an order of the house that second reading of this bill be proceeded with later this day. I suggest that is what the house decided not very long ago.
Mr. B re win: I do not wish to prolong this part of the discussion, Mr. Speaker. I was one of those who clearly, if not loudly enough, said, "no" when it was proposed that we should give second reading to this bill today.
I want to tell this house that we did so with a full sense of our responsibility to the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Brewin:: We have heard an emotional address by the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg who condemns as partisan those who are desirous of cool, calm and collective consideration of the matter before us. We in this party have no intention whatever of dealing with something as far reaching and fundamental as the bill before us without being given an opportunity to consult and to consider and study the matter.
I suggest to all members of the house that if it is their desire to obtain a solution of the grave matter we are discussing they should not get into a panic or become hysterical. They should not say, let us rush this through, let us sit all night, and that sort of thing. I know that feelings are strong but strong feelings and emotional references will not solve this problem as easily as will reasonable, deliberate consideration by parliament. For that reason I say that I support my leader and I support every member of this party. We have no desire to delay this matter but we do have a desire to take the time to take a serious look at something put before us just half an hour or so ago.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask for a ruling from you, Mr. Speaker, on whether in your view unanimous consent is now necessary before I can proceed with my statement on second reading or whether that has been dispensed with because of earlier proceedings?


Mr. Speaker:: I must repeat that it was my impression that unanimous consent had been given. However, three hon. members have risen in their places to state they had not


given unanimous consent. The Chair has to accept the statements made by those three hon. members. I have come to the conclusion that there has been no such unanimity and no consent. The Prime Minister, therefore, cannot at this time proceed with the second reading of the bill.


George James McIlraith: In view of the fact that there is no unanimous consent to proceed with second reading, I regret that I see no alternative but to move the adjournment of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Before that motion is put, could I make a suggestion which may make it unnecessary for us to wait all evening. There has been a ruling that unanimous consent is now required. Some members of the New Democratic Party have stated they are willing to give unanimous consent provided there is either a statement from the Prime Minister now and then an adjournment or an adjournment now until eight o'clock. They will only give unanimous consent on that understanding, and I can appreciate that. The right hon. Leader of the Opposition has said he is not willing to give unanimous consent on that understanding. Surely it is better to sacrifice two or three hours now so the bill can be read than to sacrifice the rest of the day which would be the case if unanimous consent cannot be given.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the bill stand for second reading until tomorrow?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Until eight o'clock this evening?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We would be agreeable, Mr. Speaker, if the house would adjourn now and give us until eight o'clock to examine this legislation, and then proceed at eight o'clock.


George James McIlraith: I ask permission to with draw my motion and to substitute a motion that the house do rise until eight o'clock and that at eight o'clock it do proceed with second reading of the bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Proceedings on the bill will stand adjourned until eight o'clock tonight by unanimous consent. The sittings of the house will be suspended until eight o'clock this evening.


SITTING SUSPENDED
[Stage Direction]
At 5.10 p.m. the sitting of the house was suspended until 8 p.m.
August 29, 1966	COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed at 8 p.m.

Mr. Speaker:: Order. Pursuant to provisional standing order 39A it is my duty to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment this evening are as follows:

The hon. member for Sherbrooke, the National Capital Commission.

The hon. member for Halifax, national defence-committee consideration of integration measures.



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.
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to begin by expressing my appreciation for the co-operation received from all sides of the house which has enabled us to proceed with legislation which was introduced only today. As I said this afternoon, it is legislation dealing with an emergency situation. The urgent and immediate issue that faces this house and parliament at this moment is the necessity of ending a national railway strike with the least possible delay by fair and reasonable legislative provisions.
Though the long-range importance and the far-reaching implications of the failure to settle this and other disputes by negotiation and agreement over the years, through the normal processes of collective bargaining should be, and is being, considered as a matter of great significance requiring parlia-
DEBATES	7771
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters mentary attention, and is something that will undoubtedly be debated-and should be debated-in this session, nevertheless at this moment these longer range matters are secondary to the necessity of an early decision by parliament on this bill which is now before the house.
It is necessary, however, in putting this bill before the house, and in explaining it, to give briefly the background of developments leading up to the situation which made parliamentary action unavoidable. That, I think, Mr. Speaker, is all the more necessary in view of certain remarks made this afternoon.
This is the fourth time since 1949 that the federal parliament has been asked to consider emergency legislation to deal with a serious strike situation. On three of these four occasions railways were involved, and on the other, in 1958, sea transportation.
Our experience over these years shows pretty conclusively that the processes of collective bargaining in railway disputes are becoming less and less effective in meeting the conditions that exist today. One reason for this-but only one reason-is the fact that present laws restrict the capacity of the railways to manage their business operations and to compete effectively with other forms of transport. The law has prevented them, for good reasons, from taking action which would increase their own revenue. This has resulted in subsidies from government which now amount to more than $100 million a year. To correct the situation the government has introduced another bill dealing with railway matters-the railway legislation bill-which will be debated, I hope, immediately after we dispose of the one before the house.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
There is an even more far reaching development which has had a bearing on the weakness, and ineffectiveness, in too many cases, of labour-management negotiations, and that is the importance of job security in the case of technological change. An increased wage has no meaning if the job disappears because of a new machine.
We must find better methods for the negotiation and settlement of disputes in the railway industry, and in other industries; new and improved mediation and conciliation procedures which will take into account new circumstances, new conditions in industrial society; which will more effectively preserve the right of the employee in these new conditions and also adequately protect the national interest, particularly in respect of essential national services.
August 29, 1966
7772	COMMONS
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters
This is a vital and pressing problem. But at this moment, Mr. Speaker, we are faced, as I have said, with an immediate emergency, and with the necessity of resolving that immediate emergency.
In this connection it is important to recall recent experience in these four parliamentary interventions in labour disputes which I have mentioned, in order to understand the present situation; indeed, to place it in the proper framework for such understanding.
The first parliamentary intervention in the period from 1949 to the present was in 1950, through the Maintenance of Railway Operation Act of that year. That was legislation introduced by the government headed by Mr. St. Laurent to bring to an end a general railway strike which had been going on for several days-seven days, I think.
By that legislation in 1950, employees were required to return to their duties, and an interim wage increase was granted on such return. Negotiations were then to be resumed, and if those negotiations failed an arbitrator was to be appointed. As it happened, an arbitrator was required, or was appointed, and a contract was signed as a result of his arbitration.
The next parliamentary and governmental intervention was in 1960 through the Railway Operation Continuation Act of December 2, of that year. In 1959 the union demanded from the railway wage increases of 17 per cent, plus 12J cents an hour, vacation and other fringe benefits, to which at that time the railways were unable to agree, and a conciliation board was established on March 31, 1960, under the chairmanship of Justice Milvain.
A majority report was made by that board-by the chairman and the union representative, who was an hon. member of this house. That majority report was made on August 15, 1960. It was accepted by the unions concerned; it was rejected by the railways. "We are not able," so they said "to afford the increase." So, on September 20, 1960, the government was advised that a strike vote would be taken. That was September 20.
The government of that day intervened on November 19, after the union negotiation chairman, Mr. Frank Hall, had announced on November 15 that a strike would take place on December 3 unless a settlement was reached in the 19 days before that date, during which government mediation was taking place.


As a result the minister of labour and two other ministers met the parties to the dispute in Montreal on November 19. There was a subsequent meeting in Ottawa of the parties to the dispute with the prime minister and three ministers on November 26, one week later. These failed to settle or postpone the strike. So, legislation was introduced and passed on December 2, postponing the strike for six months.


John George Diefenbaker: Introduced on November
29, was it not?


Lester Bowles Pearson: It was introduced on November 29 and passed on December 2. It is interesting to recall that that is about two weeks after parliament met. The Speech from the Throne two weeks before makes no mention of any railway difficulties of any kind.
As a result of that legislation the unions cancelled the strike date. They were instructed in the legislation to postpone that strike for six months, and they did so. Six weeks later, on January 23, 1961, the Prime Minister wrote, asking the parties to resume negotiations. On February 14 negotiations were resumed. Mr. Frank Hall advised the government on February 15 that no progress had been made and that there would be no further meetings. On April 21 the union advised the government that a strike would take place on May 16.
The parties then agreed to meet, and a settlement was reached on the basis of the recommendations of the majority report, the rejection of which, six months earlier, had caused the threat of the strike and the intervening crisis. One wonders why.
Perhaps one explanation of that may be found in the estimates which appeared very shortly afterwards. There was an amount of $50 million in subsidies-


An hon. Member:: What are the strikers worried about now?


Lester Bowles Pearson: -and that explains that situation, and it also indicates the length of time it took to resolve that dispute.
There is a third intervention, in 1958, in the British Columbia Coast Steamship Service Act, which provided for a resumption of a coast steamship service operated by the C.P.R., by the appointment of an administrator who was made subject to instructions from the governor in council. This legislation required employees to return to their duties. The terms of the existing agreement were amended to increase the rate of wages by 8
August 29, 1966	COMMONS
per cent, which was to apply until a settlement was reached. Provision was made in this legislation, Mr. Speaker, for compulsory arbitration by order in council if negotiations, with the assistance of a federal negotiator, failed. Arbitration was not, however, necessary.
It is interesting to compare the provisions of this particular bill with the provisions of the bill before the house.


An hon. Member:: How did you vote?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The wording is almost exactly the same, Mr. Speaker. The prime minister of that date, in 1958, said that this was not compulsory arbitration. It was merely making provision for other action if mediation failed, if and when it was required.


John George Diefenbaker: What did the right hon. member say at that time?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not recall, Mr. Speaker, the exact words of my speech at that time. I have made so many speeches since then. I have no doubt that my right hon. friend and his colleagues in their weeks of pleasant relaxation this summer have been reading all these earlier debates, as I have, too. It is quite easy for us to use them against each other.
That is the background of parliamentary intervention in labour disputes, and the procedures which were followed by the government and by parliament when such intervention was required.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
To return to the present situation, negotiations for a new contract were, I believe, begun between the unions and the railways in November of last year. These negotiations were not successful and conciliation boards were applied for. In the event, five such boards were established, three separate ones being required for non-operating employees who had previously bargained as a single group. The five boards were established under the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. They were set up without delay after the applications had been received, and any delay in getting conciliation processes under way was due to difficulties in getting chairmen acceptable to both parties.
In my view it would have been wrong and unprecedented, as I indicated this afternoon, for the government to have intervened until these boards had reported and the unions had acted upon those reports. I have just outlined what was done in other circumstances of
DEBATES	7773
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters kind, and this was the procedure followed in 1960 and 1950.
It was understood that though there were five separate boards the unions would act as a group with regard to decisions on any recommendations made in the five reports, and any action which might subsequently be required. This meant that decision and action would be taken only after the last report had been received, and this is, in fact, was the way in which the unions operated.
It is in this context that I would outline first, the procedures and timing followed by the board and, second, the results and recommendations of these boards. Boards 1 and 2, which were under the same chairman, a chairman acceptable to both parties, dealt with the demands of 83,000 of the nonoperating and shopcraft employees-about 72 per cent of the employees involved. Applications for these two boards were received on January 27 and March 1 and the boards were established on March 1, the same day as the second applications was received. Union and company representatives were appointed on March 10 and March 15 and confirmed on March 17. Two days later they informed the Minister they had agreed on Mr. Justice Munroe as chairman, and on the same day Justice Munroe was appointed as chairman.
The boards' reports were received on July 4 and the decision to strike was made on August 22-not on August 21 as the Leader of the Opposition said this afternoon, but at noon, August 22, on the Monday. The strike was to begin four days later, on August 26.
There was a third board, presided over by Hon. J. C. A. Cameron, dealing with the non-operating Canadian Brotherhood of Railway Transport and General Workers, about 20,000 in number. The application for this board was received on March 21 and the board was appointed on March 24. The union made its nomination on March 30, the company appointed its nominee on April 1, the appointments were confirmed by the Minister on April 4 and on April 18, almost two weeks later, the Minister was informed of their inability to agree on a chairman. So Hon. Mr. Justice Cameron was appointed by the government. This board reported on August 10, and strike action was decided upon on August 22, the date being fixed, as we know, for August 26.
There were two other boards. Board 4 under Judge Little was concerned with the C.N.R. Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen. This application was received on April 15.
August 29. 1966
7774	COMMONS
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters The board was established on April 27, the union nomination was made on May 4, the railway nomination on May 6 and the appointments were confirmed on May 9. Again, members were unable to agree on a chairman and on May 26 they advised the minister of their disagreement. The minister appointed Judge Little as chairman on June 9.
The report was received on August 12, the decision to strike was reached on August 22. The same timetable applies to board number 5, also under Judge Little, except that the application was made much later, on May 27. The rest was about the same.
That is the situation with regard to the procedure followed. There was no delay on the part of the government in setting up these boards and none in dealing with the reports when they were received-and they were not received until well into August.
It would in my view have been altogether wrong to have intervened when the first report only had been made. If the government had intervened at that time-though we knew, of course, the difficulties which were being encountered-negotiations within the other boards would have been made virtually impossible; they would probably have ended their work at that time. How could a mediator appointed by the government function with regard to one board while the others which were still working had not yet reported, and conciliation procedures were still going on? This illustrates the difficulty the government faced in intervening until the boards had completed the process of collective bargaining laid down by the law. That was the procedure followed in the other circumstances I have mentioned in 1950 and 1960.
But there were differences in 1960. In 1960 the unions fixed a strike date sufficiently far ahead of the date on which the strike was decided to give the government adequate time for negotiations. This was not the case in 1966.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Tell us
why.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If the hon. member would exercise that patience for which he is noted, I will try to come to the "why", now that I have disposed of the "what". First, though, I wish to put on record the wage recommendations of the two boards presided over by Mr. Justice Munroe having to do with the two groups of non-operating employees, covering about 72 per cent of all the employees. In


making his recommendations for wage increases Mr. Justice Munroe took into consideration, as has been done previously, the comparable earnings in the durable goods manufacturing industries-this has become in recent years an acceptable standard of comparison in affairs of this kind. On the other hand Justice Munroe said-and I quote from his report:
It may be said that the recent wage settlements in the Quebec longshoring and St. Lawrence seaway disputes should govern my recommendation as to wage increases.
There is no doubt they would have governed any recommendations made by the Leader of the Opposition if he had been chairman of the board. But Justice Munroe went on to say:
I think not. It should be noted that the employees affected by such settlements are not working in durable goods manufacturing industries; such settlements are not typical or representative of negotiated wage settlements for 1966 and 1967 in such industries or in industry in general; such settlements involved a relatively small number of employees and arose out of special circumstances and facts which are clearly distinguishable. It would, I think, be no more justifiable to consider such settlements as governing factors in my determination than it would be to say that other wage settlements of amounts less than my recommendation which involve larger numbers of employees, of which many examples could be cited, should govern.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
In my view-
Added Judge Munroe
-a national standard, not individual settlements or regional standards, is the proper standard to apply to the national railway industry whose employees live in remote hamlets and in metropolitan areas across Canada. The national standard of the earnings of durable goods employees, adjusted for the factors referred to in my 1964 report, remains, I think, as the sensible standard because those two groups of employees are the most nearly comparable. Such standards has the support of many years of jurisprudence. It would, I think, be unwise to abandon it at this time in the interests of expediency.
On that basis, Mr. Speaker, the Chairman-a unanimous recommendation was not thought possible, indeed a majority report was not thought possible-made his own recommendations which would produce an average increase in earnings of more than 44 cents per hour over the two year period 1966-67.
Expressed in percentage terms this came to a 4 per cent increase effective January 1, 1966; a 4 per cent increase effective July 1, 1966; a 4 per cent increase effective January 1, 1967 and a 6 per cent increase effective
August 29. 1966	COMMONS
July 1, 1967, or a total increase during the
two year period, beginning January 1, 1966, of 18 per cent.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: At the end of the two years.


Lester Bowles Pearson: A total of 18 per cent at the
end of 1967-18 per cent reached over two years. He also, of course, made recommendations for other benefits.
The nominee of the railways on the board rejected this increase as being too high for the railways to carry, and he recommended increases effective January 1, 1966 of 3.5 per cent, effective July 1, 1966 of 3 per cent, effective January 1, 1967, of 3 per cent, and effective July 1, 1967, of 3 per cent, or a total over that two year period, beginning January 1, 1966, of 12.5 per cent.
The nominee of the unions rejected the chairman's recommendations as being too low and he recommended, effective January 1, 1966, 6J per cent plus 13 cents an hour, and effective January 1, 1967, 6 per cent plus 14 cents an hour, which would have averaged about 25 per cent, with provision for additional increases for certain skilled categories.
In board number 3, under Mr. Cameron, roughly, the same recommendations were made-in fact the same recommendations for wage increases were made as were made by Mr. Justice Munroe, and they proved also to be unacceptable to the unions and to the railroads.
It has been said, and I have to deal with
this, Mr. Speaker, because of the charges that have been made, that the failure of these negotiations is largely due to the fact that the government had invited excessive wage demands by allegedly establishing a 30 per cent formula for the whole country in the settlement of the disputes with the longshoremen in Montreal, Trois-Rivieres and Quebec, and with the seaway employees.
There is of course, no such general formula, as Mr. Justice Munroe has pointed out; and to give the impression throughout the country that this has been established as a general formula by the government is, I think, both irresponsible and mischievous.


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: Established by the Prime Minister.


Lester Bowles Pearson: In the first months of 1966 there have been lower wage settlements than the two I have mentioned, and there have also been higher ones with which the government had nothing to do.


John George Diefenbaker: Which ones?
DEBATES	7775
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am thinking of the construction workers in Montreal in the spring of 1966, and the plumbing workers in the spring of 1966, who got increases, by negotiations between the employers and the employees, considerably higher than those granted in the two cases I have mentioned with which the government was concerned.
Let us look at the longshoremen's settlement in Montreal, which seemed to receive unanimous approval in the house the night it was introduced, but which has had nothing but criticism from members opposite since that time. The longshoremen were seasonal workers only, and in one area of Canada. There were about 4,200 workers involved and their employment averaged between eight and nine months a year. Further, a considerable proportion of them were part-time workers. Their wages were well below the construction workers in Montreal, and also well below those of longshoremen at Pacific ports. The average work period of these longshoremen was 28 hours a week in Montreal during the period of the year when they were working.
This wage settlement was accepted by the ship owners after a government commitment to introduce legislation setting up a commission which would make proposals for increased productivity in waterfront operations, and an experienced negotiator, Judge Lippe, recommended the settlement that was made. Also, that strike had lasted 38 days and the demand, both inside the house and outside, to end it was insistent.
The seaway employees' settlement-and I admit this was a direct government responsibility-concerned an international operation with Canadian employees. There were only 1,200 involved in that situation, with United States and Canadian employees working alongside each other in the same conditions of living and employment. The demand on this occasion was that in these circumstances the differential was unfair and should be removed-completely eliminated. In the settlement that was reached it was not eliminated; it was reduced.
I recall-and I am not saying this in a critical sense at all-that as recorded at page 6476 of Hansard for June 16 last, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) asked this question:
Has the government made it clear to the seaway authority that there can be no possible objection to the workers on the Canadian side of the seaway being paid the same rates as those paid on the United States side?
August 29, 1966

Legislation Respecting Railway Matters
And we could not make that perfectly clear because we did not admit that contention in the settlement that was made. The proposed increases to the seaway employees were recommended to the government by a government industrial inquiry commissioner, Senator MacKenzie, who also recommended them to the unions. The government did not impose that settlement. It accepted a recommendation of its mediator, which it had judged to be a fair and reasonable one.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the charge that I have been dealing with was that government intervention in the longshoremen's dispute was responsible for the wage demands made in these recent negotiations, and I want to make one further important point in this connection. It is that when the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) intervened in the dispute between the International Longshoremen's Association and the Shipping Federation of Canada on the night of June 11 and June 12, all the matters in dispute at that time had been agreed on by the parties except three, and these three did not concern wages.
One was a provision for a four hour guarantee for each recall of gangs, similar to the guarantee for initial call; the second was overtime of 40 cents an hour commencing January 1, 1966, and the third concerned arrangements for calling members of gangs over the week end for early Monday morning.
When I was called in on January 13 point No. 3 had been cleared away, and the only points which remained for settlement, although they were sticky points, were the first two points I have mentioned, and did not concern hourly wage figures at all. Those had previously been agreed upon. Agreement was reached on these last two points by the I.L.A. accepting the application of the 40 cent increase to all hourly work since January, 1966, regular or overtime, and the shipping federation accepting the four hour guarantee on recall of gangs on the understanding that this matter would be studied by the commission of inquiry which was to be set up.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
So, far from imposing a wage level on that particular negotiation, that wage level had been agreed on by the two parties before the government was called in to clear up the remaining three points which did not concern wage levels. I have been waiting for some time to make that point clear.
Now, there was a good deal of talk this afternoon about and, understandably, there

will be a good deal of consideration given to the matter of job security in the bill which we are now considering, and perhaps in the subsequent legislation dealing with the railways. This legislation I believe was considered by the five boards to be one of primary importance. On the Munroe board, the union representative asked for a work stablilization agreement with a job security fund. The chairman, Judge Munroe, thought more use should be made of the job security fund which was established following the 1962 negotiations, and which provided for protection for long service employees. He also pointed out that conditions have been improved by recently enacted legislation regarding training and assistance to displaced workers.
The report of Judge Little's two boards dealt with job security at greater length than it dealt with some of the other matters referred to. These two reports, which are in identical terms, in so far as this matter is concerned, are in almost identical terms to certain conclusions of the Freedman report in respect of the successful mediation of current disputes, and disputes in the future.
According to Judge Little's boards-and these are reports signed by all three members of the boards-there were three basic principles involved, in addition to the question of job security. The first question was the railways right, on due notice to the union, to determine and effect technological innovations, both major and minor, where the rights of employees might be adversely effected. The second question was negotiation between the union and the railway of the protective conditions to apply to each and every employee affected in each case. The third point was the modus operandi of resolving such protective conditions in the absence of mutual agreement. The union and railway rep-presentatives who appeared before these two boards agreed on one and two above.
I think it is of very great significance that on a board of this kind the railway representative did agree-as he did-to points one and two, and point two deals with negotiation between the union and the railway of the protective conditions to apply to each and every employee affected in each case. They recognize the right of negotiation in changes of this kind. They were not able, however, to agree on point three which dealt with what should be done if they could not reach agreement.
August 29, 1966

The union representative favoured the retention of the right to strike if negotiation failed. The railway representative favoured-and I quote-final and binding impartial determination, by an arbitrator, if there were such failure. It was apparent, said Judge Little's reports, that the union did not expect this issue to be resolved by the normal processes of collective bargaining and was convinced that the only solution was by way of legislation. The boards then decided that no useful purpose would be served by a specific recommendation. "We believe," the reports say, "that the differing viewpoints will not be resolved by negotiation. The only alternative therefore is legislation." But they added:
We trust that, when the ultimate decision is made in this regard, those making it will bear in mind the broad implications which it will undoubtedly have for many industries and commodities and will accordingly look beyond the interests of the parties hereto and the mere settlement of one industrial dispute.
Mr. Speaker, the serious study of the Freedman report which is now being made is being conducted with this in mind. The implications for industry generally, and which are of far reaching significance, are being, and must be, taken into account in this study. There must be no unnecessary delay in this work. We must press ahead with it, as we are; but adequate time is required for study because of the great and general importance of the issue at stake. I hope it will not be long before the government will be able to make a report to parliament as a result of the studies which have been made. Changes in working conditions which affect job security represent a vital problem to the worker. It is hoped that difficulties can be resolved in the processes of collective bargaining.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to spend a few minutes on the events leading up to the reassembling of parliament. Although the government did not formally intervene in the work of any of these boards until the boards had reported and the decision taken to call a strike, there had been very useful informal discussions-very serious and useful ones- with the railway union leaders before August 22. I had the privilege of presiding at one of those discussions.
When the decision to strike was taken on August 22-which strike was to begin four days later-the government, as the house knows, intervened formally and immediately. The decision was taken at noon on August
DEBATES	7777
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters 22. That afternoon I wired the parties concerned and proposed mediation through the Minister of Labour.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister allow a question? Was he not informed of the strike date on Sunday evening, on his return from New Brunswick?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker; I was not informed, nor was the decision taken, until noon Monday. The right hon. gentleman this afternoon used the date of August 21 as the date on which we were informed. That does not happen to be accurate. That was the week end which, according to him, I was loafing around Campobello. I must confess, Mr. Speaker, to being an indolent person, but on that Saturday I had work to do in the morning and I flew to Campobello in the afternoon and spent the evening with the Premier of New Brunswick. I spent the following day with the President of the United States and returned to Ottawa in the evening. I spent part of the evening attending a meeting of the strike committee of the cabinet.
That was not exactly a lost week end, Mr. Speaker. I would have been much happier if I could have been spending that week end fishing out in Saskatchewan.


John George Diefenbaker: You had the opportunity of going to Saskatchewan and did not take advantage of it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: When the decision was made Monday morning-and we received notice of it at noon-I wired the parties at once and proposed mediation. That offer was accepted. Many things began at once, with Which the Minister of Labour was acquainted. At this point perhaps I may be permitted to mention the skilled and valuable assistance that was given by the deputy minister of labour, Mr. Wilson. If I may, I should like to pay a tribute to the deputy minister and other officials in his department who had a very busy summer.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
The effort on both sides was and remains, sincere and genuine; there was good will as well as frankness. But the time was so short, and the situation such that no settlement could be reached before the strike date, though a better understanding was reached and some points were cleared up.
Even after the strike began mediation continued, and will continue while this legislation is being considered, in the hope that an
7778	COMMONS
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters agreement might be reached which, even at this last moment, would make it unnecessary. The negotiators on both sides are Canadians who are very conscious of the national interest and the national welfare, as well as the interests of those whom they have been chosen to represent.
I conclude my remarks by giving a short explanation of the bill, as I think I am bound to do, Mr. Speaker. It will of course be dealt with in greater detail by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) either later in this debate or during the committee stage.
The essential provision of the bill is the provision for the immediate resumption of railway services now suspended by the strike. This discharges the primary duty of the government to maintain essential services. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, this is the reason why parliament has been called into session.
Equally important, the bill provides for the resumption of negotiations between the parties and reactivates the normal procedures of collective bargaining. The bargaining will be aided by what we hope will be the passage of new railway legislation placing the railways in a more competitive earning position, and by the assurance that the study of the Freedman report is being processed to the point that there will be specific recommendations for the government and from the government before long.
Naturally, Mr. Speaker, we regret very much that there has not been legislation of this kind in effect in recent years. It would have been easier to conduct these negotiations had that been the case. The right hon. gentleman opposite must understand our difficulty, because in 1960 when he was speaking to the house about railway difficulties at that time, and a strike which had been set by the railway unions, he pointed out that it was then 1960 and that during a six month postponement of the strike it would be possible to receive a report of a commission, and action would then make it possible for the railways to meet increased charges by changes which would be made in their freight rate structure. That was in 1960. I should point out that since that time this government came into office, specifically in 1963, and proposed legislation to this effect was placed on the order paper. This was not brought before the house in 1963, but in 1964 it was debated and the subject matter of a railway bill was sent to the committee where it was very constructively debated for a considerable period of time. It was perfectly clear in 1964 that the bill, as drafted, would not pass the house.

DEBATES	August 29, 1966
Since that time, Mr. Speaker, this bill has been revised and a lot of discussion has taken place. These revisions are contained in the bill which is now before the house, and in legislation which I previously indicated would be brought before the house during this autumn session.
Let me return to my explanation of the bill now before us. The railways and the unions are required under the bill to continue their negotiations with a view to the settlement of all matters presently in dispute between them. The collective agreements which expired at the end of 1965 are extended until December 31, 1967.
The bill provides that the Minister of Labour shall appoint a mediator, or mediators, and he will be in a position to do that immediately this bill is dealt with by the house. These mediators shall endeavour to settle the questions in dispute between the railway companies and the unions. This mediation process will be given until November 15 of this year to bring about an agreement between the parties. A report must be received by the Minister of Labour not later than that date. There is provision, however, for the the continuation of mediation after November 15 if the report shows that favourable progress is being made in negotiations.
The bill makes it possible, as a last resort, as the 1958 bill made it possible, for the governor in council to refer any unresolved matters to a board of three arbitrators. The bill also provides that the governor in council may make regulations to give effect to the decision of the arbitration board. Any decision of this board of arbitrators would be incorporated in the collective agreement, but the parties would of course be free to agree to vary or amend any of the terms of agreement set by the board of arbitrators.
If, which I hope will not be the case, the government should find it necessary to appoint this board of arbitrators, the regulation by order in council establishing the board will be laid before this house not later than five days after the day the regulation is made. In this respect the present bill differs from the 1958 bill, which made no provision of that kind for recognition of parliamentary control over an order in council.
This regulation, as I have just mentioned, would become effective on the tenth sitting day of parliament after the day the regulation is laid before the house, unless before that day the regulation were to be revoked
August 29, 1966	COMMONS
by the house by way of a notice of motion. The mechanics of tabling and of revocation are set forth in the bill.
It is therefore, Mr. Speaker, a very important feature of this bill that the parties are left free to negotiate, with the help of a mediator, and that, if any arbitration is necessary, it will only be instituted by the government subject to an overriding veto of the House of Commons.
The bill includes provision to safeguard the right of the employees now on strike to return to work without fear of being discharged from their employment or disciplined in any other way because of their participation in strike action.
The bill provides for the immediate withdrawal of the notice given by union representatives to their employees calling the strike, which will become invalid when this bill becomes law.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the bill provides for an immediate increase in the rate of wages in the amount of 4 per cent effective January 1, 1966 and an additional 4 per cent effective July 1, 1966. As I have said, that can be varied, of course, as a result of the negotiation which will follow the passage of this bill.
Consequently, the employees who would resume their employment would be given an immediate increase for the year 1966-and this did not happen in 1960-without prejudice to the position of the parties to the negotiations that will continue to implement the collective agreement extended to December 31, 1967. The amount of the immediate increase represents the figure established by Mr. Justice Munroe and accepted by Mr. Justice Cameron for the year 1966 in the two conciliation board reports, presided over by those gentlemen. Any further change for 1966 and for 1967, as I have already indicated, would depend upon the results of the mediation or the arbitration specified in the bill.
Mr. Speaker, that is essentially the bill which is now before the house for consideration. I think it is a good, fair and reasonable bill and I hope it will commend itself to this house. I also hope that if and when this bill becomes law it will prove to be effective in bringing this strike to an end, because that is its purpose-to end the strike and to continue the process of negotiation in order to reach a fair and reasonable settlement between the workers and the railways, aided by mediation appointed by the government. I hope this will be assisted as a result of the legislation on railways which will be before the house if
DEBATES	7779
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters and when we dispose of this particular bill. In that spirit, Mr. Speaker, I commend this bill to the house and hope it will be effective in achieving the object we all have in mind, namely the ending of this strike.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, it is 16 years ago today that the then prime minister, Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, had parliament recalled and introduced legislation with respect to a strike which had been in progress for a period of seven or eight days. Sixteen years thereafter to the day parliament, for the second time, is dealing with a strike that has been under way in this case some three days already. I have heard the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) on many occasions throughout the years that he has been minister, leader of the opposition and Prime Minister, but I have never known him to labour, as he did on this occasion, in endeavouring to make some reasonable explanation for the dilatory uncertainty, the ineptitude, the chronic indifference of this government to the need of action, as was evident this evening as he spoke.
The Prime Minister recalled the four occasions on which the matter of strikes had been before parliament. He said-and with this view I agree-that Canada expects, all Canadians expect, that the strike will be brought to an end in a proper and equitable manner, fair to the nation and fair to labour. Indeed, I go further than that. Never in all the years that I have followed public affairs have I known a government to be criticized by its greatest admirers in the press for its failure to act before the strike took place. Why didn't they act? Why this attitude of waiting around and hoping that something would turn up. It is because, sir, this government has lost all sense of proportion. Today we have a government that will not act unless forced to do so. It does not make so many mistakes, so long as it is thinking about these matters. It is when it finally makes a decision that the really serious mistakes are made.
Will this legislation in its present form bring an end to the strike? Will the Prime Minister say that as a result of the informal discussions which he and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) had with labour representatives, the labouring men covered by these agreements, those working on the railways, are prepared to return to work on the
August 29. 1966
7780	COMMONS
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters basis of clause 6(b), which provides as follows:
-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.
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. We remember them. 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. I ask again: Will these men go back to work? We want them to go back to work. Their families want them to go back to work. The families of many are having difficulty living in a reasonable and decent way because of the inflationary trends in this country.


Mr. Hamilton:: Caused by Pearson.


John George Diefenbaker: Caused by the degree to which the dollar falls and falls in purchasing power and the government fails to do anything. When we ask for action, the answer from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) is always accompanied by that beatific smile. Here it is.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: And he says, "We are looking into this matter." I can see the smile now on the face of the former minister of finance. How he must laugh at what is happening today. He had his difficulties, but they were almost heavenly compared to the difficulties of his successor-and both were equally successful.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: With those few generous words, I want to ask this government: Do you ask parliament to say to men, "You shall work" and at the same time say, "You shall work for an increase of 6 per cent"? No amount of evasive circumlocution on the part of the Prime Minister can get away from the fact that he and his government made 30 per cent and 34 per cent the basic increase in keeping with present day conditions. That is what they did. They boasted about the tremendous achievement that had been brought about. Ordinary mortals could not do it.


[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
There were difficulties. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) laboured and brought forth a mouse; but when the Prime Minister got hold of that problem, it grew to 31 to 34 per cent. I say to the Prime Minister that he and his government are responsible in large measure for the tremendous undercurrent within this nation today, for anxiety about the government's uncertainty and, above all, their capacity for achieving settlements. Will the men who are affected go back to work? Parliament has the right to know and to receive an assurance on that. Parliament must not be asked to pass legislation and then find itself challenged. If that ever takes place, this nation will face a situation dangerous to the people as a whole, and completely destructive of parliament. When laws are passed, whether we agree with them or not, those laws are the law of the land.
Are we in parliament to be asked to pass legislation decreeing a 6 per cent increase without knowing what the reaction will be, not of a few people but of many? I said this afternoon, and I have no reason to withdraw it this evening: People who work are generally law abiding. The government speaks of 6 per cent and compulsory arbitration. It is easy to pass laws, but unless they have the support of the people, they will have the effect of adding to the psychology of lawlessness that is more and more becoming an attribute of some democracies.
I implore the Prime Minister to ask the Minister of Labour to tell the house whether this will be accepted. Does he say it is fair? Does he say it is reasonable? If we are going to pass legislation of this kind, we have to have behind it the whole power of the thinking of parliament.
I am not familiar with the operation of unions. The minister of manpower is present; he is familiar with these matters. A week ago Sunday he announced at a political meeting in the province of Quebec that there could be no compulsory arbitration. Both he and the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve) are authorities on labour for others. They belong or did belong to a great union which today is challenging national unions through raids for membership, holding out the expectation and hope that with two outstanding members in the cabinet it is better to belong to such a union if you want to get things done. I am glad there is no competition there because everybody said the hon. gentleman is one of those who leads or who has led the competition. If the hon. gentleman is experienced in
August 29, 1966	COMMONS
such matters and wishes to speak, I will give him an opportunity to do so. But let me ask the minister of manpower how will union leaders explain the fact that 6 per cent is good enough, when he was a member of a government which gave its approval and wholehearted support to an increase of 31 to 34 per cent?
That is where the trouble began. I have no doubt whatever, and I have reason to believe this is entirely correct, that if it had not been for the Prime Minister's monkeying with the processes of conciliation in connection with the seaway workers and the longshoremen there would have been no difficulty in securing agreement in so far as the railway unions are concerned.
It is obvious that this nation is in a critical position; but parliament cannot allow itself to be pushed around by a prime minister or a government which, having created a situation and failed to act, now comes before the House of Commons and contends: Whatever our mistakes, our dilatoriness, we now need to pass legislation; the situation is serious. Was it not serious ten days ago? Was it not recognized in every part of this country for several months that there was going to be a strike? If anybody challenges this, I have here some excerpts from Liberal newspapers across Canada, which, without exception, have been warning this government. I do not know what is required to wake this government. Is there something to awaken the lethargy of a government which has refused to act? They have postponed action and procrastinated, and when they finally found themselves in difficulties they have called parliament.
We want to act as responsible members of this nation. Did we not have the right to ask the government, as we have over and over again, to do something? However, I do not know whether what is being done is part of the new Liberal program, under which the Liberals are seeking more labour support and wooing the unions with a newsletter. I do not have time to go into that, Mr. Speaker, but this is courtship of a high variety. In the labour newsletter the Prime Minister is speaking to ordinary men. The heading in the Globe and Mail indicates that the unions are being wooed with a newsletter. Was that part of the preparatory course?
The wooing of any group of Canadians is not in keeping with government responsibility. You do not do it by having the members of the cabinet committee dealing with a labour dispute away on the week end when
DEBATES	7781
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters things are serious. It is laudable to go fishing. I would like to have heard what President Johnson said to the Prime Minister and what the Prime Minister said to him with regard to this question, because the other day the President said he was talking to the leader of a country who said to him, "I only wish I could keep things under control the way you do". The cost of living in Canada is mounting faster than in the United States, yet no action has been taken. It is a frightful commentary when a Prime Minister comes before parliament, on bended knee and says, in effect: Do something to get me out of this.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
We want the railways in operation. The economy of Canada is being damaged. A very influential writer has said the government thought a strike would not do any harm if it lasted a week or ten days. A lady, writing in Le Devoir has said the government secured information as to the point to which a strike would not be economically harmful. This afternoon we heard words of warning, sage and strong, brought forward by the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Crouse). What about the prairie wheat situation? What about the export situation across Canada? I say this to the government: We offered you co-operation ten days or two weeks ago. We joined with the press across Canada in asking you to convene parliament before the strike began.
What is there in this bill that you could not have had after it became clear there was going to be a strike? Why did you not act? What was the reason? I can only conclude the reason was that you did not particularly care, and you possibly believed if there was a strike it would get you out of your difficulties.
I read now in translation from the article in Le Devoir dated August 25 and written by Evelyn Dumas-Gagnon:
According to a confidential report submitted to the cabinet a rail strike will surely be serious, but the country's economy can support it rather easily for a week or even for two weeks.
What was the attitude of the government? The Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) said on August 22 that he hoped the work stoppage could be reduced to a minimum of days. What a hopeless attitude to take. I have already mentioned what the proposed minister of manpower said at Nicolet on August 21. I say, Mr. Speaker, this government stands convicted of a careless disregard of the

August 29, 1966
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters national interest by not convening parliament.
They are always expecting to do something. Job security is one thing that affects labour men everywhere. They are frightened that automation will reduce or perhaps remove their jobs. This has been the situation during the last two years. Tonight the Prime Minister says: We have ideas on this subject but we are not going to tell you at this time. We have a right to know so that labouring men across Canada will know what the policy is. I look over there at the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin), a man with wide international experience, and I can just imagine how he feels after what he said in 1960. I think I ought to recall that to him. I do so, of course, with that natural diffidence that he always displays. What did he say? Well, in 1960, the matter was before the house. We introduced legislation to stop the strike before it started. The Prime Minister has said we had lots of time; he had plenty of time too.
I repeat what I said this afternoon. My information is the Prime Minister was told by labour leaders on Sunday night, August 21, that the strike would start on Friday next. They knew officially on the Monday. The Minister of Labour, in a very attractive television appearance, admitted he knew unofficially on Sunday.


Mr. Nicholson:: I did not.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, I have the record here and I should like to read it for the benefit of the house. I must say it is broken into a lot of sections. They knew and they failed to act. What did they do in 1960? On that occasion the Prime Minister of today said:
What we are faced with in this legislation is
compulsory-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the right hon. gentleman give me the page, please?


John George Diefenbaker: I will always give you the page.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to follow the right hon. gentleman.


John George Diefenbaker: I quote:
What we are faced with in this legislation is compulsory action-


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker; I think we are entitled to have the reference.


Mr. Speaker:: Order; I understand that the Minister of Transport is raising a point of order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: My point of order is that when a reference is made to Hansard it is a courtesy to give the page number so that hon. members may follow.


John George Diefenbaker: That is true, and if I can approximate the page, I think he can find it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We know how accurate the right hon. gentleman is.


John George Diefenbaker: I have the reference; it is page 349. The minister has the book opened at the right page. You never ask a question unless you know the answer. I continue to quote from page 349:
What we are faced with in this legislation is compulsory action, compulsory implementation of a minority report.
Then, he goes on to speak about the powers of those who sit opposite today. I continue to quote:
In the first place, I think we would have been more successful than the government has been in settling this dispute through discussion and agreement.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
This is when they were thinking about it. With the responsibility they have today, we now have an answer for that. He continued:
If, however, we had not been successful in our intervention in settling this dispute by negotiation or agreement, what would we have done in that situation after negotiations between the two parties had broken down? I shall be happy to put on the record what we would have done.
It is interesting to find the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) reading that page because he is realizing how incongruous was the argument of the Prime Minister a few minutes ago.
First, we would have introduced legislation which would have made this strike unnecessary-
The Prime Minister forgot that, though the Minister of Transport is now studying this particular page of Hansard.
-because we agree with the Minister of Labour that it is impossible to contemplate the unhappy consequences of a railway strike at this time. Second, we would have based that legislation on the report of the conciliation board, because we do not believe that parliament should compel men to continue to work for wages which are lower than the conciliation board found to be fair and reasonable-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: You gave them nothing at all.
Augusi 29, 1966	COMMONS


John George Diefenbaker: Why, then, is there no incorporation of the conciliation board report for January 1, 1967 and July 1, 1967?
Third, we would not provide for any subsidy at this time, because-


John Whitney Pickersgill: The right hon. gentleman has left a lot out.


John George Diefenbaker: -we believe the railways to be in a position to pay the increased wages for the period until the royal commission on transportation makes its report-the Prime Minister has said that that will be by the end of March-and until the government is then in a position to review the whole problem of railway finances in the light of the actions which have been taken. That is how the Liberal opposition would have prevented this strike and in doing so have given justice to the employees without, in our view, prejudicing the position of the railways.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the right hon. gentlemen would permit me to ask him a question-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Sit down, Jack, and make your speech later.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Leader of the Opposition has the floor.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I rise on a question of privilege, sir.


John George Diefenbaker: I will allow the hon. gentleman to ask his question when I have concluded.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am rising on a question of privilege.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, a question of privilege.


John Whitney Pickersgill: My question of privilege is a very simple one. When the house is given what purports to be a quotation from Hansard, it should be given in full.


John George Diefenbaker: All right.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The right hon. gentleman carefully omitted certain of the words from this paragraph, as has happened on many occasions in the past.


John George Diefenbaker: That is the usual interruption from the hon. gentleman. When he realizes that he has not any argument, then he brings along one of these phony smokescreens. He will have every opportunity to review and deal in detail with what I have to say, and I expect he will, but I hope more successfully than his leader.
DEBATES	7783
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters
Now, a moment ago I mentioned the Secretary of State for External Affairs. As reported at page 371, of Hansard, he said:
Mr. Speaker, I have followed carefully the remarks made by the Prime Minister yesterday, his observations over television last night, and the third instalment of his speech in this house this afternoon. I wish to say at the outset that the position stated by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday was clear and precise.
So he gives approval to what the Prime Minister of today said on that occasion.
We say this strike should have been prevented.
Those are the strong words of a man who knows his labour problems at first hand.
We would have made sure that a strike would have been unnecessary instead of implementing a minority report, as the government is doing. We would have provided a settlement based on the majority report of the conciliation board which was accepted by the railway workers.
Was the present report accepted by the railway workers?


Paul Joseph James Martin: How much did
you give them in 1960?


John George Diefenbaker: We are dealing with today.


Michael Starr: We negotiated it and achieved it through collective bargaining.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentleman settled this almost as completely as he settled some international problems recently. He went on:
For these reasons, if we had been in office, there would have been no strike but there would have been a fair settlement.
These are the people who today occupy the treasury benches.


Michael Starr: And we have a strike.


John George Diefenbaker: These are the people who knew how to settle these matters. They now come before parliament. Instead of having parliament meet, as parliament could have met last Wednesday and Thursday, they waited.
Now, sir, the Prime Minister went into some detail regarding the manner in which the government had dealt with this question. Therefore I think I ought to put on the record the balance sheet of pussyfooting by this government.
August 29, 1966
7784	COMMONS
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters
On October 28, 1965, in view of the contracts expiring on December 31, three negotiating committees were formed by the unions. In November the railway workers submitted their proposals to the companies. On December 31, 1965 the contracts expired, the lompanies making no counter proposals on monetary clauses because they said that the cost would be too high.
In mid-March of 1966 the three negotiating committees for the railwaymen asked for conciliation. While all this was going on, the former minister of labour, the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr), made suggestions in the house as to what should be done. There was no response.
On July 6 there were issued the two
Munroe reports, that of the non-operatives and the associated shop workers, which were immediately rejected by the union leaders, who called for a strike vote with a recommendation by the leaders that a strike be approved.
On August 11 we had the Cameron report, and immediately the union leaders said a strike should be called in that connection. On August 15 the Little report on the Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen was made public. In fact, there were two reports, one for C.N.R. employees and the other for C.P.R. employees. Both sets of employees took a stand against the respective reports and called for strike votes.
On August 17, at a press conference, the Prime Minister informed the nation that the cabinet had the situation well in hand-I ask, whose hand?-and that an ad hoc cabinet committee had been sitting for some time and was preparing plans for every eventuality.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
On August 18 and 19 the strike committee sat. On Friday the 19th the Prime Minister's office said that the situation was well in hand, and that the committee has been asked to reconvene on Monday; that a cabinet meeting would be held, if necessary, on Tuesday. What a record of dilatoriness, failure to act, and pretence. Now he comes before parliament and says: "It is a frightful position we are in." And it is. I say again, through you, sir, to the Prime Minister and the members of his cabinet: You are the ones who made it so.


In 1960 the Prime Minister said that he could not accept the bill that was presented. I quote from page 350 of Hansard of that year:
In passing, therefore, from collective bargaining, as we are doing in this bill, to the prevention of a strike by legislation by imposing a compulsory settlement-though perhaps it will be only a temporary one, it is a compulsory settlement-the government is asking parliament to take the responsibility for the scale of wages and the conditions of work of these workers.
Well, sir, there is the situation. I want to refer to the 1960 bill so that there will be no mistake as to its provisions. We pointed out at that time that it was not compulsory arbitration, and every one of the ministers who sits opposite today, who was in the house at that time, voted against it.
What a change in six years. We stopped the strike by our action. The present government has acted as though it did not mind if there was a strike or not. When I listened to the Prime Minister on his national broadcast, I could only conclude that he was trying to find someone to blame for the government's shortcomings. He blamed it on labour; he blamed it on everybody else: Physician, heal thyself.
Sir, the Prime Minister voted against the legislation in 1960; so did the Minister of Transport; so did several other ministers who are today in the house. What manner of consistency is this? Why did they take that stand?
We have been consistent throughout, in our views. In 1950, when 16 years ago today Prime Minister St. Laurent introduced the legislation, he described the national position as being a national emergency. We at that time took a strong stand against compulsory arbitration. We have not seen fit in the passing years to alter that stand.


An hon. Member:: It was 15.


John George Diefenbaker: Sir, what do you expect will happen when employees find themselves caught in spiralling inflation. In the face of the galloping reduction of the buying power of the dollar where are the workers, those who have fixed incomes to find help?
That is why I said the other day, and I still say, that before we leave here the government must act. Does any one of the ministers sitting opposite realize that in every part of this nation people are aroused over the cost of living? Go down to the market. The farmer is not getting the additional amount. Who is getting that layer of fat, as prices go up, up and up?
August 29, 1966	COMMONS
I suggested this afternoon that in view of the legislative jurisdiction of the provinces, a conference should be called at once. It could be called. I am sure the provincial governments are aware of the serious situation and of the need of joint action. Unless action is taken we will face over and over again, in increasing measure, the serious consequences which in the past few months have made Canada a country of continuing strikes. There is not a word about this from over there; we just have generalities. We want to know what you are going to do.
Are new arrangements to be made in regard to labour relations? If so, let us act. Could there not be set up by parliament a labour law commission to recommend and have as a responsibility the task of updating and revising labour laws by agreement? On June 13 I suggested that the government set up a commission to review in detail the general position created in employer-employee relations by reason of technological change which I described as a matter of prime importance in connection with the various disputes which are arising. The Prime Minister answered, as reported at page 6299 of Hansard:
The matter mentioned by my right hon. friend is, of course, one of very great and continuing significance, as we have learned-if we needed to learn-from the dispute that we have been discussing. It may well be, Mr. Speaker, that if the house requires an opportunity to discuss this particular dispute, this will be one of the elements that we will be discussing. I quite agree that it should be considered in its wider context. I think it would be the feeling of the house that the government would give consideration to an examination of the kind suggested by my right hon. friend.
What about the MacPherson royal commission recommendations? They had not been thought of as a possibility until the last few days, according to the Minister of Labour.
The general railway bill, I am glad to hear, will be placed before a committee of the house; for some of these provisions, if carried into effect, would bring about continuing discrimination for all time to come against the western and maritime provinces.


An hon. Member:: It is not the maritime provinces at all.


John George Diefenbaker: You are not going to settle strike difficulties, and their basic causes, by toughness. You must be fair and reasonable. That is principle number two. Is a 6 per cent increase fair and reasonable?
DEBATES	7785
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wish the right hon. gentleman would permit me to ask him one question.


John George Diefenbaker: No.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did not think he would.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: No. It is not because the hon. gentleman has any question which would give any difficulty; it is simply that I want to teach him decorum.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
In connection with the recommendations of Mr. Justice Munroe, what does the government intend to do about the employee benefit plan? Is the government not prepared to make some allowances? At the present time the employees pay 50 per cent. Is there any reason why they should have to pay that? In connection with life insurance they receive $1,500 in insurance. They have asked for $2,500. The Munroe report recommended $2,000. What is the attitude of the government? Surely some of these questions are worthy of consideration. What about holidays? The railwaymen have a maximum of three weeks holidays after 15 years of service. What is the government going to do about that? When the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) speaks I hope he will be able to clarify these dark corners.
What about sick leave? What attitude do hon. gentlemen opposite take on this subject? These are some of the questions which deserve to be clarified and understood, because-and I say this with all the force at my command-when you secure from parliament the power to say to a person "you must work", fairness demands that consideration be shown to the person so directed.
I should like to see a federal labour fact finding commission to be made up of qualified, experienced persons from within the ranks of labour, management and government-which would have the function of providing the basic information upon which negotiations could proceed. This board would be permanently constituted and would produce facts and figures dealing with the relationship between any given industry and the general economy. Such a board, if it had been set up prior to the start of these negotiations would have provided both employer and employees with analyses and reports related to the agreements, without in any way limiting the field of bargaining; it would lay down
August 29, 1966

Legislation Respecting Railway Matters guide lines within which bargaining would be easier to carry out.
If this were done there would not be the delay which has taken place in this case since December of 1965. When negotiations get under way a great deal of the preliminary work normally done by a conciliation board would be already completed, thus shortening the present time-consuming conciliation process.
Present conciliation procedures are often time wasting and frustrating, and I place this suggestion before the house in the hope that the government may give consideration to establishing a body such as this which would operate continuously, making available full economic and statistical information to both labour and industry at all times.
Now, sir, I say through you to the government that the answer given by the Prime Minister, the defence, the apologia, will not satisfy anybody. It was carefully put together, replete with apologies and alibis. But apologies and alibis do not fill dinner pails.
In 1960-


John Whitney Pickersgill: They did not have a dinner pail then.


John George Diefenbaker: -the opposition of that day, now the government, moved an amendment. I wonder whether they recall it.


An hon. Member:: Forgotten it.


John George Diefenbaker: Certainly not the Minister of Transport, because he has the document before him. But do the others recall it? I intend to read that amendment. Remember, these are the people, now sitting opposite, who condemned us for stopping a strike before it began.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And giving the workers nothing.


Michael Starr: They got everything: They got collective bargaining.


John George Diefenbaker: Today they are to get 6 per cent from the successors of the six-buck boys. What did they do in 1960 when we preserved this nation from a strike and, after a period of time, were able to secure agreement? The Prime Minister says he hopes we will act with the same responsibility as he and those associated with him did. What did they do? They moved an amendment, as recorded in Hansard at page 350-

The right hon. gentleman was speaking, and these were his words:
Therefore, so there will be no misunderstanding or mistake about the attitude of the Liberal opposition, I wish to move, seconded by the hon. member for Laurier, the following amendment: "This house declines to proceed with the second reading of a bill the provisions of which establish a compulsory and discriminatory wage freeze for railway employees contrary to the recommendation for a wage increase made by a board of conciliation appointed under the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No freeze this time.


John George Diefenbaker: Are they boasting over there about what they are doing with their 6 per cent, having recently given 31 per cent and their approval of it? Do they boast today about the 6 per cent they provide? Do they boast about the provisions for compulsory arbitration which are set out in detail within this bill?
This is a measure which constitutes the worst kind of compulsory legislation. Let us read what it says. Clause 9(1) provides as follows:
The Minister of Labour shall appoint a mediator-
I shall leave out the other words.
-who shall forthwith endeavour to mediate the matters in dispute between the railway companies and the unions and to bring about agreement between them and who shall report to the Minister of Labour, not later than November 15, 1966, on the progress of the negotiations between the railway companies and the unions.
Well, my hon. friend from Ontario (Mr. Starr) asked for the appointment of a mediator in June. He said, act. But while fear and frustration operated, the government did nothing. Now they come along and say: Appoint a mediator.
Reading further in clause 9, we find this:
(2) If the mediator reports to the Minister of Labour that favourable progress in negotiations has been made, the governor in council may direct the mediator to continue mediation and to make a further report to the Minister of Labour at such time as the governor in council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Labour, may direct.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
Then clause 10 reads:
On the recommendation of the Minister of Labour . . . the governor in council may make regulations
(a) for referring to a board of three arbitrators appointed by the governor in council . . . such matters relating to the revision or amendment of the collective agreements to which this act applies as the parties thereto may request or as the governor in council may deem expedient-
August 29, 1966	COMMONS
What is that but compulsory arbitration of the worst kind?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was exactly the same in your bill of 1958.


John George Diefenbaker: I wish you would get over that Smallwood approach. Clause 10 continues:
(b) providing for the powers of the board of arbitrators appointed under paragraph (a), the procedure to be followed for the purposes of arbitration, the form in which decisions of the board shall be set forth and for giving effect to any decision of that board, or by the chairman of the board where no majority decision is reached.
(2) In the event that a board of arbitrators is appointed under paragraph (a) of subsection (1) and decides any matter not agreed upon between a railway company and a union at the time of its decision, the collective agreement to which this Act applies between the railway company and the union shall be deemed to be amended by the incorporation therein of such decision, but nothing in this section shall be deemed to limit or restrict the rights of parties-
Sir, in 1950, the government of which some hon. members opposite formed a part, imposed compulsory arbitration. Again tonight, as so often in the past, the Prime Minister gave vocal support to the maintenance of collective bargaining while at the same time bringing in compulsory legislation that would not have been necessary if the government had acted in time.
Sir, it is ten o'clock.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker-


John George Diefenbaker: Before the hon. gentleman speaks, Mr. Speaker, may I recall that I said to the Minister of Transport I would be glad to answer his questions. I am ready.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, since the opposition have indicated their desire to get on with this debate I would ask if the house would consent to permitting the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) to conclude his remarks.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, don't give me any particular grace.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure there will be unanimous consent for that, because this is a very urgent situation.


John George Diefenbaker: I am glad to note at last that the Prime Minister regards this as an urgent situation. He delayed, and dillied and dallied for months, but I am very glad that at last tonight he realizes the seriousness of the situation.
DEBATES	7787
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Lester Bowles Pearson: Carry on.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand that the right hon. gentleman who has the floor has called it ten o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to remind the proper authorities of the presence in Canada of a French Canadian population. At the time I asked it, my question had to do with the National Capital Commission and unilingual members of the R.C.M.P.
It happens quite often that French Canadians from Quebec or other provinces come here, in the Ottawa-Hull area, and cannot speak to the authorities in their own language even though our constitution recognizes bilingualism, especially within the central government.
Now, we have been behindhand for many years. If we stress that fact, it is neither through ill will nor through discrimination but to find a positive way of making Canada a pleasant country to live in, where the two cultures and the two nations feel equal, especially in this Canadian Mecca, the federal capital, the Ottawa-Hull area. Mr. Speaker, if we raise this question periodically, it is because we would like the government to settle it permanently instead of always putting off its solution indefinitely. It would be easy for two great cultures closer to one another. Well, I am quite willing to give the hon. member for Lotbiniere credit for his aspirations and enthusiasm, but I would much prefer to see constructive action, especially as far as this area where we live is concerned. You will find here citizens from all parts of the present government to act along those lines. In various circumstances, it has been said both here and outside the house that the government is in favour of that idea. I recall that during the debate on a bill dealing with culture, the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) identified the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) as the man who would galvanize the future of Canada and bring the
August 29, 1969
7788	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Canada, from Halifax to Vancouver, and it is most pleasant to live here and to get to know one another. However, we would like the culture and the language of the two great nations to be considered on an equal footing here, in the Ottawa-Hull area.
As far as the R.C.M.P. is concerned, one must not be afraid to state the facts. There have been difficult technical problems and it is quite possible that French Canadians who joined the force in the past with certain aspirations failed to demand that their rights be respected. They realized that to go up within the R.C.M.P., they had to refrain from speaking French, they had to speak English and accept the general understanding that they abandon their language and forego their characteristic.
Today, however, in view of the new dynamism of the French Canadian people which was so concretely expressed in the new orientation taken by Quebec, which seeks to work with the whole of Canada instead of separating from it, we would like the federal government to act. I do not know which minister will reply, but I would like to get a precise answer.
We are often given evasive replies in the house. We always have to come back on the same subjects to get explanations and details. Why could we not, once and for all, get from the responsible minister or the parliamentary secretary an assurance, a firm and definite statement in that respect? I see that the Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell) is in his seat. He is probably the one who will answer. Well, I hope that for once we will be given in good faith a clear and accurate statement concerning bilingualism within the R.C.M.P. and the assurance that immediate steps will be taken to give the French speaking population the prerogatives to which they are entitled at the federal level of administration.
We do not have the feeling that we are asking for something which is out of the ordinary. We only demand that the rights of French Canadians be respected. Our group does not feel superior to the other but wants to have its own say.
I have often had the opportunity of putting written or oral questions to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) whom I see in his seat. I have also asked questions of the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Teillet) concerning veterans hospitals but tonight the R.C.M.P. is involved. When can we get a straight answer, a firm policy, an effective policy, here in Ottawa?
[Mr. Allard.J

When can we obtain justice, when will we achieve equality of the two great cultures?
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I must interrupt the hon. gentleman to remind him that his allotted time has now expired.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, first of all let me say that I commend the hon. member for the very moderate tone in which he has dealt with this important subject. I should in all fairness also put on the record the fact that the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron) has raised the same point on numerous occasions with members of the government.
I am sure that we require more bilingual members in the R.C.M.P. not only to carry out important duties in the national capital, but elsewhere in Canada. We all agree that an increase in the number of bilingual members will make the R.C.M.P. a better force. At the present time we are supplying as many bilingual members as it is possible.
I am sure that the hon. member who raised this question will be encouraged by the fact that we have increased the amount of advertising in the French newspapers and periodicals in an effort to overcome this difficulty. In conclusion I am also certain that he shares with me the earnest hope that our efforts will be fruitful in this regard.



NATIONAL DEFENCE-COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION OF INTEGRATION MEASURES

J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker,
if I may be permitted to preface my very brief remarks before my analysis of this situation, let me assure the Minister of National Defence that it is indeed most urgent, notwithstanding the indication he has had as a result of a survey of men and officers. The indication I have received is quite to the contrary and represents something of the order of 1,733 communications received which oppose this general area of integration that is of concern.
Men in the service, particularly those in Halifax, largely belonging to the navy and to a lesser degree to the air force and army, require among other things a real assurance from the minister and the government that in the event of legislation being passed by this house which brings about integration in its fullest sense they will be free to decide either for or against re-enlistment without fear of financial, pension or other penalty which may
August 29, 1966	COMMONS
result from re-enlistment on other than a free basis. These men should be free to make this decision because in their minds and in mine such action by this government would be tantamount to nothing less than conscription. The men in the armed forces are really concerned about this. The minister must demonstrate to them that integration will in fact bear out his two premises, first that it will bring about a more efficient armed force, and second that it will save money, which money the minister has indicated could be converted into capital equipment.
The minister must-and again this is a point that has been stressed in hundreds of communications-restore to the services the respect due to the office he holds. He must somehow use every force at his disposal to allay the growing fear and suspicion-and it is a voiced suspicion-that he is bent on pursuing a political course and not a defence one. He must permit those of us in the defence committee to conduct a detailed examination of the progress of full integration and unification to date. The men in the armed services are entitled to such an examination prior to the introduction in this house of legislation leading to integration and unification.
We were denied the opportunity to deal with the effects of integration because of the abandonment of the defence committee hearings some two weeks prior to the adjournment of the house. I might add that this action took place against the expressed wish of the steering committee of the defence committee.
I ask the minister, as I tried to do earlier in the house today, whether he will now advise the members of the house and the people of Canada, particularly those serving in the armed forces, when he will reconvene the defence committee and place before it the question of integration as it has taken place in the armed forces to date. I cannot stress the gravity and urgency that goes hand in hand with this decision.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if the first piece of business to be handed to the defence committee this fall is the legislation dealing with integration, the minister will not be able to stop the flood of mail. I also suggest to him that the opinions expressed in this mail will be strongly reversed. I believe it is quite easy to understand why these men are reluctant to express their real and heartfelt feelings about the lack of communication with regard to integration, their loss of identity, and so on. These are meaningful things to the men in
DEBATES	7789
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion the armed forces. Very few of them-and I admit this-are opposed to integration in some form, to some extent. If the minister had not dealt in such a pragmatic way with such a vital area of concern I think he could have achieved the full support of the services.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
Today he certainly does not enjoy the full support of the men serving in the Royal Canadian Navy. One of the ways in which he can achieve this is to start telling them what is taking place, why it is taking place, and to demonstrate to them that his premises are accurate. I do not believe them to be accurate and I believe that the sooner this matter is put before the defence committee for a proper and adequate hearing, the better.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am surprised, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Forrestall) has the temerity to stand in his place and to say that the standing committee on defence was denied the opportunity to investigate the results of the integration processes today. They met for weeks and that was precisely what they did consider. At meeting after meeting, the commanders from the various commands expressed what the integration process had meant in terms of their command, the progress that had been made to date, the savings that had been made, and the savings and advantages which were anticipated in the future. My hon. friend should have asked his party to put him on that committee. I doubt that even yet he has read the evidence of all those meetings at which the commanders were present and at which they gave this report for which he is asking.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: There is nothing after June
22.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This was a full and complete report which by and large satisfied the committee that great progress had been made, that the integration plan has been implemented well so far, that it is on schedule, and that there are real advantages, both from the military standpoint and from the standpoint of saving the taxpayers of this country a great deal of money.
In reply to his suggestion or charge that this is a political operation I should remind him that this policy was laid down as government policy, as the policy of the government of the day, in a white paper presented in March, 1964. The reasons for the reorganization were given there. It was stated that the reorganization would commence with the integration at the headquarters and that this
August 29, 1966

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion would be the first step toward a single, unified defence for Canada. This white paper was studied by the then special committee on defence and a unanimous report was made to this House of Commons in support of the general policy as outlined at that time.
For some people to make the discovery all of a sudden of what is intended, as if it were news to them, having failed to take into consideration the policy of the government as laid down at that time and as it has been implemented since, is surprising indeed and makes one wonder if as members of parliament they had been as diligent in their responsibility as they should be. I can assure my hon. friend that when the legislation is introduced in the House of Commons later this year and when it is referred to the committee on defence, full opportunity will be given for discussion, that the details of the plan will be outlined, that in the meantime they will have been made available to the
members of the armed forces, and that there will be ample opportunity for all hon. members and all interested groups to study it, and to pass judgment in respect of it.


Mr, Forreslall:: Are we to wait until
Christmas?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I hope not and I hope the work of the house will be expedited to allow for consideration of this matter.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: May I raise a point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker? The minister stated that the special committee on defence gave unanimous approval to the white paper. That is patently false. This was a majority report, and the minister is not aware of the views of various members of the committee. Therefore he cannot come forth in this house and say this was a unanimous report.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.25 p.m.

Tuesday, August 30, 1966