1966-09-01

CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of Stale):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday one of the hon. members from Edmonton asked if I would table in the house the regulations which have been issued by the centennial commission with respect to grants to authors and associations, and I indicated I would be glad to do so provided it was in compliance with the rules of the house. By consent I am now proposing to table, in English and French, copies of the brochure on the grants program containing those regulations.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is he in a position at the moment to express a view as to the general attitude that Canada, as represented by him, will take at the forthcoming Commonwealth conference of prime ministers? I am not asking him for a particularization but for an assurance so there will be no misunderstanding that, as far as Canada is concerned, there will be no resort to force, participated in by Canada, in respect of the Rhodesian situation.
We have not been able to get a definite statement in that regard and it is an assurance that I hope the Prime Minister will be able to give. At the same time, may I again suggest to him that he advise us that he will represent Canada at that conference. I think it is most necessary that the Prime Minister be there. If there is anything we can do so that he or the government will not be prejudiced by his absence, we shall do it. I want to see the Prime Minister at that conference.
Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I think the most important thing that could be done to make it possible for me to go to the conference would be to get the railway strike bill disposed of in the house as quickly as possible so that the national emergency might, we hope, be resolved without delay. On that point perhaps the right hon. gentleman would permit me to postpone the statement that he has understandably requested until tomorrow at the opening of the house, when perhaps I could say something.
In the meantime today I think we should carry on with the railway legislation. That will give me a few hours to make sure of what I can say on the eve of such a very important conference, especially in regard to the use of force, on which we have already stated our views.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has said he would like to wait until tomorrow, and that is fine.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of our party I wish to say that we certainly hope it will be possible to conduct the business of the house so the Prime Minister can represent Canada at the Commonwealth conference. I think it is extremely important that he be there with his long experience in international affairs and with the very considerable prestige which he carries in Commonwealth circles.
I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether in making his statement tomorrow it would be possible for him to indicate whether Canada would support the idea of having sanctions imposed by the United Nations under the aegis of the UN charter, in the event the Commonwealth prime ministers become convinced that the type of sanctions now being imposed have proven, and may continue to prove, ineffective.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in a statement of this kind I would wish to include all relevant pieces of information; I would like to tell the house everything I possibly could about the economic aspects of this problem which is so important. Having regard to the fact that we are on the eve of a conference, the position of the commonwealth nations at
September 1, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry that conference will have to be worked out in the light of the decisions taken by them there. My hon. friend knows that the adoption of a rigid position before a conference sometimes is a handicap in obtaining agreement.


Mr. Real Caoueite (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. I also hope that the Prime Minister will be able to attend the commonwealth conference, in the interest of the country, of the commonwealth and of all member countries.
I believe the question of inflation will be discussed during that conference since inflation is rampant in Great Britain, as well as other commonwealth countries. The same situation prevails here in Canada.
Now, can the Prime Minister tell the house whether he intends to suggest, during the discussions, a comprehensive review of the financial system, which seems unsuitable in the circumstances?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I would think this is a subject which will not be on the agenda at this conference. It may come up, however, in discussions among the delegates from the countries all of whom are concerned with and affected by this problem. But there is a meeting of the International Monetary Fund in September and that specifically, definitely and importantly is on the agenda. All the countries will be represented at that conference by their ministers of finance.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Finance and Receiver General of Canada.
In view of the statement by the Prime Minister, a while ago, that a meeting of the members of the monetary fund will be held in a few weeks, is it the intention of the minister to include among the delegates to this important meeting, an exponent of the Social Credit doctrine.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I shoud like to address another question to the Prime Minister. In view of the acceptance last evening of the amendment to the railway bill which is now before the house, is the Prime Minister in a position to say whether the union leaders will also accept that? Is there any assurance that if parliament passes the bill there will be no question of general civil refusal to accept it?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak for the union leaders or all the people of Canada, but I have confidence in the law abiding character of the Canadian population. I also have confidence that the union leaders will discharge the duties imposed on them in this bill, if and when it becomes law.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the imminent expiration of the term of the secretary general of the United Nations and the reports that he will step down, I wonder whether the minister or the government has approached U Thant with the thought in mind that he should carry oh. Have the government or the Secretary of State for External Affairs used their influence in an attempt to convince U Thant that he should remain in office?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the secretary general is to make a statement some time this morning about his intentions. The government, through the Prime Minister and through myself as Secretary of State for External Affairs, has urged the secretary general to carry on in his post. There is widespread support throughout the United Nations for his continuation in that difficult and important task. I think I reflect the views of all members of this house and of the people of the country generally when I say that I sincerely hope his statement this morning will not close the door on the possibility
September 1, 1966	COMMONS
of urging him to continue the difficult and responsible job that is his. U Thant has won the confidence of the people of the world, and this occasion affords us the opportunity of confirming our view in this regard.



NATURAL GAS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, and in view of previous answers to the hon. member for Medicine Hat and myself. Because of the special legislation now before the house I am not asking that the minister make a statement now, but at an appropriate time will he make a statement as to why the pipe line route from western Canada to points in eastern Canada and the United States was vetoed by the government?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, a statement of that kind was made when the decision was taken and made public. I will be glad to table that statement in the House of Commons. No doubt there will be an opportunity to debate and discuss this matter at a later date.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the honourable and gallant Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the International Joint Commission's order of approval for an additional two feet of storage on Kootenay lake, primarily to meet the needs of the Kaiser Aluminum Company in the United States via Cominco, did the Canadian government assert its right's to the additional downstream benefits that will result from this storage and, if not, why not?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I will take notice of the question put to me by the gallant and chivalrous gentleman.
DEBATES	7937
Inquiries of the Ministry HEALTH AND WELFARE



MEDICARE-INQUIRY AS TO INTENTION OF GOVERNMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the questions being asked and the concern being expressed is the Prime Minister now in a position to reaffirm the government's intention to have medicare in effect by July 1, 1967?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, as soon as we complete consideration of the railway legislation it is my intention to make a statement in the house about the priority attached to the other pieces of legislation to be dealt with during this part of the session. The medicare legislation will be included in that list.



PENITENTIARIES


[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 Solicitor General. Is it the intention of the minister and his department to call for any further tenders for the construction of minimum, medium and maximum security prisons before the joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate can report on this matter, having regard to its terms of reference as authorized by both houses?


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, it may be necessary to proceed with some of the steps outlined for the ten year plan. But it will be up to the committee to study these plans and report back to the house. At that time the recommendations of the committee will be taken into consideration.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. The minister said it may be necessary to proceed with some plans. He has given a paradoxical answer in that some plans may be proceeded with but the committee will make a study and a report. Will the report be considered before plans are carried out?


Lawrence T. Pennell: I am not in a position to give that undertaking, Mr. Speaker. The medium security design has received almost universal
September 1, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry approval from all enlightened groups in this field. In my respectful judgment it would be a mistake to withhold proceeding on the ten year plan in so far as this design is concerned.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State.
In view of the fact that a certain number of people will be able to receive colour television broadcast to-day, is the Secretary of State in a position to tell us whether the residents of the towns of Chibougamau and Chapais will at least be given the privilege of receiving without costs black and white broadcasts?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that this question is not of extreme urgency in the present circumstances.



REQUEST FOR PROTECTION AGAINST FALSE ADVERTISING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the President of the Privy Council and ask whether the government has received a request from the Retail Merchants Association of Canada "seeking tougher federal. .. laws to shield the public from false and misleading advertising," as reported in the Globe and Mail of August 30. If such a request has been received, what action will be taken?


Hon. Guy Favreau (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, may I take notice of this question and answer it tomorrow morning?



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the

action that the government and parliament are taking regarding the wages of railway workers, will the government now reconsider the matter of improving the pensions of retired C.N.R. employees?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, that is not a matter that by any stretch of the responsibilities of the Minister of Transport would come within his jurisdiction, but I will bring the matter to the attention of my colleagues at the first opportunity.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister also telephone Mr. Donald Gordon?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think it is quite probable that Mr. Gordon will get the message without the necessity of any telephoning on my part.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS POSSIBLE ALTERATION OF FEDERAL EQUALIZATION PAYMENT FORMULA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether, following the meeting he had with Premier Thatcher of Saskatchewan regarding the possibility of salvaging part of the $35 million that Saskatchewan stands to lose under the new federal equalization payment formula, the government has given any consideration to alterations in that formula as projected; and did the minister say, as reported by Mr. Thatcher, that he would do his best to put the position of the government of Saskatchewan before his colleagues? Has the minister anything to report in this connection, and in particular will he give an assurance that the government has not yet arrived at any final decision on the question of alteration of the formula for equalization payments?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm the final words of the Leader of the Opposition in part but not wholly. What we have not finally agreed upon is what proposal to place before the premiers, so it is not necessary for us to make any alterations in any formula that has been put forward. We did ask some of our officials to visit the provincial capitals and discuss with them certain principles. Out of this Mr. Thatcher drew the inference that there would be no payment to Saskatchewan, but such was never intended and I do not think the province of Saskatchewan is going to find its position so drastically altered in
September 1, 1966

any proposal that we place before the provinces.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, this is a supplementary question which I wish to direct to the Minister of Finance. In some of the tax sharing agreements there has been a provision that a province will not get less under any new formula than it enjoyed under a previous agreement. Is it the intention of the Minister of Finance to retain such a provision in the agreement which he is going to submit to the provinces?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker; and I would question the interpretation that the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam has put on previous tax sharing agreements. However, in any event no such assurance will be given to any province. There has been a great change in the relative position of the provinces of Canada partly owing to the excellent administration of Mr. Thatcher since he came to office. There has been a great improvement in the financial position of Saskatchewan which cannot help but be reflected in the tax equalization payments.


John George Diefenbaker: Was it because of appreciation for the excellence of the Thatcher administration that the Prime Minister did not visit Saskatchewan on the occasion of the meeting of the Liberals of the three western provinces?



ACTION TO BE TAKEN FOLLOWING ASSISTANCE REPORT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address my question to the Prime Minister and ask him whether the matters concerning the Nova Scotia coal industry are still under active consideration. If so, will the government announce its intentions in this respect?


Lester Bowles Pearson: They are under even more active consideration than when the last question was asked concerning this matter, and I have no doubt that a conclusion will lie reached very shortly.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, possibly the Prime Minister could explain to the union, through the Minister of National Health and Welfare, what "very soon" means, since the $25 million grant was supposed to be made available last November.
Inquiries of the Ministry FISHERIES



BRITISH COLUMBIA-DAMAGE TO SALMON SPAWNING GROUNDS BY LOG RUN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: I wish to address my question to the Minister of Fisheries. I would like to ask him whether the government of British Columbia, despite its preoccupation with another matter, since the house last sat before the recess, has clarified or revised its position on the very important matter of resource management arising from the driving of logs on the Stel-lako river. In any event, can the minister inform the house as to the position of this matter at the present time?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the hon. member that since the house recessed in July I have been in communication with the two British Columbia ministers concerned. We have decided to have a meeting in the near future at which we will discuss this matter, and I am sure we can arrive at satisfactory conclusions.



MAINTENANCE OF RAILWAY OPERATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday August 31, consideration in committee 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. Pearson-Mr. Batten in the chair.
On clause 6-Terms of collective agreements amended.
[DOT] (10:30 a.m.)
Mr. Nicholson:: Mr. Chairman, last night I announced that when clause 6 came up for consideration I intended to move an amendment. I am sure that hon. members will understand, after the clear statement made by the minister of health and welfare and the further statement by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, that the intention was to implement the Munroe recommendations. I have never had any doubt in my mind, as Minister of Labour, nor have the officials of my department that in the end the 18 per cent recommended by Mr. Justice Munroe and later concurred in by another
September 1, 1966

Legislation Respecting Railway Matters experienced chairman, Hon. Mr. Cameron, would constitute a floor, I therefore move:
That clause 6 be amended by deleting the word "and" after the words "January 1, 1966" in line 29, page 3, and after the words "July 1, 1966", in line 30 and add, "an additional 4 per cent effective January 1, 1967, and an additional 6 per cent effective July 1, 1967."


John George Diefenbaker: to the opposition of two parties in this house. Public opinion forced a change. Therefore, because of its material importance, I ask that parliament now be made aware of what has passed in this connection.
Second, will the government, realizing as it does that this very recommendation has been turned down, also place before us as part of this bill certain of the fringe benefits in connection with job security, recommended by the several commissions, and also the recommendations of the Freedman report which can be, in the opinion of the government, implemented?
I would think that if the government wants to bring together this nation in a dedication to unity in our industrial and national life- and in this regard there is a terrible responsibility upon us-then parliament must not produce a bill that is challenged in anticipation.
I am not going into the details of what I have in mind, but I would say this. I do not like using the word "implore", but I would implore the government to offer something more than this one provision-a provision which has already been turned down-so that labour in all parts of Canada will have removed from its mind and heart the fear of a continuing reduction in jobs by reason of automation. We have to accept automation; to take any other stand is to try to hold back the advances of time.
I make this appeal not in a partisan way; I make it for the purpose of trying to do something to assure that the laws passed by parliament will be carried out. You cannot pass laws if there is a national feeling that those laws are lacking that degree of justice and equity which should characterize the laws of parliament.
I would ask the government to make a declaration in this regard. We do not want to place the parliament of Canada and the House of Commons in the position where a law fails to bring about not only support for the legislation but a feeling of amity, coupled with the desire to fully co-operate.
I believe if the government would just add the expression of a general principle regarding this important matter of job security, the matter of sickness, holidays, and so on, without going into any detail in relation thereto, this would go a long way toward placing before the Canadian people the unity which this parliament must try to achieve, the government now having finally agreed with the contentions raised by this party from the very beginning in the opening speech, the
DEBATES	7941
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters only speech made on the subject from our side. I hope, Mr. Chairman, that together we will be able to bring about a statute that will assure a degree of peace in respect of the industry to which this legislation applies, and I therefore ask the minister to give consideration to what I have said. I do not want to go into detail. I ask not for a simple declaration of hope and expectation in relation to the negotiations, but for a declaration of principle, namely that in negotiation certain general principles shall be accepted. If we are given that, then if this bill becomes law, as it is apparent it will, we will have behind it not only the prestige and power of parliament but as well the general acceptance of all Canadians, labour and non-labour alike.
[DOT] (10:50 a.m.)


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I do not wish to embark on a contentious debate at this point but I am somewhat at a loss, because last night I understood that the hon. member for Kamloops was speaking for his party, and in the course of his remarks which appeared in Hansard at page 7921 he said:
I congratulate the minister and the government for having made a sensible move with which we concur and which we have been urging for some time.
Then on page 7922 the hon. gentleman made a statement which I think is somewhat different from what the Leader of the Opposition proposed this morning. As reported in the first paragraph and subsequently on page 7922, the hon. member for Kamloops said:
It is my understanding, Mr. Chairman, that of almost the same, if not equal concern to the employees as the matter of wages are the conditions of work or what one might call fringe benefits on the one hand and the recommendations of the Freedman report on the other. I am not suggesting for a moment, and it is not the position of this party for one second, that everything demanded by one side in the dispute has to be conceded before operations or negotiations are resumed. May I make that clear. On the other hand, I should like to make very clear that it is my view that the men who work have very legitimate and real concern in that at the moment they have no assurance that any consideration will be given, or that any bargaining in good faith will be undertaken with respect to those two very important aspects or areas of employment. What they are asking is not that parliament should write the details of a settlement into this legislation but rather that we should undertake to these men that as a condition of their resuming work the mediator will be directed, and indeed will be required, to give attention to these matters and to have the parties bargain in good faith with respect to those two areas that I have mentioned. If we could get some assurance from the minister and
September 1, 1966
7942	COMMONS
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters the government either by way of amendment or statement as to what will be the policy that will be laid downand so on.


An hon. Member:: That is what he said just now.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: The hon. member for
Kamloops said "or statement from the minister". Again, at page 7923-and I do not wish to become involved in an argument at this stage-I said, as reported:
I think the quickest way to answer the constructive observations made by the hon. member for Kamloops would be to refer to clause 9 of the bill which states:
1. The Minister of Labour shall appoint a mediator or mediators ... who shall forthwith endeavour to mediate the matters in dispute- That is, the matters in dispute in all five of these conciliation proceedings.
And I then gave the assurance which was asked for, and I thought that it was satisfactory to the right hon. gentleman.


John George Diefenbaker: I ask the minister this. Why not place in the bill that general principle which has been enunciated? What we say in parliament is not effective when it comes to the interpretation of statutes. I am not asking for details. I am in no way tied down to the draftsmanship of the following, but I am asking that something along these lines should be contained in the bill, something in addition to that which is presently provided. For example:
-and that part of the collective bargaining to be undertaken shall include provision for discussion and negotiation between the railways and the unions concerning work changes elimination of jobs and general working conditions which may be affected by the introduction of technological or other changes.
As I say, I am in no way tying the government or the members of this committee to the wording or to the actual changes which should be made. I am simply asking that we should say, as a principle of parliament, that these are things which we believe to be of material importance. I do this because both industry and labour would then realize that these are matters which should receive first consideration. They are the responsibility of parliament.
The minister says he accepts the general principle. He says he has given an assurance of this by his words in this house. Surely he realizes-and this is in no way critical of the minister-that when different ministers say different things it becomes important for the


average person not to misinterpret one or the other. I am simply asking that the government give consideration to incorporating within the statute something along the lines I have suggested so that when this bill becomes law we shall not need to look back and see what the minister said in Hansard at page 7923 or whatever page it is. How ridiculous that would be. Instead, we would have in the legislation the enunciation of the principle which he supports, as he stated in the quotation he has made, as being a general principle acceptable to parliament. We would be able to say "This is the law".
As a result of our stand a change has been made from the 4 per cent and 4 per cent to the actual terms recommended by Judge Munroe. I know that something sacrosanct attaches to the words the minister may have spoken. I agree with what he said. Let us incorporate this principle in the statute so that nobody need go to the words of one minister or another to know what is to be done. In saying this I am in no way casting aspersions on the complete integrity of the minister, but the hon. gentleman cannot speak for parliament. He can only speak for himself and, we expect, for the government.
I am asking that the principle concerning which the minister was quoting himself with approval as a stand dedicated to it should be incorporated in the legislation so that it may be known to everyone in this country who looks at the statute, rather than appearing on some page in Hansard where a declaration of that principle is made.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I should like to point out to the right hon. gentleman that the legislation already provides in subsequent clauses for precisely what he has suggested. With regard to technological changes, I gave an assurance last night as reported at page 7923.1 said:
With regard to the Freedman report, the committee already has the assurance given by the Prime Minister earlier this evening and when we reach the relevant clause later I am sure this matter can be cleared up.


Mr. Lewis:: I rise to say a few words on the amendment which is proposed because I believe there are some matters which it would be useful to have on record.
To begin with, I wish to say we welcome the amendment the minister proposes. Like others in this committee, we were intending to move such an amendment had this not been done by the government. I welcome it, regardless of the motivation, or the occasion, for its production. But I respectfully and
September 1, 1966	COMMONS
urgently suggest to the government and to the Minister of Labour in particular that we are not likely to make the change any more acceptable to the workers by insisting on something which is not the case, namely by insisting that it is merely a clarification of what was already in the bill.
[DOT] (11:00 a.m.)
It is nothing of the sort unless the minister has some other amendments in mind. It is a change in the principle of the bill, and that it is a change in principle is evidenced by the statements made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare the other night and by the words used a few moments ago by the Minister of Labour. The latter explained, when the amendment was moved-and I am not a shorthand writer-that neither he nor the officers of the department had any doubt that eventually the 18 per cent would be accepted.
What the minister has in mind, and what the Minister of National Health and Welfare surely meant the other night when he said he had no doubt 18 per cent would be the ultimate basis of the settlement, was that the 18 per cent was to be a ceiling. That is what the minister had in mind.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is absolutely untrue.


David Lewis: I suggest there is no other way of reading the words of the minister and the words of the Minister of Labour just a few moments ago.


Mr. Greene:: May I ask the hon. member a question. I wonder if he could tell me whether he agrees with the words of the hon. member for York South, as recorded at page 7846 of Hansard, of August 30:
Mind you-
-speaking of the Munroe recommendation

-from my practical experience 1 cannot imagine that any arbitrator would go below that recommendation-


David Lewis: That was a very charming way of asking the question, and let me inform the Minister of Agriculture that I intended in about two seconds to refer to that statement.
I was going to refer to it when making some remarks on the statement made by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Of course I said it then, and I say it now.
I also said, if the minister had read on

though I am not accusing him of deliberately leaving it out-that there is not any guarantee in the bill. But now there is a difference
DEBATES	7943
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters between the two situations. I am not making this point for debating purposes. If the government wants to look on every remark that is made in that light it may do so, but I am making the point that the bill, as amended, will be more acceptable to the workers rather than before when the government tried to suggest to them that the 18 per cent was guaranteed even though it was not in the bill. Now they know they do not have to start arguing about that before a mediator.
The difference between the bill previously and the amended version is that the previous bill meant that when the unions and railways got together to negotiate, the railways would have taken the position that they could not afford any money for 1967. The unions would then have made their particular demands and the argument over the 10 per cent already recommended by Mr. Justice Munroe would have started all over again.
That is a terribly important difference and members of the government will do their bill, and their action in amending it, a great deal more good and will make the bill much more acceptable if they stop trying to save face, something which is not very important, and point out to the workers that the change which has been made is a change in principle and a change in effect. Then the workers will see that what the government has done was done with sincerity and that its intent was to end the strike in a proper way.
That is why I make this appeal to the government. Do not say this is merely a clarification, because then the men on the line will say "If that is so, we cannot get any more." It is the right of the railway workers to negotiate for something over the 18 per cent which they have already rejected and against which they went out on strike. That is important in order to persuade them to go back to work and obey the law properly.
That is why I welcome this amendment, not merely because it achieves the 18 per cent but because it sets 18 per cent as a guaranteed floor, and the striking workers may hope that they will be able to persuade mediators and arbitrators to increase that and therefore the strike will not have been in vain with respect to the wage item.


Mr. Marchand:: You stated that the workers went on strike on the Munroe report. Is that what you said?


David Lewis: I said that they rejected the recommendations of Mr. Justice Munroe and went on strike against them.
7944	COMMONS
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters


Jean Marchand: But they did not go on strike on Mr. Justice Munroe's report, because it was never offered to them by the companies.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: May I say without, I hope, being insulting, that the distinction which the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration just made is precisely the kind of casuistry in which he engaged in his speech yesterday; pure sophistry, Mr. Chairman.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman permit me to ask him a question. He said, if I heard him aright, that the Minister of National Health and Welfare said this 18 per cent would be a ceiling. Would the hon. gentleman in fairness, and without sophistry, give us the precise reference in Hansard that bears that out, because I cannot find it.


David Lewis: I very carefully gave the actual words which the Minister of National Health and Welfare used. I did it from memory but I am confident he said this would be the ultimate basis of settlement.


Some hon. Members:: Basis.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman read the minister's words instead of putting his interpretation on them?


David Lewis: I am not going to engage in that kind of discussion. I am going to put something before the committee-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, sit down.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to speak while this impolite and completely unacceptable behavior on the other side takes place. If they are going to shout I am just going to stand still, because I do not propose to engage with them in the undignified sort of shouting match in which they like to engage.
I want to say to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, who indicated yesterday that he had forgotten some of his experiences, that if the union committee had been willing to accept the 18 per cent recommendation of Mr. Justice Munroe, the likelihood is that the union nominee would have signed it and we would not now be in this position. Therefore, if the union nominee did not sign it and the unions did not accept it, this means they struck against the particular recommendation that was made.
I listened yesterday to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration with admiration

DEBATES	September 1, 1966
and sadness; admiration for his great eloquence and passion, sadness that they were used to make an elaborate and agonizing rationalization for a position that must have been untenable to him. Each one of us feels he has to do the things he believes himself impelled to do. If that is what the minister wanted to do it is, of course, his right. During the course of his speech, in reply to an interjection of mine, he said there are two kinds of commitments, one a legal guarantee and the other a moral guarantee, and he waxed eloquent about the second.
There was once a labour leader in this country, a man now dead, whose name was Silby Barrett. He was a miner with a definite, characteristic way of speaking. He used to tell us that when he was engaged in negotiations and the employer said to him "You don't have to write everything down, we can have a gentleman's agreement," his reply- and I am using his rather picturesque language-was, "Every time an employer says that to me, I says to him a verbal agreement ain't worth the paper it's writ on."
Lest anyone think Mr. Silby Barrett was wrong I remind the committee that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration talked a great deal about precedents. Let me draw to his attention a precedent recorded in Hansard. In 1950 there was a railway strike, and among the union groups involved were hotel employees and water transport employees and their organizations. During the time the bill to end that strike was before this house in 1950 the C.C.F, members at that time, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, the late member for Vancouver East at that time, and Mr. M. J. Coldwell, drew to the attention of the prime minister of the day, Mr. St. Laurent, that a section of that act was ambiguous and ran the danger of leaving the hotel employees and the water transport employees out on a limb, and that they would not be treated in the same way.
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)
In answer to these charges raised by members of the C.C.F., Mr. St. Laurent, the then prime minister, at page 75 of Hansard for August 30, 1950 said:
They-
Referring to the hotel employees and the water transport employees.
-are not being discriminated against in any way. The government, in the bill which it recommended to parliament, has treated them in the same way as the other unions, namely, as one unit; and everything that binds the arbitrator
September 1, 1966

with respect to any one binds him as much with respect to those two small groups as it does to the others.
Later on in his remarks he said:
It may be that they would agree on different terms of contracts or on different arrangements.
Then the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre interjected and said:
Let us have this clear. The Prime Minister Just said that the arbitrator is bound in his dealings with the hotel and water transport workers in the same way as in his dealings with the others.
He said something more and in answer to that Mr. St. Laurent said that he would not like to discuss those details. The hon. member had referred to some details. Mr. St. Laurent continued:
.. . but in the recomendation we made to parliament and in the bill itself we have attempted to treat as one unit all those involved in this *dispute. On all of the points in which we have provided expressly, we have stated the arbitrator cannot undo what we are doing.
The unions came before the arbitrator, Mr. Justice Kellock. At the very beginning of the discussion the leader of the railway unions, Mr. Hall, drew his attention to the statements of the prime minister. Mr. Justice Kellock in connection with the principles of the interpretation of statutes said:
The principle is that you get what parliament Intended from the statute, that the statute is the collective decision. You do not take what some individual said in discussion.
As a result, when the award was brought down by the arbitrator the hotel employees and water transport employees received a smaller wage increase; their contract was for a different term, and they did not get the 40 hour week which the railway workers got. That is your moral guarantee, made at that time in all good faith, I am certain, and with the utmost sincerity, I am certain, by the prime minister of that day. When you interpret a statute the only kind of guarantee is to have it in the statute. That is the reason I am glad the government has accepted the representations made not only in this house but made to the Prime Minister and perhaps to the Minister of Labour by the leaders of the railway unions involved.


Jean Marchand: If you are trying to demonstrate that the moral guarantees do not exist, how then can you make the statements you have made?


David Lewis: I did not say they do not exist.
I demonstrated to the minister that they are not in all cases adequate, and that when you
DEBATES	7945
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters are dealing with a piece of legislation which is going to come before a tribunal which is going to have to interpret it, it is not only inadequate but is irrelevant. The arbitrator may say that he is not bound by what the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration says. He may say that the minister is a very fine gentleman but that the principles of interpretations of a statute are that the statute speaks for itself. Therefore it is of the utmost importance that it be in the bill. If it is not in the bill it is of no effect at all, and the most flowery and eloquent words of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration-and there were many of them-cannot possibly persuade any arbitrator that that is what the law is when in fact it does not say it.
Another reason I welcome the amendment is that it now can become, and I hope it will, the floor rather than the ceiling, and that the unions will be able to negotiate-and I hope they will succeed in the negotiation-something above that. Last night the Minister of Labour quoted from a conciliation board report which I had signed to the effect that I supported the durable goods standard. The other day I indicated that in my opinion the only way to avoid the possibility of strikes in the railway industry is to set up an objective standard by which the terms and conditions of work for railway employees are measured. We must have an outside comparison and that comparison must be-as I have said on many occasions and in a number of reports which I either wrote myself or which the chairman wrote and I signed-one which makes it clear that the employees of the railways are not subsidizing public policy. As I indicated the other day in respect of the new Railway Act it will be inevitable for decades to come that the railways will be required to carry certain freight at rates less than they might otherwise charge and will be required to carry on passenger services which in their view are uneconomic.
We will require that because Canada requires it. It is right that they should do so. But so long as we require it, so long also will it be necessary for all the people of Canada to make it possible for the railways to carry freight at less than the charge they would otherwise make. There is nothing wrong with the public treasury making that possible. That is the only way we can have a transportation system in Canada. We cannot run it any other way. Therefore over the years that I have been a member of railway conciliation boards, we have taken the position, which I
7946	COMMONS
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters think is a correct one, that you must have an outside standard of comparison, one which gives the railway workers an adequate return and decent conditions so they are not required to subsidize the decisions of public policy for Canada as a whole.
The durable goods standard was chosen. I hope members of the committee may forgive me if I put some of this history on the record. The durable goods standard was chosen, in the words of Mr. Justice Kellock in 1952, because it was comparable, he said, "as nearly as may be". At that time the comparison was between the average of the hourly earnings of all the non-op employees and the average of the earnings of all employees in the durable goods industry. This was in 1952.
As I suggested the other night, only in one year since 1952 have the railway employees been in a parallel position to that of the durable goods standard, namely in 1953. You will find this in the report of the union nominee, Mr. Crowe. Every year since then they have been paid between 4 per cent and 5 per cent below the durable goods earnings. The research worker for the railway unions informed the board of conciliation that according to his calculations this 4 per cent to 5 per cent below the standard, which they were told they ought to be able to enjoy, was equivalent for each of the 120,000 employees involved to $2,700 over the period.
Why were they below the durable goods standard? This also is of interest and it will take me only a minute or two to put it to the committee.
[DOT] (11:20 a.m.)
In 1954 the railway unions, looking at the situation in Canada-and this is the trademark of railway employees to some extent-found that the railway workers, except for a pension plan which was as good as most pension plans in the country, had none or almost none of the other fringe benefits. They had no statutory holidays in their contract, no medical plan and no sick leave provision. They decided in 1954 that they would ask for some of these fringe benefits. Being responsible unions-and some of their members have said to me that they are a little too responsible about this kind of thing-they decided to ask for fringe benefits only and not a wage increase, because the fringe benefits were going to be costly if they were to be granted. The result was that between 1952 and 1956, for

DEBATES	September 1, 1966
four years, the railway workers did not receive a single penny by way of a wage increase. That put them below the durable goods standard to a substantial extent.
When the board of which I was a member looked at the situation in 1956 the chairman decided-and I must say that rather reluctantly but in logic I had to agree with him-it was impossible in one fell swoop to wipe out the entire gap and an award was made that still kept them below the durable goods standard, and this situation was perpetuated.
What in effect has happened is that the railway workers and their unions have said in 1966, with the economy going full blast, with the railways' earnings at the highest level in their history making considerable, indeed, huge profits, this is the year they must catch up and get themselves in a position of real comparison with their likes in outside industries. In order to make the durable goods standard not only comparable "as nearly as it may be", but more comparable so that the comparison is really like with like, the unions proposed, and to me it is thoroughly logical, that the durable goods earnings be adjusted in respect of certain differences between the mix of the durable work force and the mix of the non-operating work force. This would justify a further increase in my opinion of 25 per cent. Thus I say to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration that in proposing a 25 per cent increase the other day-I was not bargaining-I did so because it seemed to me that what Mr. Crowe recommended, on the basis of the evidence of the unions, was entirely logical and right.
I could spend a good deal of time insisting, as the right hon. Leader of the Opposition has done, that the government caved in or gave in, and I agree with that position; but I suggest to him and to all other members of the house there is nothing I could add that would give the point more emphasis. What is important at this time-and I appeal to the government with all the seriousness I can command to believe that what I say is valid, now that this amendment has been made-is to make sure it is acceptable to the workers. In addition to the Freedman report and the other things that have been mentioned, the thing that will make it acceptable to them is a clear admission by the government and a recognition by parliament, by the news media and by the people of Canada, that what the law now provides is that the railway unions have a right to come before a mediator or arbitrator to seek a 25 per cent increase or an
September 1, 1966	COMMONS
increase anywhere between 18 and 25 per cent.
I appeal to the government not to insist that the purpose of this amendment is a mere clarification. It is not just that; it is a fundamental change in the principle of the bill.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: No.


David Lewis: The government must frankly admit that. I can say to the government members and other members of this house that in conversations with some of the railway union leaders, even since last night, I have pressed upon them that they should emphasize this fact to their members so the present bill is clearly understood and the action they may take, and I hope it will be the right action, is consonant with the present bill. I urge upon the government that they can help to make this bill acceptable if they recognize the fundamental change in principle their amendment has produced. In this way the workers will believe, rather than what they formerly believed-a belief which I shared, which other members of my party shared and which we had the right to share-that the government wanted to make the 18 per cent a ceiling-


Lester Bowles Pearson: Oh, no.


David Lewis: The Prime Minister says "Oh, no". I have never done anything but pay tribute to the Prime Minister's honesty. If the government did not intend what I suggest but intended what the bill now says I am delighted that at last he did what he intended to do. I am not going to prolong this kind of exchange, but it is just a pity that this was not made clear earlier. The result has been a development in the minds of the striking workers, whatever the reason may be-I am not speaking from guesswork-which will take a little work by the leaders to remove and change. The government can help remove and change that fear by frankly recognizing the fundamental change which is now in the bill. Never mind what was in the mind of the government; the fundamental change that is now in black and white in the bill should be admitted.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, -


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could be allowed to finish unless the Prime Minister is rising to ask a question. Because of certain words in clause 7 which may cast some doubt on whether a mediator or arbitrator will have the power to increase the per cent increase-I
DEBATES	7947
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters am not going into this in detail now because I would be out of order-I intend to move an amendment when we reach consideration of clause 10 in order to make it absolutely clear that nothing in the bill limits or restricts the powers of the mediator or board of arbitrators to award increases in addition to what is set out in the amended clause 6. I hope the minister will accept such an amendment so the workers will know beyond all doubt that this is precisely what the government intends, and will not have to read through all the sections of the act to find that out.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, the fears the hon. gentleman has expressed are apparently based on an invalid and unwarranted interpretation of what the minister of health and welfare said the other evening. I will not paraphrase or interpret what he said; I will read a part of his statement as it appears in Hansard at page 7852. The minister, speaking about this particular provision in the bill as it then existed, said:
It is a provisional interim settlement for 1966. The parties are free to change this figure through the process of mediation provided under this bill.
Surely that is clear enough. That process applies to any amendment covering 1967, and that should be obvious. If there is any doubt about that we should remove that doubt at once, but how can there be any doubt in view of what we have said? At the same page in Hansard the minister is reported as having said:
-it is unrealistic that any settlement reached through agreement or arbitration will be less than the total wage package.
This bill provides for a provisional settlement for 1966 and 1967 as recommended by Chairman Munroe. The parties are free to change this by mediation and, if mediation fails, by the arbitration process provided in the bill. When hon. members talk about the minister's statement being that this represented a maximum, which I think was the expression used-
[DOT] (11:30 a.m.)


John Whitney Pickersgill: A ceiling.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, a ceiling. When hon. members say the minister's statement was that this represented a ceiling, there is nothing in the minister's statement that justifies this.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In fact the reverse.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Quite the reverse, as I have just indicated. I regret very much that that
7948	COMMONS
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters interpretation has been given to the minister's statement and therefore given to this amendment, because it is an entirely unjustified interpretation.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I learned a long time ago, and I am sure the right hon. Prime Minister learned it long before I did, that when people argue about the interpretation to be placed on words it is rather an endless exercise. Let me merely say to the right hon. Prime Minister that whatever was in the mind of the minister, when the bill said-as it did-4 per cent effective January 1, 1966, and 4 per cent effective July 1, 1966, and said nothing more, it was perfectly legitimate to conclude that the fight after the bill was passed would be to get the additional 10 per cent instead of trying to get above it.
The workers were right to fear this wording, and I tell the committee without any hesitation that this is what I feared, and I saw myself arguing this question before the arbitrators. I have had the pleasure of arguing against the present president of the C.P.R., Mr. Sinclair, on a number of occasions; I have had the pleasure of arguing against other C.P.R. and C.N.R. counsel and-


An hon. Member:: "Pleasure"?


David Lewis: Well, Mr. Chairman, all lawyers enjoy arguing. After all, as hon. members heard the other night, that is what they are paid for. I have argued with those gentlemen and I know as certainly as anything that when the parties came before the arbitrator the railway would say that the law provides 4 per cent and 4 per cent, he was bound by that, and nothing could be offered for 1967. Instead of arguing before the mediator and arbitrator the question of increasing the 18 per cent, all the energy and attention would have been centred around getting the 10 per cent already recommended.
No one can deny that. That is the reason for the justifiable fear on the part of the unions. The Minister of National Health and Welfare said-and I would ask that nobody shout out his words because I know them as well as anyone-after the hon. member for Kamloops spoke, as is to be found on page 7856:
Mr. Speaker, the subsequent remarks which I made clearly illustrated that these further percentages were included. If I did not read them, I intended to read them. They should be part of the total picture, the total 18 per cent that will likely be the ultimate basis of the settlement.
I fully realize that the word is "ultimate"-

DEBATES	September 1, 1986


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, would my hon. friend mind telling me what he is reading from?


David Lewis: I am reading from Hansard.


Lester Bowles Pearson: What page?


David Lewis: Page 7856, the right hand column, fourth paragraph from the bottom. I will read it again:
Mr. Speaker, the subsequent remarks which I made clearly illustrated that these further percentages were included. If I did not read them, I intended to read them. They should be part of the total picture, the total 18 per cent that will likely be the ultimate basis of the settlement.


Paul Joseph James Martin: "Basis" of the settlement.


David Lewis: I appreciate-


Mr. McEachen:: Mr. Chairman-


David Lewis: May I conclude my sentence?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege.


David Lewis: May I conclude my sentence?


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. The Minister of National Health and Welfare has risen on question of privilege.


David Lewis: I am sorry. I didn't hear him.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I object very strongly to the use being made of this
excerpt from the Hansard report.


An hon. Member:: Did you say it?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Of course I said it. I said the 18 per cent would be the ultimate basis of the settlement. What is a basis? It is a foundation, not a ceiling. The hon. member is trying to suggest that the foundation is the ceiling. I made it absolutely clear in that statement that 18 per cent was a basis, a foundation for negotiation and arbitration. The amount could be increased above that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I also said, as is reported at page 7852 of Hansard:
Anyone who has any understanding of collective bargaining, as the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) has, will readily agree that it is unrealistic that any settlement reached through agreement or arbitration will be less than the total wage package.
Sepiember 1, 1966	COMMONS
What am I talking about? I am talking about a foundation, not a ceiling, and I object very strongly to the hon. member for York South making this obvious misrepresentation and distortion of my argument of the other evening.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: I am not surprised that the
minister objects. I have had the experience of saying things which I later tried to explain away.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David Lewis: I have had to do it and I
imagine that every hon. member of this house has had to do it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: I sympathize with the minister
about placing himself in that position, particularly since he made a speech with great eloquence and passion arguing that the bill was absolutely all right and needed no change, and now finds himself in the position where a change has been introduced which according to him was unnecessary. I can quite understand that he feels uneasy and uses strong language like "misrepresentation" and "distortion". I tell the minister that he can use any language he likes. I believed when I heard those words, I believed when I read those words, that they meant the minister intended that 18 per cent would be the settlement. If that was not his intention I am very glad to hear it was not. When I said what I did I was not misrepresenting, I was not distorting; I was saying what his words produced in my mind and what I know they produced in the minds of the railway unions and the labour people who were listening to them.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman-


David Lewis: If the minister wants to engage in an argument, we can do that; but everybody has said this bill should be passed as soon as possible and I do not want to delay it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David Lewis: I am not interested in pursuing this matter further, Mr. Chairman, except to repeat what I said, namely that the minister will serve the purpose of the amendment better by admitting that the amendment to the bill now makes the position clearer than it was before. It makes clear what he says he
DEBATES	7949
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters wanted to say, namely, that the 18 per cent was the floor and not the ceiling. If the minister and I agree on that fact, I am ready without any hesitation, for the sake of ending the strike, to stop accusing him of doing one thing or another. The important thing is-and this is my reason for referring to this matter-that the minister and his colleagues not undo the possible good which they did by the amendment by insisting that it was always the same thing.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Agreed. Let us go on.


Malcolm MacInnis: Stand on your desk after this, Allan; it's harder to pull the rug from under you.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Chairman, I want to make a few remarks on my own behalf and on behalf of my party, on the amendment to clause 6 which we hoped for whole-heartedly.
I shall not take too much of the time of the house, because too many speakers have done so since last Monday. I believe that if Canada's population had seen certain shows in this chamber, it would be very sorry for the behaviour of this house in such a case. It seems to me that the situation in Canada is too serious to engage in politicking, to play with words and to try and get out of a bill a meaning that is not in it and to try and gain popularity to the prejudice of labour and industry and of all those who call us on the telephone all day long to ask us to bring this strike to its conclusion.
[DOT] (11:40 a.m.)
Mr. Chairman, as far as our party is concerned, we have done all we could; only two of our members spoke and they simply expressed our general views on this strike and on what we expected of the government.
Mr. Chairman, the hon. Minister of Manpower (Mr. Marchand) told us that the question of wages and working conditions could not be wholly dealt with by this house. According to what we have heard in this house these last few days, I agree with the minister one hundred per cent that if a collective agreement had to be drawn up, it would take at least, two years, especially in the atmosphere now prevailing in this house.
I think that if political games could be stopped on both sides, discussions would be a lot more simple. But, unfortunately, you cannot prevent a politician from playing politics
7950	COMMONS
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters any more than a doctor from practising medicine.
One thing we can prevent, however, is excesses. And heavens knows that we have had our fill of excesses since Monday, Mr. Chairman; I hope the house will show some sense of responsibility so that the bill will be passed by this evening.
However, things would have been much simpler if the government had introduced clear legislation instead of getting lost in implications, clause 6 is a striking example. In fact, if the government had inserted in the bill right from the start what it was finally compelled to put in by way of amendment, the Minister of Manpower would not have been exposed to ridicule following the famous speech he made to try to make us see some moral sense in Bill No. C-230.
We understood his remarks to mean that he wanted to leave the final decision to those who are truly responsible and that was not so bad but it is even better when the legislation spells out that the immediate increase will be the basis of future negotiations and not a moral ceiling, as stated in the original bill and as claimed by some hon. members. It is mostly that point which caused 75 per cent of the misunderstanding and useless discussions.
Under the amendment, railway workers will then get an increase of 4 per cent retroactive to January 1966, another one of 4 per cent retroactive to July 1966, a third one of 4 per cent in January 1967 and an additional one of 6 per cent in July 1967. Contrary to what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) and others who seek to reap a political advantage from this, the amendment was not moved at the suggestion of the opposition; it was just simply proposed by the various boards.
That is why I stated at the beginning of my remarks that the debate could have taken only one day if the bill had been drawn along the lines of the board recommendations. It will remain for the mediators and the two parties concerned to make the final adjustments. If those terms had been as clear as they are now, we would already be considering the second bill.
But something else has me puzzled, since I met the members of the Canadian Brotherhood of Railway and Transport Workers which has 23,000 members. It is a wholly Canadian union but affiliated to the American Railway Workers Unions. That group is completely opposed to increases on the present

DEBATES	September 1. 1966
percentage basis, because once again that favours the highly-paid people.
Mr. Chairman, I have here the brief submitted by the Canadian Brotherhood which reads in part as follows:
The requests made by the Brotherhood are as follows
that all wage rates be increased by 90 cents per hour-
-that an employee with at least two years of service must not be laid off, etc.
The brief deals with working conditions, but our concern as regards clause 6 of Bill No. C-230 is the financial terms; therefore, I will not wander from the subject, like the Leader of the Opposition did so well last night. I will keep to the salary conditions. And to prove it, Mr. Chairman, the said 18 per cent which those who really need it, that is the small wage-earners, will get is equivalent to 20, 25 or 30 cents per hour, whereas the highly-paid people will get $1, $1.10 and $1.15 more.
I submit that it is precisely about that class of workers that we should think. To get a concrete example, I questioned a few workers. For instance, a clerk with a family, who has been working for the C.N.R. for 20 years, today earns $360 a month, for 174 hours of work, that is $2.05 per hour.
Another employee, who looks after the maintenance of a passenger train, earns $1.90 per hour after 15 years. An engineer earns $2.25 per hour after 40 years, and should he have an unfortunate accident like the one I mentioned last winter in my region, because he has to work under inadmissible conditions, the authorities of the C.N.R. hasten to give him a ticket. Another operating employee with 25 years experience earns $170 per week. It is a good salary, but he works 96 hours a week, which means $2.10 per hour. I would like to give you a host of cases in those classes of workers where clearly ridiculous salaries are paid, without talking about the conditions in which they have to live.
If you study the situation seriously, for some of them, the salaries are not adequate and for others, working conditions are not what they should be. On the matter of salaries, I prefer the proposal made by the Canadian Brotherhood of Railway Employees, namely an increase of 90 cents per hour instead of 18, 20 and even 30 per cent. I will go even further, Mr. Chairman, and say that to be fair and to give a equitable increase, that increase should be limited to wages of
September 1, 1966

$12,000 or less, in short, no increase should be allowed to those earning $12,000 or more, but 90 cents an hour should be given to those earning $12,000 or less. I think the proposal would be a great deal fairer.
Would the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) tell us whether that brief has been discussed during meetings with unions. It appears to have been ignored completely, since not a word has been heard about it since Monday. Were the voices of those trade-unionists who are, after all, 20,000 in number, neutralized under the power of American unions? I would like to know the views of the Minister of Labour in that respect.
As far as the requests of the Brotherhood are concerned, I trust their voices will be heard in committee and that the next mediator will allow the small ones as well as the big ones to have a say in the matter. We are, therefore, expecting the report which, according to the bill, will be submitted to us on November 15,	1966, to put forth proper
claims.
[DOT] (11:50 a.m.)
In the meantime, everyone should assume his responsibilities because Mr. Chairman, I am afraid that in that whole matter parliament is not alone responsible for this state of affairs.
If we consider the Canadian National authorities, the chairman, the directors, who are 11 in number, the administrators who are 23 or 24 in number, we wonder whether they are not responsible for the disaster. That is why I also ask the Minister of Labour, the cabinet which appoints those persons, which is responsible for them, to try to find out whether they treated the workers as they should have, whether they did not instead remain undisturbed in their ivory tower and left the workers struggle with their poor wages and abject working conditions.
I think the culminating point of all that matter is to be found more with management than with the workers. We now have a group of administrators who seem to consider only the fabulous salary. When we consider, for example, $75,000 a year, apart from expenses, which amount to about $100,000 for the president of the Canadian National, will someone tell me that the chairman of the Canadian National is greater, more competent, has more responsibilities than the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson)? And yet he is paid twice as much as the Prime Minister! Well, this is a democracy-I am told he is more competent-and I have to consider the position to
7951
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters which he was elected by the people, but, I think that if Mr. Donald Gordon were running in an election, he would not receive 250 votes. When we compare the salary of that man with that of the leader of Canada, I say that not one civil servant should draw more than the leader of Canada. And here, Mr. Chairman, I want to call the attention of the cabinet to the fact that that race for salaries must come to an end. Is there some collusion between them, because not a word is heard, not one blame is made, and that in any crown corporation. Take the C.B.C. it is the same thing. They raise their own salaries. At the end of the year, they have a deficit. When they have a deficit, when they are in trouble, as we have just had with the workers, then they come to us and say: Sirs, you are the friends of the people, come and protect us, come and pay the deficit, go before the union members and help settle our mistakes, while we continue to take it easy.
Mr. Chairman, I call the attention of the Minister of Labour, of the cabinet, of the whole cabinet and of parliament to these blood-suckers who are mocking us, mocking parliament with their catastrophic salaries and who help put crown corporations in the red. And we accept that. Yes, we accept that. No, Mr. Chairman, I say that this state of affairs must cease and that all should assume their responsibilities. If the responsibility for the current strike lies with the authorities, let them be judged and if they have to be fired, let them be fired. That is all. For there is not a man better prepared than the president and the directors responsible for C.N.R. transport more qualified to deal with the worker. He is in a position to know what he needs, to know the conditions, and to set him up in a humane position, in a social environment where the worker will enjoy life.
That is the duty of those who have been appointed by the government and who are responsible for the Canadian National. It may be nice to hold a job, to have all the salary and refuse all responsibilities. Mr. Chairman, I say it is the responsibility of the cabinet to look into this and force those in charge of crown corporations to settle the working conditions of labour, the working conditions of crown employees, and if they cannot agree, let us throw them out.
Throw them out. Period. Being uninformed about the detailed organization of these companies, members of the house are unable to form an opinion. That is why, as I said earlier, the Minister of Manpower (Mr. Marchand) was right in saying that it was not
7952	COMMONS
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters up to the members of the house to deal with collective bargaining because they were not qualified to do so. It belongs to those people. Let everyone exercise his rights, carry out his own duties and mind his own business.
I ask the Minister of Labour to consider this aspect of the problem during the committee stage and stop bearing down the members right and left. Some people claim that we are not settling the strike. But really, how can we go about settling a strike? What is the use of a disagreement between employers and workers? What business is it of ours, logically? If every man assumed his responsibilities, if C.N.R. authorities assumed their responsibilities, there would not be any strike, because, after all, we are politicians and in studying this matter, we realize it is simply ridiculous to linger over the question of salaries of the railway workers, because we pay a salary to those who remain idle and allow the workers to starve, those who operate the railways.
In addition, those people are constantly badgered by five or six inspectors and auditors. I note that top management comprises approximately one third of the employees. They are greenhorns, just out of university who come to inspect. I saw in my area three inspectors conduct a little investigation during a week at the railway station-I shall not give any name because they will get after them-and where the agent could have done much better than they did at no cost at all. But I would not have liked to pay the bill of those three puppies who strutted around town for a week.
There must be an end to this with regard to the C.N.R. I saw two employees working on the tracks and three "foremen" supervising their work. Well, now.-


Maurice Rinfret: I regret having to interrupt the hon. member, but I believe that he is entering into various administrative details whereas he should be speaking on clause 6, more precisely, dealing with wages.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, I believe I was precisely speaking of wages. Clause 6 deals with wage increases. I therefore say that present wages are completely inadequate; that is why I wish to call the hon. labour minister's attention and that of the cabinet on this matter. They will most probably hold a committee meeting, and when the committee discusses the matter I would like them to be aware of the opinion not only of the authorities, of the American unions, but also of that of a 100 per cent Canadian union,

DEBATES	September 1, 1966
the Canadian brotherhood of employees, with a strength of 23,000 members.
I therefore hope that the hon. minister will seriously consider what I have just said.
Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, we hope that the railway authorities will consider the MacPherson report which is not at all favourable to the workers and we also hope they will be honest enough to read and try to put into practice the Freedman report, which is much closer to the workers.
Mr. Chairman, I believe we will find in this report the solution to all strikes across Canada, in the coming years.
[DOT] (12 noon)


Mr. Olson:: Mr. Chairman, last night when the Minister of Labour announced his intention to move an amendment to clause 6 when it was reached, and then read the words of the amendment he intended to move, I suggested there were some defects in the wording if it were meant to give effect to what the Minister of Labour, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the Prime Minister were saying would be the intent of the amendment. As I read the amendment today I see there are still two serious defects in the legal terms which are required by statutes in order to achieve what I think the government and I am sure all members of the house hope will be the effect of the amendment.
In the first instance, I think the purpose of amending clause 6 is to provide a 4 per cent increase effective January 1, 1967 and an additional 6 per cent on July 1, 1967, not to amend the collective agreements which expired at the end of December, 1965. The clause put forward the minimum figure for arbitration purposes if arbitration becomes necessary.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I do not think it is right or proper to suggest that the intention is to amend clause 6 so as to change the collective agreements by statute and fix that percentage as the amount of the increase. Surely if we are to take seriously the statements which have been made by ministers both yesterday and today-and I hope I can take them seriously-this is to be a minimum figure, not a fixed amount.
There is one other serious defect in the wording of the amendment, and it is this. While it speaks of an additional 4 per cent effective January 1, 1967 and another 6 per
September 1, 1966

cent on July 1, 1967, I suggest it is possible, in view of the present wording of the clause, that some individual employees may not receive an 18 per cent increase. I suggest it is possible that the mediator or arbitration board could interpret the wording as setting an average increase of 18 per cent. Some employees might only receive 14 per cent or 12 per cent while others might receive over 18 per cent, but it would average out to 18 per cent. Since in my view that result is possible-and I have consulted some competent people in this matter-I think this would be a breach of faith so far as the workers are concerned and a violation of what is intended.
There has been far too much misrepresentation, if you want to call it that, or at least misunderstanding, up to this point of the debate about what parliament intends to do in connection with this dispute. Surely, Mr. Chairman, having now reached the stage where it seems that all parties agree that the intent of the amendment is good, we should use language which will avoid any breach of faith when the final arbitration decision is handed down, if things go that far.
I know there are differences in the amounts which should be granted to various categories or classes of employees. I think there are some who in justice should have relatively larger increases than others. But I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, to the government and particularly to the Minister of Labour that there is room above the 18 per cent minimum figure to make these adjustments. I do not think this parliament should now, after we have had all this difficulty, approve an amendment which will in fact legally allow an average increase of 18 per cent rather than provide an increase of 18 per cent as a guaranteed minimum to every single employee coming within the two categories under the collective agreements which are discussed in clause 6.
After the indication was given last night that this amendment would be introduced I telephoned a number of representatives of the labour unions and told them 1 thought they could tell their members that each one of them, if they went back to work, could expect to receive nothing less than at least an 18 per cent increase. They replied that if other considerations were referred to the mediator or arbitration board, relating to other fringe benefits, the question of job security and so on, they were of the opinion that the employees would probably accept
7953
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters them, would obey an order of parliament and would go back to work.
I think if we ask them to do that the language which is used should make it so abundantly clear that there can be no misinterpretation and none of them will find themselves three or four months from now with an increase of something less than 18 per cent; that this figure of 18 per cent was meant to be a minimum and that some employees would receive more than that figure. It would be disastrous for parliament to leave the impression that we are passing a law to guarantee this minimum if it does not turn out that way. As I said before, there is room above the 18 per cent for those categories of employees needing special consideration.
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)
I implore the Minister of Labour to do something about this situation. I have looked at his amendment and considered various means of moving a subamendment which would correct it to give effect to the proposal I have been making. It would take some time to do this because I think the proposal should be spelled out in detail so the mediator or arbitration board would be bound by it.
What I ask now is that the minister withdraw this amendment. This is the simplest way of handling the difficulty. If he wishes, he can have my amendment and move it himself. I do not care whether I move it or not. I believe it spells out what is intended. To support this contention I could quote from the speech made last evening by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I will quote a paragraph from the report which appeared in today's Gazette:
At one point, Mr. Marchand declared that If he were not convinced, utterly convinced, that the strikers could be certain of a wage increase interim settlement of "at least" 18 per cent, "I would oppose the bill."
Surely this means 18 per cent for each individual worker. The report of the minister's statement continues:
There was, he said, a "moral guarantee" to the railwaymen that nothing less would be available.
Then the Prime Minister himself is quoted as giving a similar assurance. In other words there is no thought that the total increase over the two year period will be any less than 18 per cent reached in four instalments, as recommended by Mr. Justice Munroe and Mr. Justice Cameron. I believe this is what is intended, and this is what the legislation should make clear. I do not have a copy of
7954	COMMONS
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters Hansard for yesterday-copies may be available now, but I could not get one a few minutes ago-but in today's issue of the Globe and Mail I see the following:
The Prime Minister told the commons that the government bill ordering an end to the strike had always been intended to ensure the minimum 18 per cent pay boost recommended by two conciliation boards.
Surely this means that the increase applies to every single employee and that the figure is not to be an average of 18 per cent so that some employees would find themselves given less. On this point I could quote further from the speeches by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It seems abundantly clear that every employee can expect a minimum of 18 per cent, but this is now what could be the effect of the amendment. I should like the minister to give this house a firm assurance that this amendment will guarantee every single employee a minimum of 18 per cent; or does he say it is only an average that we are talking about?
Again I ask the minister to do the simplest thing; to withdraw this amendment and bring in another which does meet the point I have raised. The amendment I have prepared says:
That the terms and conditions of any amendment or revision of the collective agreements to which this act applies, determined under the provisions of sections 8, 9 or 10 of this act, shall provide at least an increase of not less than 4 per cent and not less than an additional 6 per cent for the two respective dates in 1967.
We have had enough confusion, enough delay, misinterpretation and misunderstanding. Let us not now make any mistake concerning the terms which are binding on the arbitration board as a result of the instructions in this legislation. I ask the minister to make the changes for which I have been arguing.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I wish to thank the hon. member for Medicine Hat not only for his remarks this morning but for his contribution to the debate last night and for the material with which he supplied me. What disturbs me about the suggestion put forward by the hon. gentleman is this. We now have a formula produced by Judge Munroe and concurred in by Hon. Mr. Cameron, that is, 4-4-4-6. No one would disagree with the conclusion stated by the hon. member for Medicine Hat. I might refer to the clear statement made by my colleague the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

DEBATES	September 1, 1966
There is no doubt that over the two years they are going to get at least 18 per cent. There is not the slightest doubt about that. What is bothering us is this. I have had discussions with several union leaders, and in commenting on the Munroe formula some of them expressed the thought that in collective bargaining with or without a mediator, or in further discussion, they would like to be free to consider changes in that 4-4-4-G formula. For example, they might want it to be 5 and 5 or 6 and 4.
This amendment, which is based on precedents established by the St. Laurent government in 1950 and by the Diefenbaker government in 1958, puts in the provisional amount and leaves it open to the parties to negotiate further. The unions themselves have stressed the desirability of flexibility, the possibility of changing the percentages to be found in the bill.
However, in deference to the reasoned approach of the hon. member for Medicine Hat, and because I believe the situation he envisages can be covered more effectively in an amendment to clause 10 rather than to the clause now under consideration, I will be quite willing to make a suggestion. Let the parties mediate. Let them continue to negotiate, and if they wish to vary these things by negotiation, let them be free to do so. But the suggested amendment makes it clear that if arbitration becomes necessary there will be nothing less.
I suggest that we stand clause 6 for the time being, and I shall ask the law officers and the officials of my department to give this further study. I would even be pleased to have the hon. member for Medicine Hat discuss the matter with them. I believe that we must give the parties flexibility, if they decide by genuine collective bargaining that they would like to vary these terms, while at the same time making it clear that if it comes to arbitration nothing less than 18 per cent will be granted.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I would have no objection to an amendment to clause 10 that would give effect to the points I have been arguing. Could the minister tell us now before we pass clause 6 what amendment he intends to move to clause 10?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, my suggestion is to stand clause 6 until the law officers have had another opportunity of looking at clauses 6 and 10 together.
September 1, 19B6


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I accept that, but I want to make it as clear as I can that I personally, in view of the commitments that have been given, cannot accept any formula that would allow an arbitration board to have flexibility to make an award for any individual employee that would be less than the guaranteed 18 per cent minimum.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I do not want to prolong the debate. The hon. member's argument is persuasive. It has also been made by others. A commitment has been made by the government through two of its ministers, and since the sitting began this morning a proposed amendment to clause 10 has been sent to me in the chamber. I would like an opportunity to consider it further. I think it will accomplish the very purpose we have in mind to ensure the necessary flexibility, but if by chance arbitration does become necessary there would be no reduction in the basic and daily rates recommended by these two gentlemen. Therefore I suggest that we stand clause 6 and consider it jointly with clause 10.


Mr. Nugent:: I cannot see the purpose of standing clause 6. In fact I cannot see the value of the argument advanced by the hon. member for Medicine Hat. A clear reading of clause 6 shows that automatically on the coming into force of this law each rate of wages and basic daily rate is amended by increasing the amounts on the set dates. Each contract and each rate is automatically increased by the amount set forth. The workers may negotiate and get more, but these changes are clearly spelled out. I cannot see any force in the argument put forth by the hon. member.


Mr. Brewin:: The minister has suggested that an amendment to clause 10 is being drafted and has asked the hon. member for Medicine Hat to suggest amendments. Would he consider amendments suggested by other hon. members, because I have drafted an amendment to clause 10 which I believe meets this and other related problems.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I said that during the course of this debate a draft of a proposed amendment has been prepared. I would be glad to read that proposed amendment but I would like to have an opportunity to study it further.


John George Diefenbaker: This is an amendment to what clause?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: To clause 10, which says that any board of arbitration appointed under
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters paragraph (a) of subsection (1) shall not provide for reduction in any daily wage rate or basic wage rate suggested in clause 6.
We want to come out with something that will leave no doubt in the minds of the men when they are invited and encouraged to go back to work, but if as a result of further useful negotiation some of the unions may want to split one way and some another-if they want to try for a 5-5 or 6-4 formula- they must have the necessary flexibility.


John George Diefenbaker: I must say the argument advanced by the minister seems to be well founded. It is clear and definite, and in my opinion the suggested amendment would certainly cover the situation. To stipulate that in every case a certain course should be followed with the various unions would be to make a masquerade out of the proceedings. I wondered how an amendment could possibly cover the situation. I think this one does, and I do not think it requires very much examination.


Francis Andrew Brewin: In view of the suggestion that this matter be considered further I would like to put on record an amendment to clause 10 which I drafted and propose to move. It would add the following as subclause 1(c):
Providing that if the decision referred to in paragraph 10(b) is less favourable to the claims of employees in respect to terms or conditions of employment than the recommendations made by the chairmen of the boards of conciliation in respect to collective agreements to which this act applies, then the said collective agreements shall be revised or amended so as to comply with the said recommendations.
The effect of this would be not only to deal with matters of wages but to cover the point that the recommendations of the chairmen of the boards of conciliation would provide a level below which the final terms of settlement could not fall.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I must confess that I think such a suggestion would be contrary to the thoughts which I expressed last night and which were expressed by the hon. member for Kamloops, reflecting the position of the official opposition, that this course would be incorporating fringe benefits in legislation. There must be room for further negotiation. You would also be using not only the wage package, but also the fringe benefits as the springboard.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)
I would be glad to give further consideration to the suggestion, but I must say that my
7956	COMMONS
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters first reaction to it is not favourable, because again one of the parties would be getting the best of both worlds, and in a matter of collective bargaining you have two sides to consider, not just one. However, I will give the matter further consideration and we can deal with it when we are considering clause 10.


Mr. Baldwin:: If the minister is going to consult with his legal advisers I should like to make the suggestion that we might have an amendment to clause 6 or clause 10 to meet the point raised by the hon. member for Medicine Hat, by adding a further subclause in these words: Provided, however, that in the result the aggregate of the minimum increase to be figured by any employee-and I am using "employee" within the terms defined in the act-for the period January 1, 1966 to the end of December 1967 shall not be less than 18 per cent.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I will be glad to consider that suggestion. I must say my present view is that I am inclined to favour the suggestion prepared by the law officers who advise my department. I will be glad, however, to consider whether this is preferable to the one we have.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, since the minister will be considering this proposed amendment to clause 10 may I point out that unless there is some clarification concerning clause 7, so far as I am concerned the suggestion of the officers in his department does not cover the entire field. So far as it goes I think I agree with him that it is the simplest way to guarantee that it cannot go beyond the 18 per cent. I think this is simple language which the workers will understand; but what confuses me is that there is language in clause 7-


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Can we discuss clause 7?


David Lewis: There is language in clause 7 wich may be interpreted as meaning that the arbitrator cannot go above the figure. That is what I am concerned about.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I thought we agreed that clause 6 would stand and that we would look at clause 7.


The Chairman:: Does the committee agree that clause 6 and the amendment thereto stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Allard:: No.

DEBATES	September 1, 1966


Herman Maxwell Batten: The hon. member for
Sherbrooke.


Maurice Allard: Mr. Chairman, I understand that I may speak for a few minutes on the amendment moved to clause 6 (a).
If my understanding is correct, I may, at this stage, make a few remarks that I was not allowed to make up to this point, in view of the fact that the Chair had not yet recognized me, although it recognized other hon. members twice. I do not know whether the Chair is as near-sighted as I am, but I might put my strong glasses at its disposal-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. It might be just as well for the hon. member to confine his remarks to clause 6 and the amendment.


Maurice Allard: Mr. Chairman, before making a few brief remarks concerning the amendment to clause 6, which deals with the interim salary, I just want to call attention to a statement made earlier by the member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier), which the Chair allowed him to make, in which he criticized the very high salary of the president of the C.N.R., Mr. Donald Gordon. 1 wish to say that I support that statement. I would even go further and say that this particular gentleman should be dismissed from his post or else his term of office should not be renewed, as it was by the former government, since in their hearts the great majority of railway workers-


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order; are we now discussing clause 7 of the bill? I suggest that what the hon. member is saying has no relation to clause 7.


Maurice Allard: Mr. Chairman, if I may be allowed to answer the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson), the Chairman has allowed me to comment on the amendment to clause 6. I have the permission of the Chair to do so.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. When the Chair asked whether the committee agreed to stand clause 6, the hon. member for Sherbrooke objected. The question now is on clause 6, and I would ask the hon. member for Sherbrooke to confine his remarks to that particular clause and the amendment thereto.
September 1, 1966	COMMONS
tTranslation]


Mr. Gregoire:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order.
Previously, other members spoke about what the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard) is dealing with, precisely as concerns clause 6. Since the matter was brought up on clause 6 by members from other parts of the house and the Chair allowed it, I do not see why the hon. member for Sherbrooke should be prevented from dealing with the very subjects which were allowed by the Chair on clause 6.
Mr. Chairman, I know that the hon. member for Sherbrooke wishes to speak only a couple of minutes on that point and I feel the debate would be shortened if he were allowed to do so. Thus, everybody would be treated the same way, since the topic was allowed previously.
Personally, I have no remarks to make on any clause of the bill, precisely to hasten its examination. I intend to speak on the second railway bill, and since I have refrained from saying anything on the one which will then be law, I trust I will be allowed to speak on the other less urgent legislation.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. The Chair has no intention of interfering with the right of the hon. member for Sherbrooke to speak, but the Chair does expect the hon. member for Sherbrooke, as I am sure he expects all other members of the committee, to confine his remarks to clause 6 which is now before the committee.


Maurice Allard: I am pleased Mr. Chairman, to abide by your ruling.
The only unfortunate point that I want to raise-that ruling is valid and we must accept it-is that free scope was given in this house since the beginning of the sitting to other members who were able to deal with various matters not directly related to clause 6.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
But, with respect to the amendment moved this morning, I want to make a few remarks;
I want to express my sincere disappointment concerning the position and the procrastination of the present government which proceeds by trial and error and appears to this parliament and to the country as a weathercock, turning about and grinding according to the wind.
DEBATES	7957
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters
We met here for an emergency session, and Monday we were presented with a bill having three purposes, which I supported-we were asked on second reading to support it-and I did so with pleasure, in the public interest and especially because we understood that one of the three purposes was an interim salary increase which was merely a token gesture to create a climate, even though it behooves neither the government nor parliament to determine levels of wages between employers and employees in that conflict.
Last night the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Marchand), in his masterly speech which we applauded, pointed out that the clause concerning wages, which is amended today, was merely a moral guarantee, that there was in the bill the necessary mechanism and structure to enable that matter to be discussed during mediation and arbitration, if necessary, by qualified persons. He even said that a moral guarantee, and I was pleased to support him, was often stronger than legal provisions written in a piece of legislation. We applauded that statement by a minister of the crown who has responsibilities, who is not afraid to assume his responsibilities in this house.
Now, today, an amendment is introduced. Another change of mind. I wonder who prepares our country's legislation? Is it the government or outside people, not belonging to this parliament? Is that the course to follow?
We were asked to agree to second reading-which I did personally, in the interest of the country and when I noticed that there was in the legislation the necessary mechanism and structure enabling this very important matter to be discussed by qualified persons-but after we voted, after being in the boat, an amendment is introduced contradicting the statement made yesterday by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration concerning the moral guarantee which was supposed to be felt, and which I had felt when reading the bill. Today, of course, we are presented with an amendment.
Well, Mr. Chairman, it does not rest upon the government to determine the wages of railway workers; it is a problem to be decided between the parties, the railway workers and the company, and if the problem is not settled by mediation, it will have to be by arbitration.
Parliament is substituting itself to the very parties, the structure and mechanism it created in its bill, to force consideration of standards by mediation or arbitration. That is not
7958	COMMONS
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters incumbent on us. Parliament must be called upon in that conflict alter a decision has been made by mediation or arbitration. Then we are called upon as responsible legislators, in that conflict, to vote subsidies, but when standards and wage increases have been determined by other bodies and other persons.
Well, this morning I want to express my disillusion. I hope the government will not come up again, before we have completed consideration of the bill, with other amendments changing its whole aspect and policy statements on which we were asked to vote on second reading.


Mr. Fawcett:: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to speak now on clause 6, but I should like to read an amendment to clause 7 at this
time with your permission. I have copies of my amendment for distribution.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. gentleman's position could be met providing it is understood that when clause 7 is called he can propose his amendment. If it is agreeable to the committee to stand clause 6, as seemed to be the general view a short time ago, to give the Minister of Labour an opportunity to obtain some legal and physical sustenance, I think we would make more progress. The house leader does not happen to be here at the moment, but he has authorized me to suggest we rise for half an hour and return at 1.20.


Mr. Starr:: Agreed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is on the understanding that clause 6 stands.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does the committee agree to standing clause 6 and the amendment and
moving on to clause 7?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does the committee also agree to suspending the sitting from now until 1.20?


Some hon. Members:: One thirty.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is it agreeable that we suspend the sitting from now until 1.30?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



SITTING SUSPENDED

[Stage Direction]
At 12.45 p.m. the sitting of the committee was suspended.

DEBATES	September 1, 1966

[Stage Direction]
The committee resumed at 1.30 p.m.
Maurice Rinfret: Order. When the committee rose it was understood that we would stand clause 6 and proceed with clause 7.


Norman Edward Fawcett: Mr. Chairman, as I indicated prior to the lunch recess, I have an amendment which I think would follow clause 6. It would be a new clause 7. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I will read the amendment. I have for distribution a limited number of copies in French and English. My amendment is as follows:
That immediately following clause 6, there be inserted the following as clause 7, and the clauses 7 to 11 be re-numbered accordingly.
7. Notwithstanding the provisions of any other act, the terms and conditions of each collective agreement to which this act applies are amended forthwith by inserting therein the following clause:
"The employer shall not introduce or implement any technological innovation, development, or change which would materially and adversely affect the working conditions of his employees until after he has negotiated the matter with the bargaining agent of his employees, and that if no agreement is reached, the matter shall be referred to a conciliation board as provided by section 22 (2) of the act, and that if the employer introduces or implements the proposed changes without such negotiation and conciliation his employees shall have the right to strike immediately as if the collective agreement had expired and all other statutory requirements had been met."
I so move, Mr. Chairman.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, the problem raised in the suggested new clause 7 has already been referred to in this debate. It was referred to by at least three of my colleagues, the Prime Minister, the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, and by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition and other speakers. Does the hon. member for Nickel Belt wish to speak in support of his amendment?


Norman Edward Fawcett: I thought the Minister of Labour was going to make a statement concerning the intentions of the government with regard to the recommendations of the Freedman commission. I wanted to speak on the amendment but thought I should give the minister a chance to tell the committee whether the government has something in mind in connection with the Freedman commission recommendations. I will forgo what I have to say if the Minister of Labour wants to make some explanation.
September 1, 1966	COMMONS


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: At this stage, Mr. Chairman,
I am not going to raise any technical objection whether we should have a substantive clause dealing with technological change. Under the circumstances I suggest that the hon. member now make his submissions in support of the amendment.


Norman Edward Fawcett: I thank the minister. I do not intend to take up too much of the time of the committee. This matter was the substance of my notice of motion on which I spoke at great length on March 30. At that time I explained fully the reason for my notice of motion. I believe a good many members in the house today were members of the house when the problem developed which resulted in the Freedman commission being established.
I do not think there would be much point in my making a lengthy speech on this subject but I should like to point out one thing, namely, that on the railroads there has perhaps been less said about the effect of technological change than in any other industry. This change has been going on for very many years and a great number of people have been displaced from their jobs. Only when the run through issue arose did this problem reach the headlines. But in the railroad industry the problem started many years ago, particularly in the locomotive shops when the railways commenced to use diesel power. In some cases locomotive jobs were done away with completely. Many of the employees found employment elsewhere, some had to take employment at a smaller salary, and there was no plan at all for taking care of the situation caused by these displacements.
The situation that arose with regard to firemen is another example of how technological change has affected the railroads. Last evening the hon. member for Timis-kaming dealt very ably with the question of the increased productivity of train crews, which of course has resulted in fewer employees being required to handle the same tonnage of freight. This does not necessarily affect passenger trains because they are only a very small portion of the operations of a railway. Then we have had the innovation of centralized traffic control on Canadian National Railways. This is another example of technological change. Telegraph operators became redundant. While this change did not mean that fewer people would have jobs, and in fact I do not think the number of employees was reduced, it was a matter of a change being made without sufficient negotiation with the unions.
DEBATES	7959
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters
To give credit where credit is due, many telegraph operators were given the opportunity of training to become centralized traffic control maintainers and that sort of thing, but the change was made in a haphazard way. I do not wish to be misunderstood in this connection. I am not being too critical of the railways. Many telegraph operators thought it would be better if they left the railroad and got another job, which is exactly what many of them did. But the problems of run throughs caused the greatest furore. As a result the Freedman commission was set up but not before there was a wildcat strike on Canadian National Railways which tied up the trains from coast to coast.
[DOT] (1:40 p.m.)
I will reiterate very briefly what I said before. The wildcat strike took place only because run-throughs were being innovated without proper consultation with the unions. Management took the attitude that this was their right, that all they had to do was to tell the unions they were going to go ahead with it and there was nothing the unions could do about it. Management claimed they could put these runs into effect during the closed period of the contract and that they did not have to be negotiated.
The recommendations of the Freedman commission, so far as a good many railroad workers are concerned, are just as important as any other fringe benefits and even more so. I would go so far as to say they are equally important as a raise in pay to some classes of service. I do not think that the men, particulary those in the operating groups, will be satisfied after all that has been said in the house, particularly during this crucial period, about the need for something to be done in regard to the recommendations of the Freedman report. I do not thing they will be happy if some action is not taken on them. It is not going to be good enough to say that the government or a committee is looking into the matter and will bring forward recommendations.
This amendment is very clearcut. I do not think it contains anything which could be considered to be offensive in any way. It merely introduces a formula for handling matters such as run-throughs, and it does not tie the company down to such an extent as to prevent them from introducing some of these innovations. Mr. Justice Freedman presented an explanation in his very lengthy report of the manner in which it would be decided
September X, 1966

Legislation Respecting Railway Matters what were material changes in working conditions. If it is established what the material changes are and in what way they affect the employees and if the arbitrator decides that these changes should be negotiated, then my amendment would apply. I do not think there is any point in my going further into this matter. I will only say that I think it is very necessary that consideration be given to this amendment.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, when I had erroneously concluded that the hon. gentleman would make no further remarks after his introductory statement, I made some comments about technological change and said that it had been referred to by several speakers in this debate. I take the position now that technological change, to the extent that it relates to the railways and in particular to run-throughs, has been fully dealt with in the Freedman report. Technological change in the light of the recommendations contained in the Freedman report was dealt with in all the considerations of the conciliation boards. Reference is made to it in the reasons for judgment not only of more than one chairman but of other members of the board.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare in his remarks to the house on August 30, 1966, to be found on page 7855 of Hansard -both the former minister of labour and I the present minister have made statements to the same effect-commended Mr. Justice Freedman for his very worth-while study and for bringing to light the issues that were involved in the run-through inquiry. In his speech the minister said:
Personally, Mr. Speaker, I have expressed fully my views on the Freedman report and the kind of guidepost it will establish in the field of industrial relations and labour relations in Canada. This problem cannot be ignored. It is a fact that there is concern among the workers that the institution of technological change during the life of a contract may have consequences in respect of their job security. They have urged that they have an opportunity to negotiate on these changes during the life of an agreement.
Mr. Justice Freedman in his report made the proposal that the ideal solution of this problem is to permit the parties, the unions and the men, to work with proper procedures to cope with the problem. This is Mr. Justice Freedman's principal recommendation. He says that if this fails, legislation can be considered along the following lines: An arbitrator will be appointed to determine whether any change contemplated during the life of the agreement is a material change. Then if he concludes that it is not a material change, management is entitled to institute that change. If he concludes it is a material change, it is to be negotiated at that time or at the end of the agreement. That is Mr. Justice Freedman's proposal.

Hon. gentlemen will have read another report involved in this problem, namely the report of the conciliation board headed by Judge Little.
To which report I made reference earlier this afternoon. The minister continued:
In my view there is an encouraging conclusion with respect to the Freedman report in that particular aspect of the conciliation board report, because there is a large degree of agreement between the union representative and the management representative on the way to cope with the Freedman-type issue. It has not been fully resolved but encouraging steps have been taken, and there is no doubt that further encouraging steps will be taken on a voluntary basis.
Further on some questions were put. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, for instance, asked the following question:
Did the Little commission not recommend legislation in this matter?
[DOT] (1:50 p.m.)
Then there is a further discussion that does not deal with this particular point. I suggest that since Mr. Justice Munroe felt it was premature to deal with this matter, since Mr. Justice Cameron felt the same way, and because there were obviously difficulties in the minds of all three members of the Little commission regarding the best way of implementing legislation at this time based on the Freedman report, partly because of the effect it would have on other industries and employees who did not have an opportunity of making their views known to Mr. Justice Freedman, we must be careful.
It seems to me that since all the matters that were involved in these five disputes are going to be dealt with by the parties in further mediation and discussion, even though one conciliation board went farther than the other four. I can say quite frankly that one reason we provided in the draft bill for a mediator was, so that one of them, if necessary, might devote special attention to this particular problem between now and November 15. There is another equally compelling reason for this provision. If the parties cannot, in line with the hope expressed by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, resolve this problem, then automatically, under the language of this bill, it will be dealt with conclusively by the board of arbitration.
While I am in full sympathy with the necessity for dealing with matters of this nature, I remain of the opinion that when we are dealing with a bill providing for continued conciliation, mediation and, if necessary, arbitration, the problem should be left to be dealt with in that way rather than
September 1, 1966

introducing affirmative legislation in the terms proposed by the hon. member. It is a fact that the amendment suggests the railways shall not do these things and then it goes even farther than the recommendations contained in the Freedman report. The amendment says that the employer shall not introduce or implement any technological innovation, development or change which materially or adversely affects the working conditions of the employees. This relates to shops, maintenance of way and other operations. It is far reaching.
In my opinion the proposed amendment to the bill introducing a new clause 7 is not in order. It is new, substantive law and is not a mere amendment to bring about a return to work of certain employees. It is much broader in scope. I have serious doubts about the legality of such an amendment. I say this with more confidence realizing that the matter will be inevitably dealt with when we come to subsequent clauses of the bill. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that this amendment is not in order and that it goes beyond the scope of the draft bill which has been accepted in principle. Happily, however, the situation can be covered in the other way I have suggested. I believe that it can be covered in clauses 8 and 10 and I therefore rely more strongly on the point of order that this amendment has no legal standing.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, while the minister was on his feet he dealt for the most part with the substance of the amendment although he did conclude with a question as to its validity under our rules. Perhaps I might be permitted to say a few words on both aspects with which the minister dealt.
First, may I say it does seem clear that we all agree as to the significance and usefulness of the Freedman report. We all favour something being done about it. The only difference is that some of us would like something done right away and others wish to postpone it to another day. May I say to the Minister of Labour that when we were called here to deal with the railway dispute, surely if we were called upon to consider any of the matters that brought about the impasse we were called upon to deal with all of them. One of the matters in dispute between the companies and the employees is the question of technological change or automation or the desirability of implementing the terms of the Freedman report. I submit, both on the count of substance and the count of propriety, that
23033-504J
DEBATES	7961
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters this question is definitely before us as part of this legislation with which we are dealing.
May I emphasize, Mr. Chairman, that it really is not satisfactory for the minister to say that the question of the Freedman report is covered in the bill because the bill refers, for future negotiations, to a mediator or a board of arbitration, all of the matters in dispute. Merely to say that in those future negotiations or in the dealings by the board of arbitration all of the matters in dispute must be covered gives no direction as to what the outcome of these negotiations or considerations will be. The government, even in its first draft of this bill, did not leave the wage question that way. Even in the bill in its original form there was a provision for a floor in the statute, namely, 4 per cent and 4 per cent for 1966. This was guaranteed. The government has been persuaded to go further so far as the wage question is concerned and provide 4-4-4-6, for a total of 18 per cent over two years. The legislation we are passing, therefore, so far as wages are concerned does not just say that wages shall be one of the matters in dispute and are therefore covered by instructions that there be negotiation or arbitration. We have established a certain floor with respect to wages.
We contend, Mr. Chairman, that the matters covered by the Freedman report are just as much in dispute in this whole impasse as are wages and therefore these matters should be dealt with in the legislation in the same way as we have dealt with the question of wages. With respect to the question of wages we have put a floor in the legislation. We content that with respect to the question of technological change there should be a floor or a minimum requirement put into the legislation.
[DOT] (2:00 p.m.)
Let me go at this in another slightly different way. Let me say to the minister that it is quite possible under the bill as it now stands, supposing nothing results from the negotiations, for the board of arbitration to consider the question of automation and technological change but to recommend nothing. The board of arbitration would have fulfilled the terms of the law. We have a guarantee that the board of arbitration will do something about automation and technological change only if we put a requirement to that effect into the law itself.
May I say to the minister and to all the ministers, with great respect, that in connection with this matter we are right where
September 1, 1966
7962	COMMONS
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters we were with respect to the question of wages. I suggest that the 1950 precedent which my colleague the hon. member for York South cited earlier today applies again and applies with great force and emphasis.
Let me remind the minister and all the ministers in the cabinet that in 1950, on August 30, Mr. St. Laurent told me-I was questioning him on this point-that by its actions the then government had set a pattern and that the government believed that the arbitrator to be appointed under that year's back to work law would treat the hotel and water transport workers in the same way as the other railway workers were to be treated. Some members of the house accepted that. I was a bit of a sceptic and did not think that it would work. It turned out that Mr. Justice Kellock went by the law, not by what the prime minister had said on the floor of the house. So what parliament thought would be done-because it was parliament's motion- was not done because it was not provided for in the legislation.
I am not going to read again the quotations read this morning by my colleague the hon. member for York South, but I should like to remind the ministers, especially those who were here in 1950 or more particularly in 1951, of a very plaintive statement that Mr. St. Laurent was called upon to make on May 2, 1951, as recorded in Hansard at page 2616. This was on an occasion when I had moved an amendment to a motion to go into committee of ways and means which raised the whole question of the unfair treatment accorded to the hotel and water transport workers because they had not been protected in the legislation. There was a lengthy debate. The quotations from the debate of August 30, 1950, were repeated in that debate. Mr. St. Laurent spoke and toward the end of his speech he said:
The matters remaining in dispute were left for the arbitrator.
Listen to this sentence:
I may say I thought that, with our example before him, he might decide to treat them all on the same footing, but it was a matter that had to be determined by him. I believe it would be wrong for the government to ask parliament to vary the decision at which he arrived.
There, Mr. Chairman, was Mr. St. Laurent, eminent prime minister that he was, saying that because parliament had not written into the law what he thought would be the interpretation the arbitrator would accept there was nothing that we could then do about it.


I submit, Mr. Chairman, that we will find
ourselves in the same position with respect to the whole question of automation and technological change if we do not put some clear direction into the statute. The only direction that is there now is that the parties when they negotiate must consider all of the matters in dispute, including automation. The only direction there now is that the board of arbitration, if one is set up, must consider among other things the question of automation. But that board of arbitration, having considered the matter, can make no recommendation whatever. Therefore a matter in dispute, one of the reasons that this parliament was called into session, will not have been resolved satisfactorily.
We are right back where we were, Mr. Chairman, with respect to the question of wages. Moral guarantees do not have the effect in this kind of situation that words in a statute have. Mr. St. Laurent learned that in 1950 and 1951. I would have hoped that this government would show that it had learned that lesson.
I say to the Minister of Labour that I support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Nickel Belt but I would be happy, as I am sure he would, to accept some other kind of wording. I would also be happy to have the wording put into some other clause, and the minister himself might come up with something more appropriate. I think it would be quite satisfactory if there were somewhere a direction to the board of arbitration to write into the collective agreements an implementation of the principles of the Freedman report in appropriate language.
In other words, we do not ask that the precise terms of the agreement be provided here, although my hon. friend has given guidelines which could be followed. But we do think it is not satisfactory just to say that the matters in dispute are referred to the arbitrator. This will not cover automation and technological change any more than the same wording covered the wage issue. I urge the minister to take this question very seriously. I think he will find that to some of the employees who are now out on strike this is a more serious issue than the issue of wages. The whole question of this bill being palatable at all does depend on some satisfactory dealing with this important phase of the matter.
Because the minister at the end of his remarks on the substance of this amendment raised a point of order-I do not know
September 1. 1966	COMMONS
whether it was a tentative effort on his part or whether he meant it seriously-I would like to remind him that when we were on second reading and sought to move various amendments having to do with the Freedman report the Minister of National Health and Welfare argued that the place to do this was when we were in committee of the whole on the bill. This is something which we have been through hundreds of times in this house. When we are on second reading the government tells us to wait until we get into committee of the whole, and when we get into committee of the whole the government tells us no, this is not the place either.
I submit that the government and the Minister of Labour have been arguing that the phrase "all matters in dispute" in the legislation covers automation and technological change, so that this idea does not go beyond the scope of the bill. The whole purpose of the bill is to deal with the issues which brought on the strike. One of those issues was technological change. The minister admitted that time and time again by saying that this was one of the matters in dispute. Therefore, because it is part of what is before us I submit that it is within the four corners of this legislation and that it is definitely in order to move this amendment.
I repeat-and I know from conversation with my hon. friend for Nickel Belt that he does not object to my saying this-that the hon. member would be willing to have some alternative form of amendment. But it is certainly not satisfactory to ask the workers to go back to work without any guarantee that anything will be done about the question of automation and technological change other than those questions being discussed. Moral guarantees, a desire that it should happen -these things are not good enough, as Mr. St. Laurent learned in 1950 and 1951. We think that the importance of this matter requires that there be appropriate reference to it in the legislation itself.


Maurice Rinfret: Order. Since the hon. member for Nickel Belt put forward his amendment the Chair has been considering its validity and unless there are other expressions of opinion to be put forward concerning the validity of this amendment the Chair is ready to give a ruling.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)


Lawrence T. Pennell: Just a brief comment, Mr. Chairman. I am dealing not with the merits of the principle being put forward by the
DEBATES	7963
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters hon. member but rather with the point of order. In my respecful submission, this amendment in the form it is now drafted purports to enlarge the scope of the bill. If allowed the amendment would in effect be setting aside the provisions of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. It would permit a strike during the term of a collective bargaining agreement and on that very fundamental principle I respectfully submit that this would in effect, be an amendment to the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act of this country. If we wish to do this it should be done as an amendment to the general law, not to this one bill.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I intend to speak only on the point of order. I will say a word or two later about whether or not we agree with the substance of the amendment should it come before the committee.
On the point of order I believe the reasons outlined by the Minister of Labour and the Solicitor General in their submissions are not sufficient to justify the amendment being ruled out of order. Although the minister suggested it was out of order he did tell us that it might be dealt with in connection with clauses 8, 9 and 10. It seems to me that if it is wrong to introduce an amendment of this kind it cannot be argued that it may be dealt with in connection with clauses 8, 9 and 10.
Further, the preamble to the bill states among other things that the purpose and principle of this measure is to deal with the final settlement of terms and conditions of employment for the years 1966 and 1967. In the light of these words it seems to me we can introduce matters which deal with terms and conditions of employment, and job security certainly falls within this category.
While I do not agree with the wording of this amendment I believe we must certainly defend the right of the hon. member for Nickel Belt to introduce it and have it discussed. There can be no argument that a private member cannot move an amendment of this kind in connection with the bill before us on the ground that this is a money bill and so on. There is no superior competence in the hands of a minister. Any hon. member can move amendments of this kind.
There is, however, one difficulty which I see arising in connection with this amendment. The hon. member talks about the power of a conciliation board as set out in section 22(2) "of the act". But he does not say which act he has in mind. I think he means the Industrial
7964	COMMONS
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. However, the amendment does not say so. For this reason it is defective and the hon. member might wish to take it back and revise it accordingly.
It is possible too that the amendment might be out of order at this time because, while clause 7 is before us, the amendment does not deal with exactly the same subject matter within the strict rule on relevancy, and perhaps it should have been moved at some other time when we reach another clause in the bill. Nevertheless I believe the hon. member has the right to move an amendment on a subject matter of this kind at any point in the bill.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I never heard so much tergiversation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I offered my submission on the point of order when I was speaking on the substance of this proposal, but may I say in reply to the Solicitor General, who objects to this amendment on the ground that it seeks to amend what he calls the statute law of the country, that the whole bill varies the provisions of the statute law, particularly in reference to the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. Indeed, we do this all the time. Laws have an effect on each other, and merely to say that this amendment has an effect on some other statute does not make it out of order.
The hon. gentleman made one error in substance on this point when he said this amendment would apply to everything to which the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act applies. Not at all. It would apply the recommendations of the Freedman report only to the railway industry, as is made clear by the way in which this amendment is prepared and by the definitions in the statute.
In addition, as the hon. member for Medicine Hat has pointed out, if, as the minister says, it would be appropriate to move an amendment of this kind at some other place in the bill, then surely it would be appropriate to move it at any point so far as the rights of hon. members are concerned.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I should reply to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre on this point of order. In the first place, no one on this side of the house said in my hearing that an amendment of this kind could be moved to any part of the bill. What was said was that the subject matter could be

DEBATES	September 1. 1966
dealt with elsewhere. That is a very different thing.
My hon. friend the Solicitor General said that this amendment goes beyond the principle and scope of the bill as established by the vote on second reading. It certainly does, because the scope of the bill was the resumption of the operation of the railways and this amendment seeks to import into the collective agreement which the bill asks us to establish the right to strike during the course of that agreement.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I listened patiently to the hon. member. Perhaps he will listen to me now and reply later if he wishes. Further, this amendment seeks to set aside-I do not say to amend-the ordinary law which applies to every other collective agreement under the I.R.D.I.A. It purports to dispense with the normal law and establish a special law.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: What is wrong with that?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That might be all right, if it had been part of the principles and scope of the bill before second reading. In that case, of course, it would have been possible to do this. But this proposal seeks to alter the bill as established on second reading and in this respect I suggest it is beyond the scope of the legislation passed by the house, in consequence of which this committee does not have competence to change the rules which have been laid down. This is a fundamental rule applying to all committees and I rest my case on that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I apologize to the minister for having interrupted him. I was only about to ask him a question. Now he has sat down I will change it from a question to a statement. He said, without anything in his hand to help him make sure he was speaking correctly, that the purpose of this bill was to achieve a resumption of the operation of the railways. If he would pick up the bill and read the title on the front page he would find it says:
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.
If he will read the preamble he will find that the purpose is set out again. Let me read
September 1, 19G6	COMMONS
the third paragraph of the preamble. It reads in part as follows:
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
-having regard to the interests of the railway-companies and the employees, provision be made for terms and conditions of employment for the year 1966, for the resumption of the processes of negotiation and mediation and for the final settlement of terms and conditions of employment for the years 1966 and 1967.
When we get into the body of the bill we find references to disputes, and this has been quoted time and time again by the Minister of Labour. In other words, I rest my case on the very point that the minister makes, namely, that we have to be in committee of the whole within the scope of the bill that was given passage on second reading. But the minister put in only half of the scope, which is to get the railways running again. The other half is to settle the matters in dispute. The minister does not argue that disputes are not included. Therefore I submit the amendment meets the test that the Minister of Transport has raised, namely, that it is within the scope of the legislation agreed to on second reading.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If I may reply to that, since it has become a question, my reply is very simple. The purpose of the bill, as the hon. gentleman said, is to get the railways running again and settle the dispute. To seek to import into the bill a clause stating that once operations were resumed a further strike could be allowed to start a week later is totally contrary to the decision made. If we want to import that kind of principle into the general law of Canada with respect to collective agreements, that is another matter, but to make a special and different law for this one group of collective agreements would make it possible to have another national crisis, which would be a very odd way of carrying out the decision parliament has made on second reading. It is true that dispute is covered in the bill, but for us to seek to import this kind of clause into it seems to be not only beyond the scope of the bill but to be contrary to the purpose of the bill.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, what we in the opposition have been trying to do since Monday is to bring about a bill that will be effective, with justice and equity. I am trying to view this matter from the point of national interest and from a desire not to bring about legislation that will have dangers for the future inherent in it.
I have pressed the government to place pro.
visions in this bill to implement the Freedman
DEBATES	7965
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters report. Within the last hour I have spoken to railway men, reasonable, responsible, rational men who want to do what is good for Canada. One of the things that they impressed on me is that it is going to be very difficult to secure adherence to the law unless something is done about the implementation of the Freedman report.
I am told the report is a best seller in the office of the Queen's Printer. It has become a standard work for employees and employers. Once more I advance this prayer for relief out of a desire to assure that whatever legislation is passed will not run the danger and possibility of not being followed.
I believe there should be a material amendment to cover the Freedman report or certain of its recommendations, but let us read this amendment and see what it means. Surely parliament is not going to pass an amendment to change the labour law of Canada to apply to one industry and to bring about the benevolent attitude that is inherent in this amendment. At the expense of taking up time I want to read the amendment which states:
Notwithstanding the provisions of any other act, the terms and conditions of each collective agreement to which this act applies are amended forthwith by inserting therein the following clause:
"The employer shall not introduce or implement any technological innovation, development, or change which would materially and adversely affect the working conditions of his employees until after he has negotiated the matter with the bargaining agent of his employees, and that if no agreement is reached, the matter shall be referred to a conciliation board as provided by section 22(2) of the act-"
I am not arguing the merits at the moment, but up to that point if the amendment were accepted it would be along the line that I advocated this morning. It is the next portion that I do not think parliament can possibly accept.
I want to see fairness and equity to the men who work. I do not have to provide references about fairness and equity to the men of the railways because I acted for them on more than one occasion without fee. Indeed, I was called to the bar of the province of British Columbia to defend a railroad man without fee and had to pay admission to the bar of that province. On that occasion it cost me $1,500 to be called to the bar in order to take the case of a man who was unable to pay legal fees.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Would the right hon. gentleman permit a comment? I want to congratulate him for undertaking legal work on behalf of union members for which he did not receive a fee.
796G	COMMONS
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters
In lighter vein I recall that when I arrived to be called to the bar there were judges and benchers present. The assistant clerk will also remember the occasion. It was the only occasion, in the four or five different times that I was admitted to the bar, that everybody was there. It was amazing. When they put on a lunch in my honour I began to realize it was one of the costliest lunches I ever participated in.
I acted for these men, not the unions but individuals, when there was a wrong-having that feeling toward men who work on the railways or elsewhere. I ask, does anyone seriously contend that this parliament should, having altered the provisions of this bill, proceed to legislate as follows:
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
-and that if the employer introduces or implements the proposed changes without such negotiation and conciliation his employees shall have the right to strike immediately-
Let us be reasonable. This looks like the effort of some hon. gentlemen who were a little slow on Monday and Tuesday to gain some of the lost ground today.
-as if the collective agreement had expired and all other statutory requirements had been met.
Feeling as I do and being desirous of seeing this bill, if it is passed by parliament, work, I believe that type of amendment is not going to do it. I will support the amendment up to and including the words "as provided by section 22(2) of the act", but the latter part of it I will not accept. It is asking parliament to take a course that is fraught with the most terrible consequences.
I find it difficult to understand that we in this parliament should be asked to support something that would completely jettison the whole law of labour relations in respect of one branch. If the hon. gentleman who proposed the amendment will delete the words following the word "act", although I have not had an opportunity of consultation with my colleagues I feel that it could be supported. Why were these latter words included? I do not know. But being desirous of securing an end of the strike-right from the beginning I have tried to do everything I can to get the government to act-the government has made changes, but slowly, following the strongest representations. To accept this amendment would be something that this House of Commons dare not do.
Having said that, again I come back to the question regarding the Freedman commission.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the Chair would rule now on whether or not the

DEBATES	September 1, 1966
amendment is in order? Then we could get on with the other clause at which point the right hon. gentleman could state his position.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order which has been raised with regard to whether this amendment should be admitted, I should like to address myself briefly to the remarks of the Minister of Transport when he suggested that the purpose and principle of the bill were to get the railways running. He then pointed out that the acceptance of this amendment could at some later date, in fact, almost immediately, interfere with that purpose. I agree that there are some defects in the amendment and if it were proposed and put to the committee in its present form I would find myself unable to agree with it and therefore would vote against it. But, Mr. Chairman, that is no justification for attempting to invoke the rules of procedure in this house to prevent the member moving it.
Because of the argument advanced earlier by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that the terms and conditions of the collective agreements are referred to in the title and the preamble, and have been part of the whole debate since this parliament reassembled, surely the job security aspect of the terms and conditions of employment cannot properly be said to be outside the ambit of this bill.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, would you now rule so that we can get on?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I have a suggestion which I think would save time. I have discussed this matter with my colleague the hon. member for Nickel Belt who moved the amendment which is before us. Having discussed it and having listened to the suggestions which have been made, we feel the matter might be dealt with equally well by moving an amendment to clause 10(1), when we reach that point, as follows:
(c) instructing the board to determine the appropriate form of an amendment to the agreements implementing the recommendations of the report of the Industrial Inquiry Commission on Canadian National Railways Run-Throughs, dated November 17, 1965.
We believe that would deal with the situation equally well. If the house is in agreement, my colleague the hon. member for Nickel Belt would be prepared to withdraw his amendment.


Maurice Rinfret: Order. Do I understand that the hon. member for Nickel Belt is prepared to withdraw his amendment?
September 1, 1966


Norman Edward Fawcett: Yes, Mr. Chairman, on the condition that we will have the opportunity to bring forward something else.


Maurice Rinfret: The hon. member for Nickel Belt is withdrawing his amendment?


Norman Edward Fawcett: Yes.
Amendment withdrawn.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister to explain if he will, because I simply do not understand it, the words in clause 7(2), "notwithstanding anything contained in the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act or in the agreement".
I should like to know what it is he is amending. While he is doing that, may I ask him also to look at subclause 1 of clause 7 which states "and ending on the day on which a new collective agreement entered into between the parties thereto in amendment or revision thereof comes into effect, or on December 31, 1967, whichever is the earlier."
I know this ties two sections together but I do not know how else I can do it. Would the minister look at the final words of clause 8 which provide that in no event shall any such new collective agreement expire before December 31, 1967. Unless I am misreading it, and I well may be, or unless I am not understanding the clauses, it seems to me that on the surface there is a contradiction between clause 7(1) which says that the agreement can expire earlier than December 31, 1967, namely, on the day on which a new collective agreement comes into effect, and clause 8 which says it cannot expire before December 31, 1967.
I am rising to point out the difficulty I have had and to ask the minister to clear it up. The actual points in respect of clause 7(2) which I should like to raise with the minister concern the following words:
The terms and conditions of a collective agreement to which this act applies, amended as provided by this act-
My opinion as a person who has read statutes is that I think what is meant by the words "amended as provided by this act" is that they refer not only to clause 6 but also to any amendments made by virtue of the machinery set up in clauses 8, 9 and 10. I should like to say to the minister, however, that there have been some people who have had concern that the words "amended as provided by this act" may be held to refer only to the amendments actually set out in this act, namely, in
DEBATES	7967
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters clause 6. I am not saying I agree with that interpretation. I am saying that the words as they now are interpreted by some people would be limited to clause 6. I would urge upon the minister that he consider making it simpler for those who perhaps are not ready to tie the whole group of sections together and add a few more words to clause 7(2) which will make that clear.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
I am not drafting an amendment now and do not wish to move one, but this situation could be corrected by adding words to the effect that it would be amended as provided in clause 6 and in the light of the machinery provided in other sections. Those are not the words the minister would use, of course. This would make it clear that subclause 2 of clause 7 includes not only the provisions of clause 6 but also those which may subsequently be made as a result of mediation or arbitration, if the compulsory arbitration clause remains in the bill. Unless that is made clear there may be some difficulty about this and I think it would be worth while for the minister to give my suggestion some consideration.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Let me deal first with the point raised by the hon. member for York South in respect of subclause 1 of clause 7, which reads:
Subject to this act, the term of each collective agreement to which this act applies is extended to include the period beginning January 1, 1966 and ending on the day on which a new collective agreement entered into between the parties thereto in amendment or revision thereof comes into effect, or on December 31, 1967, whichever is the earlier.
There may be a new collective agreement reached which might cover a period of three years. In fact, in discussions I have had with railway union leaders the possibility of three-year term contracts has been mentioned. What we are saying is that the collective agreements which are hereby revised will run until new collective agreements have been accepted or until December 31, 1967.


David Lewis: Would it not be better to say "whichever is the later" rather than "whichever is the earlier"?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: No, because this language makes it clear that the important date is the date on which a new agreement comes into effect rather than the date on which an agreement expires. If a new agreement is negotiated and accepted in November, for instance, then the extension is no longer necessary. An agreement could be entered
September 1, 1966
7968	COMMONS
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters into in November or December 1966, or January, 1967, but failing that the agreement will run at least, till the end of 1967. This has been carefully considered, and I happened to discuss this particular language with the law officers at noon today in respect of another matter.
The second point raised by the hon. member relates to paragraph 2 of clause 7 which reads in part:
The terms and conditions of a collective agreement to which this Act applies, amended as provided by this Act-
This act now provides for one amendment in respect of clause 6 and in addition for an amendment as a result of negotiations. It also provides for an amendment by arbitration. I think the language is clear, but I will be glad to consider improved language if my friend could suggest some improvement.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall clause 7 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 8-Railway companies and unions to negotiate.
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I indicated this morning that I intended to move an amendment which I think, if accepted, will go a long way toward bringing about a sense of unity in our country in regard to carrying out the law. I am not going to traverse the ground I have already covered.
I have been quite interested in discussions I have had with railroaders as to the changes they would like to have effected in order to remove certain inconveniences. If these objections are not met they will ultimately lead to a sense of resentment and frustration. Let me advance two examples, the first of which involves a very small matter. Many railroaders have expressed to me the desire to have the pay days changed from twice monthly to every other Thursday. Such a change would actually cost very little. The total cost, according to estimates I have received, would be approximately $40,000 to $50,000. I am also informed that the wives of these railroaders are in favour of this change. From the vertical manner in which the hon. member for Verdun has moved his head, and he has made a study of this situation, I can only conclude that he agrees that this is a small matter of some importance.
The other example I wish to present deals with the health and welfare plan in respect of which there is a general feeling today that


if the railway companies were to absorb or pay the employees half it would be most acceptable. This would be a benefit to the employees and it would be non-taxable. Those are the kinds of things which, being now neglected, result in an accumulation of feelings that borders on resentment.
Everywhere I go railwaymen ask why the Freedman report has been left in cold storage. While it is true that it is being considered, that consideration has carried on for a long time. If we in this parliament were by statute, rather than by verbal declaration or vocal support, to add a clause which indicated that the Freedman report was going to receive not only consideration but action we would be going a long way toward assuring that the railway employees, when this bill passes parliament, will accept it and return to work.
I do not intend to press these things further, but hon. members know my feelings in this regard. I do suggest that unless we in parliament, with a deep sense of responsibility, provide something of a definite nature in respect of adopting the recommendations of the Freedman report, these men who are on strike will feel that we have deprived them of their right to collective bargaining by substituting compulsory arbitration. I ask the minister-I know he is very fair in the manner in which he endeavours to solve the problems that come under his jurisdiction-whether he will not recommend to the government the acceptance of an amendment along these lines:
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
That clause 8 be amended by substituting a comma for the period in line 11 and the following words be added:
"and that part of the collective bargaining to be undertaken will include provision for discussion and negotiation between the railways and the unions concerning the work changes, elimination of jobs, and general working conditions that may be affected by the introduction of technological and other changes."
That is not an arbitrary amendment; it is an amendment designed to bring about cooperation on the part of those concerned with the strike. I believe the cost of the strike is $15 million a day. When the men go back to work under law we want them to do so in the spirit that they have shown on so many occasions throughout the years.
This opinion is not based on personal observation. It is based on discussions I have had with responsible leaders of the labour movement and telephone conversations across this country in the last several days. I worked on this amendment during the night,
September 1, 1966

trying to bring about something that, if the house will accept it, will mean that we can all be united, as I see it, in this house and parliament can speak with the authority of unity.
That is what we started to effect. We brought about changes. We had to fight for them, but having fought for them changes were made. I will make no further appeal during this debate. The minister must know the festering disquietude of the men on the railways because of the failure up to the present time to implement this report. If the workers across Canada know now that when operations have begun the discussions and negotiations that take place will cover this field, we will go a long, long way toward bringing about that mutual trust without which no law passed by parliament can ever be effective if it is one that is coercive, determinant and ends rights. On the one hand we have the national interest and on the other the rights of free men to have in their work those amenities that most of us have.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that while the Leader of the Official Opposition has done very well in posing the problems which have arisen in the railway industry as a result of rapid technological changes and the tremendous effect these have had on the lives of railway workers, this amendment really adds nothing at all to clause 8 because that clause already says:
The railway companies and unions shall forthwith enter into negotiations with a view to the settlement of any matters presently in dispute-
The Leader of the Opposition suggests that we add as an amendment, "that part of the collective bargaining to be undertaken will include provision for discussion and negotiation." This amendment restates what clause 8 already says. In years gone by there has been plenty of discussion among the companies and the unions. The reason we have had these difficulties, the reason for the stoppage at Nakina and the stoppage of the whole railway system was that the railways and the unions concerned could not reach agreement. When they could not reach agreement, and when the railway companies insisted on exercising what they considered to be their right to manage the system and to make changes unilaterally, the men exercised what they considered to be their right to stop work, to withdraw from service. I remember that the former minister of transport, now the house leader, when he was warned by the former
DEBATES	7969
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters member for Port Arthur that there would be a stoppage, brushed aside that warning. The minister said he had been told by the president of Canadian National Railways that there were no problems. They were certain they could put through this change and the men would accept it. Then we were faced that week end with virtually a complete stoppage of the C.N.R. system.
The reason this matter has to be solved now, I am convinced, the reason it cannot be put off, the reason it cannot be left to later negotiation and we must include in the bill a clause to cover the situation, although probably not the amendment moved a little earlier by my colleague from Nickel Belt and not this amendment because I do not think it is acceptable, is that it is quite conceivable-I am not suggesting for a moment that I speak for the railway workers because they have not authorized me to do so and I am not their spokesman, but I know railway workers-in my opinion that the bill as now drafted, with the changes proposed to clause 6, will be acceptable to a large number of railway workers. I am thinking of the monetary proposals contained in the bill.
However, the operating employees, particularly the members of the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, are insistent and determined that changes be made which will guarantee them the rights which Mr. Justice Freedman expressed so eloquently in his report. I am not going to read those sections of the report now, but essentially Mr. Justice Freedman said that the workers on the railways have a right not only to consultation but to negotiation about material changes which the company proposes to make in their working conditions.
For the information of the Minister of Transport who does not seem to have read the report, I point out that Mr. Justice Freedman said that this could be accomplished in a number of ways. He said that the proposals he made could be accomplished first of all through the process of collective bargaining, which the unions have attempted to obtain and which so far they have been completely unsuccessful in obtaining, or by amendment of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act or the Railway Act. For the information of the Minister of Transport, since Mr. Justice Freedman suggested that his proposal could be brought about by amending the Railway Act obviously he thought it quite conceivable and proper
September 1, 1366
7970	COMMONS
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters that if parliament so desired we could make these changes only for the workers covered by the Railway Act and not for all workers covered by federal jurisdiction. But, Mr. Chairman, we have not done that. I will not at this time berate the government for not bringing in these changes. They have not done so and as a result we have a strike.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
One of the main issues which brought about this dispute, as mentioned by my colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, is the determination of the railway workers, in particular the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, to have in their agreement or by legislation the right to negotiate, to bargain collectively, the right to say to the company: We do not accept that our members will be moved from Nakina to Winnipeg and from Winnipeg to Regina or Saskatoon next year unless it is done through consultation or through planning and with the approval of the workers concerned.
I think we need to change the provisions of this bill to include the basic principles which Mr. Justice Freedman enunciated. We need to do it now, Mr. Chairman, because I believe that unless we do so there is a distinct danger that the passage of this bill will not get the railways running in the very near future. However, I do not think that the amendment which the Leader of the Opposition has moved will meet the problem. It will certainly not meet the desires and the determination of the railway workers concerned. I would hope that at some point during our consideration of this bill the government will agree to a proposal made by any member of this house who has an acceptable proposal which would write into this bill a provision guaranteeing to the railway workers the basic principles enunciated by Mr. Justice Freedman, namely, the right of the railway workers to negotiate and to have their fair say about the changes in the working conditions under which they have to live.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: May I say, Mr. Chairman, that so far as we are concerned we believe that the amendment proposed by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition asking for an addition to clause 8 is already contained in that clause. Nevertheless I think that if it would speed up the passage of the bill the government should very seriously consider accepting this amendment. As has been pointed out, clause 8 orders the railway companies and the unions to negotiate on all the matters
[Mr. Orlikow.J

presently in dispute between them. Surely the matter of job security as well as a number of other recommendations in Justice Freedman's report are among those matters presently in dispute between the unions and the railway companies. Therefore the adding of these additional words or even of an additional paragraph to clause 8 may be a little superfluous. However, it does not seem to me that it would do any harm or depreciate the value of clause 8 in so far as the workers are concerned.
Therefore, for the sake of passing this bill more rapidly and perhaps for the sake of spelling out the matter in more specific terms, even though they may be repetitious, so that the workers will understand that this is one of the things which the railways and the unions are being directed by parliament to negotiate, we would urge the government to accept this amendment.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, it is obvious, I think, to those who have been following this debate in the house that there is much merit in the proposal advanced by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition. In fact, it is directly in line with the remarks which have been made in this chamber by the Prime Minister, by the Minister of National Health and Welfare and by myself. We are all agreed that the issue of technological change having taken on such importance and the Freedman report having been brought in over eight months ago, we now have an opportunity to move ahead in this field through the medium of additional constructive discussions under an intelligent mediator, and if the mediator's efforts do not bring about the results which we hope will be achieved the arbitrator will now be able to deal effectively with this proposal.
I must say that I do not see the necessity for this specific amendment in view of the assurance which I gave last night and repeated again this morning. The hon. member for Kamloops speaking on behalf of his party last night asked me to give a specific assurance that certain matters such as possible reductions in take-home pay as a result of a 40-hour week need not be spelled out in the bill if the minister gave certain assurances to the house. He said, on behalf of his party, that it would not be necessary to spell it out in detail so long as they received a positive undertaking from the minister that this would be done and that it would be final. If there is any doubt about it, I am quite prepared to give a formal undertaking in this
September 1, 1966

house on behalf of the government that in the instructions that go to the mediator there will be a direction that when collective bargaining resumes under his leadership the same must include full discussion and negotiations between the railways and the union regarding work changes, elimination of jobs and general working conditions which may be affected by the introduction of technological and other changes. I give that undertaking now and, if the legislation is passed, I will implement it in writing to the mediator. Nobody need ever have any qualms on that score. It will be done and the government pledges itself to that course.
While I am in full accord with the expression of thought put forward by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition and others, I think the legislation is sufficiently comprehensive to cover the matter in the light of our undertaking. I therefore do not see the necessity for the amendment.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I have done everything 1 can to get acceptance of the amendment by the government as part of the bill. The undertaking given by the minister is of course accepted by us at its true face value. I think, however, that to make the record complete we should have a standing vote on this question and in that way make our position clear. In his undertaking the minister has followed word by word the phraseology of the amendment which I moved. It is only because I want to underline the fact that in bringing this amendment before the house we have exhausted every recourse available that I am going to ask that the amendment in question be put.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
Amendment (Mr. Diefenbaker) negatived: Yeas, 63; nays, 79.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I declare the amendment lost. Shall clause 8 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 9-Appointment of mediator.
Francis Andrew Brewin: I have an amendment to propose to this clause, Mr. Chairman. It is a very simple one and I offer it in the spirit of the suggestion made by the Prime Minister last night that if this legislation could be improved it should be improved. My amendment would simply substitute the word "October" for the word "November" in the clause. The clause now reads:
The Minister of Labour shall appoint a mediator or mediators (hereinafter referred to as the
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters "mediator") 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-
My amendment would substitute the words "October 15, 1966".
-on the progress of the negotiations between the railway companies and the unions.
The purpose of my amendment is to deal with one of the very serious grievances felt by the members of the railway unions with respect to this legislation. They have considerable doubt in their minds, from experience, about the value of continued negotiations as provided for by clause 8 with which we have just dealt. I hope they are wrong. I have heard various members of the government express the view that they are wrong in assuming that because compulsory arbitration is proposed by clause 10 the process of mediation and negotiation contemplated in clauses 8 and 9 will not have effective results.
Let me put it both ways. Suppose the result is successful. Surely this parliament should impart a sense of urgency to the mediation proceedings. I do not believe we impart any sense of urgency if we suggest that mediation proceedings should continue until November 15, 1966 That would cover a total of roughly ten weeks. I am aware, as all hon. members are, that there are complex issues to be decided. If the mediation proposals are given that spirit of urgency which the situation demands, then there is every reasonable prospect that negotiations can be concluded within the six weeks period the amendment would propose.
On the other hand, Mr. Chairman, if this process of negotiation is to be long drawn out and unsuccessful, as some of the union members feel from past experience, then it is just another exacerbating delay in the final solution of this matter. One of the great difficulties with labour relations, as anyone experienced in them knows, is the long periods of delay before decisions are finally made. I think it was my leader who referred to the ritualistic dance. Ritualistic dances may be all very well and they may be necessary, but they get tiresome if they are drawn out month after month.
I suggest it would greatly add to the attractiveness of this bill-I do not say it is too attractive-in the minds of those who are on strike if we provided evidence in the bill of a sense of urgency which is not in the legislation at the moment. Someone may say there
7972	COMMONS
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters is a possibility that by October 15 these negotiations may have made admirable progress and yet be just short of a conclusive result at that date and that it would be a great mistake to dash suddenly into compulsory arbitration when real progress had been made. I agree, and I point out that that situation is adequately covered by subclause 2 which enables an extension of time if the mediator reports favourable progress. It may seem a small matter to substitute October for November, but I think it would be a symptom of the fact this house is ready to try to impart a sense of urgency to the negotiations. This is one of the grievances that has been in the minds of many workers. I know this from speaking to them. They feel this process has been delayed and delayed. Therefore I move:
That clause 9 of this bill be amended by substituting in the seventh line thereof for the word "November" the word "October".
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)


Mr. Leboe:: Mr. Chairman, speaking for this group may I say that we are not in support of the proposed amendment. We feel that now parliament has met reasonable time must be given. There is now a completely different set of circumstances confronting the people who are going to negotiate, and it is only fair to give them a little time to do their work and enable them to come up with something that they themselves have produced instead of having mandatory arbitration. Therefore we in this group are not prepared to support the amendment.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt about the urgency of this matter, but another very important principle is involved so far as the government is concerned and I am sure so far as the great majority of the members of this house are concerned.
All of us have said more than once, and said sincerely, that we believe in collective bargaining. During the past eight or nine days I have had the opportunity of meeting with the union leaders, sometimes for a few moments and on occasion for an hour or more in a session. I have some idea of the multitude and complexity of the issues which have to be dealt with. A study of the Freedman report is only one good example. If we are going to bring finality to this matter, the success of the mediation proceedings will depend to a large extent upon the man chosen as mediator.
I have given considerable thought to this question and I have discussed with my colleagues the person who I feel could do the

DEBATES	Sepiember 1, 1966-
best job. While I cannot appoint any such person until the proposed bill has become law, because of the urgency which exists we would be dilatory in our duty if we did not canvas the possibility of getting the man we consider most competent for this job before he became tied up with other commitments. We would want him to start as soon as possible and continue the efforts of negotiation and mediation.
The bill has been drawn with this in mind, and it is not necessary for the mediator or mediators to wait until November 15 before considering the matter. To one listening to the hon. member for Greenwood that might be the conclusion. The bill is deliberately drawn to make provision for this situation. What the clause says is:
The Minister of Labour shall appoint a mediator or mediators (hereinafter referred to as the "mediator") 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-
Then the bill does not say on November 15 but "not later than November 15". If the mediator reports that the negotiations are fruitless, then he does not have to wait until November 15; that would be absurd. We have in mind as the mediator a man who, if this bill is passed, will I am sure meet with-I cannot say unanimous acceptance-the overwhelming support of this committee. He is prepared to take on the job and he may well need, particularly in view of the technological aspects of this inquiry, until November 15. He is certainly likely to need a longer period than until October 15, and it is for that reason that we oppose this amendment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I should also like to suggest another reason that I think would make it inadvisable to put this kind of restricton upon the time. It is true that it could be extended by agreement, but I see no advantage in putting this restriction into the bill when there seems to be one obvious reason that the period should be until November 15.
That reason is that as soon as this measure has been accepted by the house, if it is, it is my intention, as has already been indicated by the first reading given to the bill, to introduce legislation which, notwithstanding the observations made earlier today by the hon. member for York South, the government believes will have the effect of giving the railways greater freedom to conduct their operations in a way which we hope, believe
September I, 1966	COMMONS
and expect will give them reason to feel, not right away of course but during the course of 1967, that they are in a better position to bargain successfully with their workers without imposing as a background another direct charge upon the taxpayers of Canada.
I do not dissent from the position expressed earlier today by the hon. member for York South that there are some kinds of transportation services that the railways are expected to provide. I am not seeking to debate the bill but, just as an illustration of the reasons for the desirability of this delay, in the bill we are asking parliament to authorize a proper costing of these services that are performed by the railways for national, public or social reasons.
The railways will know that they are going to be remunerated by the taxpayers for these services, and I think that this is a good and sound principle. It is not fair to put a charge on other shippers just because the railways are compelled by parliament to perform unremunerative services which are socially or economically desirable for the rest of the community. That was the principle which was enunciated. This means that the railways will know more certainly that they will be remunerated for these services and that the remuneration will be properly calculated. They will be able to count on that.
I think it is also most desirable that those services which could and should be remunerative and which are comptetitive should be run in a businesslike way instead of becoming a drain upon the taxpayers. But until the railways are in a position to conduct their business as other carriers are permitted to conduct theirs, they are not in an adequate position to bargain effectively.
I realize that this other measure is not going to get through the house between today and tomorrow. Indeed, it would be shocking if parliament were to adopt it within that short space of time. Nevertheless I hope that we will proceed with all due expedition and give the bill passage, possibly with some amendment, even though this will take some weeks. These things will be going forward at the same time as this period is running.
I feel that if the collective bargaining and mediation provided for in this bill are to have any kind of meaning, negotiations must go on beyond the reasonably anticipated period for the final passage of this legislation. The railway companies will then know what are the circumstances in which they are operating
DEBATES	7973
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters and will have some capacity to bargain effectively. For that reason I think it would be unwise, since in all human probability October 15 would be too close to that other date, for hon. members to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Greenwood.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, having listened to the Minister of Transport I am in a position to realize how proper the amendment is. As he went on to list all the difficulties it became obvious to me that if we must wait to assess all the benefits which will flow to the companies from the complicated legislation we are to deal with here, the mediation will be protracted long after October 15 or even November 15.
Had the minister been really logical he would have moved his own amendment asking for mediation to continue until December, January or even next March. The point I am making is simple. Direct negotiations, with a mediator, between the railway companies and the unions have failed for many years. They will fail this time, and after they have failed the issues must go to arbitration. It seems to us to make a great deal of sense that we should reach a settlement of the matters in dispute as quickly as possible. Instead of talking for two months before going to arbitration, the mediation period ought to be cut as short as possible in order to get on with arbitration. I shall not continue any longer because I think we should proceed with the legislation as quickly as possible.
Amendment negatived: Yeas, 9; nays, 131.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 10-Regulations.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, without
agreeing to the desirability of having clause 10 at all I should like to move another amendment, and in doing so I invite the committee to return seriously and sympathetically to the question of the Freedman report recommendations.
It has been agreed on all sides that this matter can be discussed during the negotiations which will follow the passing of this bill and that they can be gone into if necessary by the board of arbitration. The Minister of Labour and some of his colleagues have given an assurance that this is what they want done. I am still conscious of what happened in 1950 when Mr. St. Laurent wanted something done which Mr. Justice Kellock felt the act did not give him authority to do. But we are agreed that one of the issues in dispute is
September 1, 1966

Legislation Respecting Railway Matters the question of technological change and that it is one which can come under consideration.
We feel, and in this I think we are expressing a view held very strongly by the workers who are out on strike, that it is not good enough just to have the assurance that this matter will be discussed. There should be some assurance that action will be taken. The government has already accepted the proposition put forward both inside and outside the house that it was not good enough to leave the issue of wage rates for 1967 merely as something to be discussed. It was felt there should be some floor. We suggest it is similarly not good enough to leave this other issue, this burning issue, merely as one the discussion of which is guaranteed.
I remind the committee that this matter has been discussed at length for a long time. Judge Robinson, chairman of the conciliation board in 1962, urged that the problem be placed before parliament and dealt with by legislation. In 1962 the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, and perhaps others, asked for an industrial inquiry commission to go into this issue. There was a wildcat strike on the C.N.R. in 1964. There was the Freedman report on November 17, 1965, the terms and recommendations of which have become almost a bible, referred to time and time again.
Then there is the report of Judge Little who headed one of the boards in the current dispute, a report in which legislation by parliament was recommended. How many times does this matter have to be discussed and put to arbitration before some action is taken? I say again that this is one of the most important issues involved. It is just as serious as the wage issue. Indeed, for many it is even more serious.
Whether we approve or not, parliament has grappled with the wage issue and I recognize that parliament must deal with this matter if it expects the men to go back to work. We urge the government to recognize that this other issue is just as serious and, to many of the employees, more serious. We have had discussion of this matter on other clauses. Discussion took place on the amendment which the hon. member for Nickel Belt put before the committee and later withdrew. It took place on the amendment proposed by the Leader of the Opposition. So it is not necessary to carry on at length.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
But I dare to suggest that as a result of what has already been said we have come up

with another amendment that meets some of the objections made and which I seriously ask the minister and the Prime Minister to consider. When I asked my hon. friend to withdraw his previous amendment I read the wording of another one which I had drafted. Since then I have tried to improve that draft and am prepared to move it as an amendment inserting a new subclause 1 (c) in clause 10.
As clause 10 is constructed it sets out a provision for what the government may do after a mediator has reported. In other words, under clause 8 we accept the fact that in their negotiations the parties can discuss the Freedman report, and if they come up with an agreement that is fine and nothing more needs to be done. But the whole purport of clause 10 is to give the government power under regulation by order in council to take whatever steps may be necessary if satisfactory conclusions are not reached under clauses 8 and 9.
We suggest that if the point is reached where the mediator reports there is no agreement on the question of the Freedman recommendations, then the government should have the authority to instruct the board of arbitration to deal with that issue. At the point I have mentioned I believe the government should have power by order in council to put this matter in the hands of the board of arbitration with a guideline or minimum standard that must be met. Therefore to meet this condition and improve the bill in one of its main deficiencies I move:
That clause 10 be amended by inserting therein, immediately after subclause (b) of clause (1) thereof, the following new subclause (c):
"(c) instructing the board to determine and provide in an appropriate form, an amendment to the collective agreements to which this act applies implementing the recommendations of the report of the Industrial Inquiry Commission on Canadian National Railways Run-Throughs, dated November 17, 1965."
This amendment does not write in detail the terms of such an item for a collective agreement. It does not include anything which might offend the Leader of the Opposition, as did the previous one. It leaves it to the board of arbitration to draft the amendment to the collective agreements, but just as we have set a floor under wages, so it sets a minimum that must be met. That minimum would be an inclusion in the collective agreements of an appropriate form of the recommendations of the Freedman report.
September 1, 1966

I recognize the earnestness with which the Minister of Labour has dealt with the problem of automation and technological change.
I recognize that he found it not very pleasant to oppose the amendment to clause 8 moved by the Leader of the Opposition. I feel he wants to deal with this matter, and just as the government has accepted the proposition of a floor with respect to wages I suggest it should accept the proposition that there be a minimum so far as automation and technological changes are concerned.
When the government agreed to the floor under wage rates in 1967 and to the 18 per cent total package it made its bill a little more palatable and acceptable to many of the workers, but there are many of them who also consider this a serious point and to whom the bill would be a lot more palatable if they knew that as the result of the negotiations and arbitration that may yet take place something will be done about this important question. I urge the minister to consider the amendment sympathetically.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, in view of the observations that I made earlier when commenting on the persuasive arguments advanced by the Leader of the Opposition, and in view of the firm assurance I gave hon. members that in the instructions to the mediator and, if necessary, the eventual instructions to the board of arbitration, we would direct specific and urgent attention to the technological change problem as dealt with in the Freedman report, I see no necessity for this amendment. The position is quite clear, and for that reason we oppose this amendment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder if the minister heard both the hon. member for York South and me remind him of what happened in 1950. The Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of Transport were here at that time and heard Prime Minister St. Laurent give the assurance that certain things would be done, but it turned out that Mr. Justice Kellock said he would have to be guided by the provisions of the statute. In those circumstances, what use is the assurance if it is not included in the statute?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Of course I listened to the hon. member for York South, but the circumstances in this case are entirely different. Mr. Justice Kellock was appointed an industrial commissioner under the provisions of the
DEBATES	7975
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. This bill, if passed, authorizes the Minister of Labour to appoint a mediator, and I have undertaken to give that mediator specific instructions.


David Lewis: Apparently we have failed to make our point clear to the minister. Two things can be done. One is that the minister in his advice or instructions to the board of arbitrators may say, "You are hereby instructed to deal with this matter." I have no doubt in the world that the minister will do that. He has given an assurance that he intends to tell the board of arbitration to deal with the matter of the Freedman report, but I respectfully suggest to him that that means the board of arbitration would then be considering precisely the same things as Mr. Justice Freedman considered. I can again go over the ground in respect of the need for it and how to implement it.
On the other hand, there is another thing which can be done; that is, that the minister be given authority by this parliament to say to the board of arbitration, "You are not merely to deal with this matter, but you are to come up with certain actual clauses in the collective agreement implementing the recommendations of the Freedman report". The minister refuses to recognize the obvious and important distinctions between the two. His assurance-and I use the term with the reservation which I am sure the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre does-so long as it is not in the bill, amounts to no more than an assurance that he will tell the board to deal with it. The board may decide to do nothing about it. There is nothing in the law which requires that it be done. If you want, as you do, to assuage the fears the workers have on this point and make clear that something definite will in fact be done, then this is the way to do it. If the minister can indicate that he has some other way of doing it, then I am sure the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will be glad to withdraw this amendment and let the minister place an amendment before us.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I say to the minister as emphatically as I can that his assurance, sincerely given and accepted by this house, is not of the slightest value in this situation, because his assurance can go no further than ask for more discussion and more deliberation. What the workers, and particularly the Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen, require is an assurance in this act that the Freedman recommendation
7976	COMMONS
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters will be implemented in an appropriate form, decided upon either by the mediation board or, if mediation fails, by the board of arbitrators. That assurance can be there only if it is written into the bill.
I say to the government, as did the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, that this is just as important as the wages. A few moments ago I was called out of this chamber and informed, not by a member of the committee with which the minister met, but by a lawyer for the Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen, that he has been on the telephone with the union office and has been informed that this question of assurance in the bill that the Freedman report be implemented is of the utmost importance to his members who now are on strike.
There is no reason that this could not be done. How many more times must we investigate this problem. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has indicated how many times this has been before tribunals. It was before a board in 1962, and then there was the wildcat strike in 1965. Mr. Justice Freedman made a thorough investigation and report. There was a committee of the house some years ago which came to the same conclusion. Surely we have had enough inquiries and investigations. I have not read a single criticism, even from business, of the particular recommendations Mr. Justice Freedman has made; perhaps there have been some, but I have not read them. Certainly most people have recognized that the Freedman recommendations are a great advance in management-labour relations.
I suggest we have had enough inquiry. The thing we should do in this bill is instruct the arbitrators to implement the Freedman report. There is a big difference between the assurance the minister has given and the purpose and purport of the amendment now before the committee.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to prolong this debate, but I should like to point out that the Freedman report, as is clear from the passage that I read from the remarks of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, does not come up with a definite formula. The commissioner says that the best way to solve this difficult problem is for the parties to get together and try to incorporate a formula in an agreement; and if that fails, then legislation may be necessary. We are going one step forward. This is the first serious negotiation in which the railways and their employees have been involved since the

DEBATES	September 1, 1966
Freedman report was brought down, and we are saying in this legislation that if the parties cannot resolve it, it is an outstanding issue, then it will be arbitrated.
Judge Munroe, whose other recommendation we all accept, said that for him to recommend implementation by legislation at this time would be premature. He makes that clear.


David Lewis: That is not what Mr. Justice Munroe said, Mr. Chairman. The minister interrupted me the other night and gave the impression that that was what he said. He does not say "implement by legislation". He said it was premature for him to accede.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: That is what I said. Mr. Justice Munroe said that in the circumstances and pending completion of the study-the study being made by the Department of Labour-he thought it would be premature to accede at this time to the request of the union. As I said, we are providing here for a period of additional study and negotiation before final arbitration. In my humble opinion that is much more appropriate than the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. He says:
-the following new subclause (c):
instructing the board to determine and provide, in an appropriate form, an amendment to the collective agrements to which this act applies implementing the recommendations-
And so on.
There was no clear recommendation in the Freedman report that if they could not agree there should be a change in the act. That is not what Mr. Justice Freedman said. This is a departure from the Freedman recommendation.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Chairman, we are not
in a position to support this amendment. I should like to remind members of the committee that this amendment is committing the house to the recommendations of the Freedman report. This house has neither debated nor studied the recommendations in the Freedman report, and anyway as the minister said it is not intended as a final formula. It is not the purpose of the house to force upon any arbitration the over-all recommendations of that report. According to this amendment, parliament is being put in the position of an arbitrator, and this is not the business of the house at this time.
I find it difficult to understand the argument raised by the hon. member for York South and the hon. member for Winnipeg
September 1, 1966

North Centre, because it seems to me they are asking us to impose upon the further negotiations which are to take place recommendations which I really do not believe they are convinced should be imposed or agreed upon at this time in this way. I believe it would be completely wrong to include this type of amendment in this legislation which we are considering now.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, may I say a word in reply to the hon. member for Red Deer and the Minister of Labour at the same time. The hon. member for Red Deer says that this is imposing a condition in advance of negotiations. The Minister of Labour says that we are departing from Mr. Justice Freedman's recommendation which was to the effect that negotiations should be tried first and that only if negotiations failed should there be legislation.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
May I say to both gentlemen that if they will look at this amendment in the context of the act they will see that it calls first of all for clauses 8 and 9 to become operative, and this is where provision is made for negotiation and mediation. It is only after failure to resolve this issue by negotiation or mediation under clauses 8 and 9 of the bill that clause 10, which, by the way, is a permissive clause, comes into play, whereupon the Minister of Labour may recommend to the governor in council that a regulation be passed giving this authority to a board of arbitration.
I submit that we are right in line with the proposals set out by Mr. Justice Freedman, namely that if there cannot be a successful conclusion to this issue by negotiation under clauses 8 and 9 then this parliament should say: We have had enough discussion about this issue and it is time for this to be implemented.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Herman Maxwell Batten: All those in favour of the amendment will please rise. Those opposed to the amendment will please rise.
Amendment (Mr. Knowles) negatived: Yeas, 15; nays, 125.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall clause 10 carry?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, this morning I gave an assurance to the committee that
DEBATES	7977
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters when we reached our consideration of clause 10 I would move an amendment. I do so now in the following terms:
Add subclause (3) to clause 10 in the following terms:
(3) Any board of arbitrators appointed under paragraph (a) of subsection (1) shall not provide for a reduction in any wage rate or basic daily rate established by section 6.


Maurice Rinfret: Order, please. Shall the amendment as moved by the hon. Minister of Labour carry?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, I think we can accept the spirit and intent of this amendment, but perhaps the wording could be improved slightly. Will the minister consider including the words "award, decision or report" before "any board of arbitrators" so that the amendment would read in part:
(3) Any award, decision or report of any board of arbitrators appointed under paragraph (a) of subsection (1) shall not provide for a reduction in any wage rate or basic daily rate established by section 6.
It seems to me that it is the award, decision or report coming from a board of arbitrators that might make a change.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Perhaps those words would clarify the wording of the clause because it is the award, decision or report which might provide for a reduction. We have no objection to such a constructive suggestion from the hon. member for Medicine Hat and we are prepared to accept it.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Medicine Hat has made a useful suggestion to improve the language, but surely the word "report" is unnecessary. It is the award or decision that could result in a reduction.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: That suggestion is also acceptable.


Maurice Rinfret: As I understand it the amendment as amended would then read as follows:
Add subclause (3) to clause 10 in the following terms:
(3) Any award or decision of any board of arbitrators appointed under paragraph (a) of subsection (1) shall not provide for a reduction in any wage rate or basic daily rate established by section 6.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Maurice Rinfret: Shall clause 10 as amended carry?
I recognize the hon. member for Ville-neuve.
7978	COMMONS
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Chairman, I believe you recognized me. Am I not right in that regard?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I am only asking for a direction from the Chair. Someone informed me that the Chair had recognized me.


Maurice Rinfret: Order, please. I recognized the hon. member for Villeneuve.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, obviously the spelling of Villeneuve is not the same as the spelling of Greenwood and it does not sound the same.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)

Mr. Chairman, clause 10 of Bill No. C-230 deals with compulsory arbitration and we can find in subclause (2) that:
(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-
That is where there is compulsory arbitration.
Yesterday, we had comments on, and opposition to, this compulsory arbitration, from certain leaders. For my part, I put the question to the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) last night, as recorded in the right-hand column of page 7848 of the official report:
In the name of the freedom of the workingmen on the railways, or of any workingmen in Canada, the hon. member is strongly opposed to compulsory arbitration. Would he also be opposed, for the same reason, to the compulsory check-off which is entirely against freedom of any workingman who does not want to belong to any union in Canada?
The answer of the hon. member for York South, as recorded in the left-hand column of page 7849 was as follows:
In my own opinion it is not, and I therefore support deduction of union dues.
He did not say compulsory dues or deductions. I had put before him the question of compulsory deductions.
Now, Mr. Chairman, among the objections we receive, we could read a communication issued by the president of the Canadian Labour Congress in a press release dated August 30. He said:
The proposed legislation to end the Canadian railroad workers' strike is a coercive measure
[The Deputy Chairman.]
DEBATES	September 1, 1966
which is to the credit neither of the government that introduced it, nor, if it should be passed, of Canada. Its major objective is to coerce free men into working against their will-
Mr. Chairman, when I see such a statement by a labour leader with Mr. Jodoin's standing, I can but question the sincerity of such a man. When we refer to union check-off and compulsory dues and we object to them, Mr. Jodoin and other labour leaders claim foul play and cry democracy. It should be remembered that the Canadian railroad workers have stopped working quite legally, there is no question about that. But they are being placed in a position of having to choose between compulsion and refusal to submit to legislation they know is bad.
Mr. Chairman, in the case of the Canadian railroads, as the minister is aware, the unions, whichever they were, forced the government and the employers to deduct compulsory union dues to such a point that a railroad employee may not even keep his job if he fails to pay his union dues, if he fails to go to a certain bank when he gets his pay and his union dues are not paid up, he loses his job, not because he is fired by the company that hired him, but because the union boss decides that such a worker is no longer entitled to work, precisely because he has failed to pay his compulsory dues.
The worker is no longer entitled to work, precisely because he has failed to pay his compulsory dues to the union.
Mr. Chairman, it is time such hypocrisy is bared, that such notorious hypocrisy is revealed to Canadian workers who are being exploited by such people.
When we mention compulsory arbitration, the people of the New Democratic Party rise against the notion; it is a direct attack on union freedom; but when the unions force workers to join the union in order to be entitled to earn their daily bread, is that no longer dictatorship? Is this respect for personal freedom?
Mr. Chairman, I am also against compulsory arbitration; I am against compulsory union dues; I am against income tax deducted at the source from workers' pay cheques.
I want a worker who earns $100 to get $100; let him spend his earnings as he sees fit; let him pay his union dues himself; let him pay his income tax himself; let him pay himself for what he wants or what he expects from the economic or social life of his country. But when I see labour leaders writing to us
September 1, 1966

-like this one from the Canadian Brotherhood of Railway, Transport and General Workers, London, Ontario, did on August 30, 1966. What does Mr. Gallagher, secretary of that organization have to say?

-that the leaders of the federal political parties in Canada be advised of our complete opposition to compulsory arbitration, or any legislation aimed at forcing us-
The unions.
-to accept anything less than a settlement of all our demands, on a basis acceptable to a majority of our members across Canada.

Union freedom is increased, I agree, but freedom of the individual is sabotaged at its base. This, Mr. Chairman, is to show that I would object to clause 10 if union leaders were ready to forget compulsory union deductions. I would object to that myself but if union leaders want compulsory measures in order to force people to work according to the dictates of certain union leaders, Mr. Chairman, then I will vote in favour of clause 10 which calls for, orders, and recommends compulsory arbitration.
When we see these compulsory measures right and left-I was reading a circular the other day put out in the province of Quebec by some of my old friends, staff members of the paper titled Vers Demain, which stated:
Why all these strikes? Actual reasons:
Give unions importance and power; put families out in the street; ruin landlords and businessmen; hinder police protection; create general dissatisfaction, forerunner of revolution; promote class struggles, in all spheres, including religion; stir up an atmosphere of confusion, favourable to revolutionary action; enable revolutionaries to carry out riot exercises; actually launch communist revolution; have the enemies of revolution thrown in prison, under the pretext of protecting the public.
This same Vers Demain paper stated last month:
We demand that the Quebec parliament take five necessary measure toward the recovery of public freedom and security;
1.	Abolition of compulsory union contribution.
This is what unions are asking parliament or government to take out of its bill No. C-230, to delete "compulsory" from the bill.
2.	Abolition of the right to strike in the public services.
When we had a strike in the hospitals of the province, Mr. Chairman, do you think what happened was something to be proud of, letting people out of hospitals because some union leaders in the province of Quebec had
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters decided that hospitals must close down? Old people turned into the street because the union leaders had decided to get them out of the hospitals. And the public authorities tolerate such a situation resulting precisely from the compulsory which those people demand to help themselves and not to serve the Canadian people.
3.	Picketing to be prohibited in all strikes.
4.	Hospitals to be handed back to private institutions, religious or medical.
Mr. Chairman, those are recommendations which the newspaper Vers Demain made throughout the province and I endorse them. I do not endorse everything that the people of Vers Demain do, but when it makes sense, when they fight for the respect due to man, I do. To respect an odourless, colourless, tasteless organization does not appeal to me.
But the people who are part of the organization, for instance, the human being, the worker, the farmer, the settler, the white-collar worker, the physician, the professional man, anyone deserves respect and no one, no labour leader has the right to go against the freedom of the individual. No one has the right to prevent a Canadian from earning an honest and decent living.
Within the unions that right is not recognized. If one does not belong to the union, he does not have the right to work; on top of this, you have to pay a premium to belong to the union. This was the practice in Sudbury and in Rouyn-Noranda. In fact, when men were sent from Rouyn to Sault Ste. Marie, the union charged $50 to $100 to allow a worker into the union. It was compulsory, a condition which a man had to accept in order to be allowed to earn his living.
Mr. Chairman, as I indicated in my press release, the time has come to unmask some of the union leaders. This does not mean that we are against the unions. I say to the people and the workers: belong to the unions, but control them.
When I meet railwaymen in Rouyn-Nor-anda working for the C.N.R. or the Ontario Northland Railway, they tell me: since we made union contributions compulsory, we have had no service from our union leaders. When union contributions are no longer compulsory, the union leaders will have to take care of the workers and serve their best interests, instead of exploiting them and allowing the situation to reach the point where parliament must be recalled to draw up a bill in order to try and force people to accept working conditions, and force the employers
September 1, 1966

Legislation Respecting Railway Matters to accept the unions' point of view, and so forth.
Mr. Chairman, when the Canadian economy is such that each individual can develop according to his aspirations, then we will hear no talk of compulsion, but of personal freedom, secure in the knowledge that Canada is able to take care of all its population.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I hardly think the public and the house would understand if we were to take time out to reply to the diatribe of the hon. member for Ville-neuve (Mr. Caouette) woven of half-truths, misinformation and a certain number of prejudices dating back to the previous century.
Let us say, Mr. Chairman, that I only wish to indicate that, at the first opportunity, I shall try to reply point by point to the statements made by the hon. member for Villeneuve.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I could always follow the hon. minister to give him a few pointers on the proprieties toward Canadian workers.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the fact that the committee would like to get through with this matter as quickly as possible, but I have an amendment to make which I make seriously because I believe it will improve the legislation, make it more workable and acceptable; and I believe furthermore that it is in accordance with the principles accepted by all quarters of this house. The amendment that I propose, Mr. Chairman, adopts as a basis or floor for negotiation and arbitration provided for by these subclauses of clause 10 the recommendations made by the chairman of the board of conciliation in matters other than wage issues. As is probably known to all hon. members of this house, Mr. Justice Munroe and Mr. Justice Cameron included in their recommendations not only the wage provisions which we have fully discussed in this house but a number of what have been described as fringe benefits. These recommendations included such matters as improvement in annual vacations, insurance and unemployment benefits, bereavement leave, statutory holidays and other matters of this sort.
One of the reasons for which this bill, when it was originally introduced, ran into such a hostile reception from many people, including those in the railway unions and the

people affected, was their belief that the effect of this bill was to take away even those favourable recommendations which had been approved by these conciliation boards. The reason for this hostility was not only the monetary issues which we have discussed and which may have been important, but also the feeling that these other matters which had been discussed at length and in a sense judicially determined as being appropriate were not once again to be made a subject of negotiation and taken away from them.
The argument has been made that these matters should be left to collective bargaining and arbitration. I agree with that, but if this matter goes to compulsory arbitration then I suggest that the very same principle applies here as has applied to what we have done with the wage issue. In the wage issue we have said that the basis, the floor or the foundation-I am using the words which have been used by ministers in this house- which the arbitration tribunal decided upon should not fall below the standard already judicially approved by the boards of conciliation.
The same thing was said in regard to wage proposals. We were told that we should leave the 1967 wages to conciliation, discussion, mediation and arbitration. This committee is well aware that in order to move toward making this bill acceptable we had to enunciate a principle, which was enunciated, that if we were truly to make the report to the board of conciliation a basis or foundation for any future settlement or for compulsory arbitration, a floor should at least be provided so that those benefits which were already recommended should not in effect be taken away.
It has been said in the house by the Prime Minister among others that parliament regrets having to intervene in matters of collective bargaining and labour relations, and that it should intervene as little as possible. This is true. However, if we have to intervene- and in this case we certainly must-then it would be folly, I suggest, not to intervene effectively on the basis of the principle that we must leave everything to conciliation and arbitration so as to secure the acquiescence if not the approval of those whose lives and working conditions are affected.
I am asking the Minister of Labour whether in this connection he subscribes to the argument that was so forcefully presented by the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
September 1, 1966

They said that the recommendations on future wages in the Munroe report, and I take it in the Cameron report, were, although not positively enacted, virtually certain to be acceptable or, to paraphrase the words of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, morally binding. For that reason they said that without explicit enactment in this legislation there was a basis, a foundation or a floor for future negotiation and arbitration. Does the minister also believe that on the other hand the railway companies will be free in the negotiation to refuse to include these recommendations, or that the arbitrator will be free to take away that which has already been recommended on the non-wage matters included in these reports?
I want to state with all the force I can that if the principle that we are adopting in this house is that we are intervening in this matter on the basis of the Munroe report and the conciliation board's report, and if we have found it necessary, as we have, to incorporate that report as a basic minimum below which negotiations will not go in respect of wages, precisely the same argument is applicable in respect of the so-called fringe benefits.
The word "fringe" somehow makes it sound as if these benefits were unimportant, but I assure you, Mr. Chairman, and the members of this committee that these arguments are not unimportant to those whose lives are directly affected. The acceptability of what parliament proposes to do here is affected by these matters. I want to know why we are asked to approve the proposition that the Munroe report shall set a floor in respect of wages, and not in regard to these other matters.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
I therefore move, Mr. Chairman:
That clause 10 be amended by adding thereto paragraph 1(c) which will read as follows:
"Provided that if the decision referred to in paragraph 10(b) -
That is the decision of the board of arbitrators.
-is less favourable to the claims of the employees in respect of terms or conditions of employment than the recommendations made by chairmen of boards of conciliation in respect to collective agreements to which this act applies, then the said collective agreements shall be revised or amended so as to comply with the said recommendations.
This amendment is couched in legal language but the principle is simple. The principle is that if we are to have our legislation
based upon the reports of the justices, who
DEBATES	7981
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters have been praised as experts in this field, if we are going to make them the basis of our legislation upon which we are asking men to go back to work without being able to exercise the normal right to strike, then we must incorporate not part but all of those recommendations.
This applies to the non-wage as well as the wage benefits. This amendment is consistent with what the Leader of the Opposition so forcefully put before us, and is consistent with what the ministers themselves have said is the basis of this matter. The acceptance of this proposal will give a guarantee to the employees concerned that they will not have to renegotiate the items already recommended in their favour by the boards of conciliation. I urge the Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour, in view of what was said last night when they asked for improvements or suggestions to make this bill more acceptable, to accept this amendment. 1 want to assure them and other members of this house that if this is accepted it will be another thing that will make it simpler and easier for those who are in leadership within the unions to be able to say that this parliament has been fair. It has changed its mind and improved the original legislation. It has made the full basis of the Munroe report the floor below which, at any future time, they can not be forced by any lengthy negotiation or any compulsory arbitration.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I think I should speak but will do so very briefly. When this suggestion was put forward by the hon. member for Greenwood this morning I assured him and the committee that I would give it further consideration. I have done so. At that time I indicated I did not believe it was necessary, any more than some of the other important matters that were referred to by the hon. member for Kamloops last evening, whose reasoning appealed to me. In view of that, I can only say that after careful consideration the amendment is not acceptable to the government.


Mr. Patterson:: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman. I should like to point out that we do not have a copy of the amendment.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I handed out enough copies for everybody. I don't know why you did not get one.


Maurice Rinfret: Is the committee ready for the question?
September 1, 1966

Legislation Respecting Railway Matters
Amendment (Mr. Brewin) negatived: Yeas, 14; nays, 114.


Maurice Rinfret: I declare the
amendment lost. Shall clause 10 carry?


Maurice Allard: Mr. Chairman, concerning the technical aspect of the board of three arbitrators, several members of the house mentioned, during the debates, that the labour legislation should be improved. I am of the opinion also that the procedures should be improved. The mechanism of conciliation, mediation and arbitration must be flexible and expeditious enough.
That is why, it has been noticed in clause 9 that the mediators will have to report to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) not later than November 15. But if it happens during this conflict, for example, that a board of three arbitrators must be formed by an order of the governor in council, I see nothing in the bill, in clause 10 especially, indicating a definite time limit within which the arbitrators must render their decision.
That is why, Mr. Chairman, I move, seconded by the member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), that clause 10 be amended by adding the following subclause which will become the subclause (4).
(3) The said Board of three (3) arbitrators must submit a formula for settlement within three (3) months of its appointment.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, 1 certainly hope that this board of arbitration will be bringing in its recommendations or award within a period of three months, but I believe that it would be a mistake to tie their hands to such a limited period. It might take three and a half months or four months. I hope it will be shorter than that, but this amendment is not acceptable because parliament might have to meet to extend time.


Maurice Rinfret: Shall the amendment carry?
Amendment (Mr. Allard) negatived: Yeas, 2; nays, 111.


Maurice Rinfret: I declare the
amendment lost. Shall the clause as amended carry?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman-


An hon. Member:: Filibuster.
[The Deputy Chairman.]


Some hon. Members:: Oh. oh.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I will wait for some of the noise to simmer down. I have not as yet had anything to say at any stage of the discussion of this bill, even though I recognize that the bill and the situation which brought it in is one of the most serious and important questions with which this parliament has been called upon to deal for some time.
The particular clause, clause 10, with which the committee is dealing at the present time seemed well on its way to becoming one of the most amended clauses of any bill which we have had for some time, or certainly is a clause to which many amendments have been sought to be attached. However I want to assure the committee that it is not my intention to propose any further amendment to this clause. Indeed, if it were possible within the rules what I would be rising to do would be to move for its complete elimination from the bill. However I recognize that under the rules it would not be in order for me to do this, and when the appropriate time comes I shall have the opportunity of expressing my views upon it by the way that I will vote when the vote is called.
I should like to draw to the attention of the committee the fact that this is the second time in a single session of a Canadian parliament that we are being asked to deal with a bill that contains within it a clause providing for compulsory arbitration on matters arising from a dispute between labour and management. I for one feel that if this is going to become a common occurrence in this chamber it is a subject matter that should give us cause for some serious thought before we repeat the performance for a second time in the same session.
In this connection I should like to draw to the attention of the committee the fact that the bill we now have before us is numbered Bill No. C-230, and that it was only recently, as far back as Bill No. C-215, that we were dealing with the subject matter of compulsory arbitration, shortly before the house entered into a period of recess. I find that launching upon this course of action in the Canadian parliament is something which to me is most repugnant. In my view this parliament and its members should be devoting attention to devising ways and means of avoiding entering into a proposal such as that contained in this clause.
I have not had the long and detailed experience on railway matters of some of my
September 1, 1966

colleagues in this party who have been participating in this debate, but I do feel that this particular clause in its implications goes far beyond this dispute. I feel that the members of the government who currently sit on the treasury benches, like those who have preceded them, when they were dealing with somewhat similar situations in the past, have not properly wrestled with the possible alternatives in presenting to parliament a particular course of action to bring this dispute to a conclusion.
Reference has already been made to the history of the major railway disputes in Canada, dating from 1950 to 1958 and 1960. I have to admit that I was not a member of this chamber prior to this occasion when parliament was wrestling with the question of bringing back into operation the national railway system. I had not arrived here in 1950, and as it happened I was temporarily absent in 1958 and 1960, the other previous occasions which have been mentioned in the debate.
However, I think that others who have preceded me in the discussion of this bill have made it abundantly clear that on each of those occasions parliament was asked to deal with a shotgun type of legislation to terminate a railway strike in this country. I well recall that when the Prime Minister opened the debate on this particular bill he waxed eloquent at considerable length upon his faith and belief in the principles of free collective bargaining; and in the next breath he said that he was going to bring the process of collective bargaining to an immediate termination, as far as it was possible for him to do so, in view of what I am sure he anticipated might be some resistance in this chamber.
I am not being particularly critical in any way of the present Prime Minister as contrasted with the position taken by his predecessors in that office who were faced with a parallel situation. What I am trying to say, Mr. Chairman, is that in view of this sequence of events in dealing with railway strikes, and in view of the fact that this has now reached the point that parliament has been asked to deal with disputes other than railway strikes, we should really begin to ask ourselves where we are going and what other alternative there is to this proposal that is now before us.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I would remind the Prime Minister and the committee that a bill is in the parliamentary hopper at the present time designed to give
7983
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters the public service the right of collective bargaining. This is a measure which I am prepared to support. On the other hand, I see very little value in our going through the motions of giving collective bargaining rights to people in the public service if we know in our hearts that immediately they begin to exercise those rights in the normal way we shall be asked by the government of the day to yank those rights away from them. It is most illogical and nonsensical.
I referred earlier to Bill No. C-215. As the Prime Minister knows, when this matter was before us the members of my party tried to bring forward an alternative method of dealing with that situation. We suggested that the operating companies should be placed under a public trusteeship if it was our intention to ask those particular employees to return to work. We felt this was a technique of placing the two parties to the dispute in a position of balance. On the one hand, we were saying to the men involved that they should relinquish their rights to withold their services. On the other hand, we were saying to the employers: As long as this dispute continues you will not have the right to operate this concern.
We proposed that there should be open-ended mediation, with a terminal date in the bill representing what we thought was a reasonable period of time to allow the two parties to arrive at a solution of their problems, bearing in mind public opinion in the country. This, we felt, was at least one alternative to the shotgun tactics which we are being asked to approve in this bill as we were asked earlier by the government to agree to in Bill No. C-215. I have heard the Minister of Labour as well as the Prime Minister talk about free collective bargaining and their desire to see it function. I must say that I was surprised, indeed I was hurt, by the hasty and somewhat angry rejection on the part of the government of the proposal we put forward in all sincerity and good faith in the hope that it might be helpful, indicating that if it were acceptable to the government a fair majority of members were prepared to deal with this matter in a way which did not require the forcing of a solution through compulsory arbitration.
However, that matter is not before the committee at this moment. I am not even certain that this would be the most appropriate way of approaching the problems raised by a national rail strike. Two major railway lines are involved, one publicly owned and the other privately owned. I freely admit that in my own view the whole situation would be
September 1, 1966
7984	COMMONS
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters a lot simpler if we had one integrated railway system and public ownership. However, we are dealing with the situation which now exists and it seems to me that another possible way in which this matter could be settled would be to remove clause 10 entirely from the bill and substitute some provision for what I would again call open-ended mediation and negotiation with a proviso that if the parties had not been able to resolve their disagreements by a certain date the question would be returned to parliament. In the light of the evidence adduced during the mediation proceedings and the positions taken by the parties, parliament could then make a further determination of the issue on the basis of the facts as then known, including the extent to which the parties had been prepared to bargain in good faith and so on.
This would appeal to me as being another possible alternative worthy of consideration in a situation such as that created by a national rail strike. There may be yet another alternative which would make this bill more acceptable to those of us who have at heart the right of citizens to engage in free collective bargaining but who are yet prepared to recognize that there are situations where in the national interest it is not possible to allow a particular group of workers to withdraw their services. Instead of including in the bill provision for compulsory arbitration with a binding determination to be made, there could be a clause containing some form of provision or suggestion, or indeed an order from this parliament, to the effect that the parties might find it a course of wisdom to agree between themselves on some form of arbitration on one or more of the issues to be received between them.
I realize I cannot move that this clause be abolished. An attempt has been made to amend it. I shall not attempt to amend it in the terms I have suggested. I recognize that the government has embarked on the course of action proposed in this bill. I recognize too that the situation which faces this country is a serious one and that some action by parliament is required without too much delay. Unless the governement is prepared to indicate of its own initiative that it is willing to give consideration to some alternative to the terms of clause 10, then all I can do is to say that when this question comes to a vote I intend to indicate my disagreement by voting in such a way as to indicate that I wish it was not there.


[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
I said previously that I do not pretend to have all the answers to the question. Because of the increasingly complex society in which we are living, the plain fact that more and more groups or elements in the fabric of our society are deciding to withdraw their services means that the impact upon us is all the greater. I say that we in this parliament should come to grips with the problem and arrive at an answer consistent with the ocn-cept of free men being able to live in a free society.


Mr. Martin (Timmins):: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a few brief comments on compulsory arbitration. I am a member of a local of the International Association of Fire Fighters which has voluntarily given up the right to strike and acquiesced in compulsory arbitration. In their case this has worked well, but they are a different kettle of fish from railroaders.
One of the things I find most abhorrent about the speeches made by many hon. members on this bill is that they are completely closing their eyes to what they are saying and doing. We have seen the Prime Minister and others stand up and proclaim they are determined to maintain the rights of the railroaders, rights similar to those of other workers. From this I would assume that the railroaders have the right to withdraw their services, in other words, the right to strike. But though these hon. members say to the railroaders that they have the right to strike, at the same time they say to them that they do not have the right to stay on strike.
How ridiculous can we get? We say that we will maintain their right to strike but if the strike becomes effective and pressure is brought to bear we will take away that right. If we are going to take away that right, then what is the point of giving it to them in the first place? What kind of sham are we carrying on? If this is what the law of the land is going to be, then it is high time the railroaders realized it and found something else to take the place of these rights so freely given and so quickly taken away.
Clause 10 as amended agreed to: Yeas, 119; nays, 13.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, it will be recalled that clause 6 was stood this morning and was to be reconsidered after clause 10 had been dealt with.
September 1, 1966	COMMONS
On clause 6-Terms of collective agreements amended.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendment to clause 6:
After the words "January 1, 1966" in line 29, delete the word "and", and after the words "July 1, 1966" in line 30 add:
", an additional 4 per cent effective January 1, 1967, and an additional 6 per cent effective July 1, 1967".


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
On clause 11-Tabling regulations in Commons.
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I have a few observations to make but I shall borrow no more than ten minutes of the committee's time to deal with clause 11 and an amendment which I propose to move that I believe will cope effectively with the root issue of the whole problem before us. During discussion of clause 10 we heard something about collective bargaining procedures and compulsory arbitration and my amendment will, in another sense, deal with these problems.
Without in any way detracting from the tremendously valuable service which collective bargaining has performed in the past and recognizing that it is desirable to continue to pursue it as far as possible, nonetheless I do not accept the proposition that this method is inviolable in any and all conditions. Our complex and fast-moving modern industrial society, composed of groups of people becoming more and more identifiable and interrelated, must have available some additional means, when necessary, of dealing with settlements in wage disputes.
For reasons which I shall give later I am convinced while we can give great priority to the continued use of collective bargaining procedures, yet there will be from time to time sets of circumstances which demand new and different approaches to be taken, either alone or in conjunction with the collective bargaining procedures. I think that has been pretty well recognized during the course of the debate.
Right now we are in a transitional phase. The process of collective bargaining has attained great aims for labour and has been a useful adjunct for society. If not replaced it must be used along with other methods, and the same is true of compulsory arbitration. We as a society have learned to accept, sometimes cheerfully but mostly grudgingly,
DEBATES	7985
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters a variety of compulsory powers. Look at the statute books and the ordinances we have in the federal and provincial governments.
On a co-operative basis, having the objective of securing the greatest good for the greatest number, we have reluctantly imposed upon ourselves a great many forms of compulsion, some of a negative kind and some which compel us to do certain things. There are many more we shall have to consider in the future, and so I must come to the proposition that the exigencies of our society may be such as to require people to accept imposed decisions. When it is clear and evident that the overriding requirement of society calls for it, this will have to be accepted by labour unions as well as by others. True enough, Mr. Chairman, a tremendously heavy burden falls on those who assert this proposition. It is a very heavy burden, and I suggest it is not a burden which can be discharged as the government is attempting to discharge it in this committee.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Having reached this conclusion, I must therefore say I have not opposed this bill because it does contain provisions for imposing decisions and for overriding the collective bargaining process, if this should become essential. But there is another reason. I am not going to take the time to deal with it in detail. However, there is a very interesting article by the famous historian Arthur Toynbee which appeared a short time ago and which sets forth that certain segments of society, particularly industry, capital, land owners and powerful labour unions, now have the power, the strength and the opportunity to assert such pressures that from time to time the share of the national wealth which they take is larger than that which on an equitable basis should be theirs in relation to those who have not this power to exert pressure.
There are millions of people in this country, pensioners, older people, salaried people, who are not organized, as well as small farmers who are dependent upon export markets, who have not the pressure, force or organization to exert any undue influence on their own behalf. Consequently the forces of particularly powerful groups in certain segments of society are able to pry out of the national wealth more than their fair share. I have no hesitation in saying this applies equally to certain segments of industry as it does to some labour unions.
7986	COMMONS
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters
When the government accepts, as it must accept, its responsibility and in an extraordinary set of circumstances brings us here, as it has now, and asks parliament to pass legislation of this kind, leaving the final decision to third parties outside of parliament, I suggest with great deference it is not discharging its full duty. It is incumbent upon the government, and I suggest it probably is incumbent upon parliament, to see the matter through to its ultimate conclusion.
I suggest that the whole debate has indicated the correctness of what I say. Most of the speeches and many of the amendments have been directed toward placing within the four corners of this legislation various measures which hon. members honestly and legitimately feel should be part of the final agreement, the final arrangement under which, after the workers have gone back and the strike is over, a solution finally will be reached. I suggest, therefore, that clause 11 as it now stands falls short of a discharge on the part of the government of the responsibility which it should have.
In clause 11 the bill provides that a regulation appointing a board of arbitrators shall be laid before the House of Commons not later than five days after the day the regulation is made. It then is a subject for debate and the house, of course, has the privilege of setting it aside. This accepts in part my view. I suggest in the first instance that this process should be reversed. I suggest that the regulation should be laid before the house and not become law until accepted by the house. I suggest further that any decision of the board of arbitrators, when and if it is essential-I hope it may not be-should also be laid before the House of Commons and should not become effective until it is passed by the house.
My very strong submission, Mr. Chairman, is that the unique, extraordinary combination of facts and circumstances which has brought us here and has led to the introduction of this measure will continue until the final settlement is made and that this house, and particularly the government, must accept this responsibility and must ensure, for the protection in the first instance of the workers, that the final results which are achieved are fair, equitable and reasonable and, second, must ensure that the result which finally is reached by the arbitrators is one which in its relation to society as a whole is also a proper and fair one. I am sure, Mr. Chairman, that

DEBATES	September 1. 1966
had this course been followed last summer when we were dealing with the dockworkers' strike and the seaway strike we would not be where we are today and that there would have been achieved at that time a settlement consistent with equity and fairness to the strikers involved, to the employers involved and to the people of Canada as a whole.
Having said that, I therefore move that clause 11 be amended as follows:
1.	By deleting all of the words after the word ''effective" where it appears in line 22 and substituting therefor the following:
"when the regulation has been approved by the House of Commons".
2.	By deleting the present subsection 2 and substituting in its place the following:
"Notwithstanding any provision of this act a decision of the board of arbitrators made under section 10 shall be laid before the House of Commons no later than five days after the day the regulation is made or, if the house is not then sitting, within the next five days thereafter that the House of Commons is sitting and the decision becomes effective when it has been approved by the House of Commons."
In conclusion I should like to say that I heard the exchange between the Minister of Transport and the hon. member for Burna-by-Coquitlam the other night. I agree that it is fantastic, it is preposterous for the government, the House of Commons or parliament to impose a negotiated settlement to take the place of conciliation boards or mediators under most situations. In an ordinary set of circumstances it would be quite improper for us even to consider it, but these are not ordinary circumstances.
Every speech which 1 heard indicated the views of members of this house who honestly and seriously are concerned. They had suggestions which they felt should be adopted and ultimately become part of the process of mediation, or ultimately part of arbitration, because these are extraordinay circumstances. I do not know to what extent my views may have approval but my views are strong. In moving my amendment I offer it genuinely in the sense in which I put it before the committee.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, on behalf of our party I wish to say I fully appreciate the spirit in which the hon. member for Peace River has moved his amendment. I think if hon. members will look at it carefully they will find it as impossible to accept as I do. The hon. member for Comox-Albemi expressed the view that the compulsory arbitration part of the bill was objectionable and he stated views which I share. If there is going
September 1, 1966

to be arbitration surely no useful purpose can be served by having the adjudication of an arbitrator readjudicated by parliament. That is the first serious objection I have in that regard. If a dispute goes to a board of arbitration the decision of that board should be final. No purpose can be served by bringing that adjudication back to this house for readjudication.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Second, I suggest there are elements of delay inherent in this bill which are undesirable and which make the whole process less workable than it would otherwise be.
I could find many more things which are objectionable but it seems to me, even though I fully appreciate the democratic objective of the hon. member for Peace River, that if we are going to have arbitration we should not extend the whole process by bringing the matter back to parliament for reconsideration, particularly after lengthy discussions would have taken place. Clause 10 sets out the powers and terms of reference for the arbitrators and surely that is enough without the whole matter being brought back to parliament. That would be unnecessary and illogical.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, I had intended to speak again, but having heard the persuasive words of the hon. member for York South I should like to say only that I accept his arguments.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with a great deal of interest to this debate and at this time I should like to make reference to the amendment now before us. It appears to me that we would be setting a very unfortunate precedent if in this instance we were to require that an award of an arbitration board should be returned to parliament for consideration. During the past months there has been a great deal of debate and discussion which has consumed a considerable amount of time. It seems to me that by accepting this amendment we would be adding another item of business to our already full agenda. Once an arbitration board has made an award I believe that award should be final. For this reason and the many other arguments presented against this amendment, I suggest that it should not be adopted.
The Depuiy Chairman: Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Legislation Respecting Railway Matters Amendment (Mr. Baldwin) negatived: Yeas, 38; nays, 99.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Schedules A, B and C agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
On the preamble-


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, when I proposed the amendment to clause 6, I drew the attention of the committee to the fact that it would be necessary to amend the preamble. I should now like to move that the preamble be amended in the following terms:
In lines 15 and 16 delete the words:
"terms and conditions of employment for the year 1966, for"


Maurice Rinfret: Shall the amendment to the preamble as moved by the minister carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Preamble as amended agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Maurice Rinfret: Shall the bill as
amended carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Maurice Rinfret: Shall I report the
bill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Bill reported.


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


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Mr. Speaker:: By leave, now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lester Bowles Pearson: the third reading of the
bill.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, if it meets
with the approval of the house I suggest that we suspend the sitting until eight o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the desire of the house that we suspend the sitting until eight
o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

September 1, 1966
Transportation SITTING SUSPENDED
At 5.32 p.m. the sitting of the house was suspended until 8.00 p.m.



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


John Whitney Pickersgill: the second 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.
He said: Mr. Speaker, on September 14, 1964 I rose in the last parliament on the resolution stage preceding a bill which might now be called, I suppose, the precursor of the bill on which I am now speaking. I persuaded the committee to say that the introduction of the bill was expedient, and that is really, sir, where the expediency ended. In order to get any further consideration of the bill in that session I had to persuade my not altogether unwilling colleague, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mcllraith), to strangle the child in the cradle and to send the remains to a parliamentary committee where it was dissected for several weeks by all sorts of interested parties.
I have done a little better this time, sir. I got this bill through the committee stage without making a speech, and if any member of the house feels he was deprived in any way because I was not able to do that, notwithstanding the layman's guide to the bill which was circulated the other day, I would commend to him-and it is not always that I look at my previous utterances with the same approval as I do this one-the speech I made on September 14, 1964, because I think that nearly every opinion I expressed in it is thoroughly justified.
There is only one about which I feel a little shamefaced. I said at the beginning that it has been suggested to me that I was introducing a revolutionary measure. Well, sir, that was certainly one revolution that failed, and after the experiences in this house this week, at this hour, at which it is hard even for an enthusiast like me not to regard this bill as rather an anticlimax, it is a little hard, in the shopworn state in which I find myself tonight, to feel much like a revolutionary.

Perhaps if we can achieve something between the speed of revolutions and the speed of glaciers we might hope to make some progress with this measure.
In retrospect I do not think it would have been possible in 1964, even if there had been parliamentary time and even if that bill had seemed to that parliament as important as I like to think it was, to have passed this bill through parliament even if we had had the necessary priorities. Moreover, I think it is a good thing it was not passed. I have read all the editorials that anybody has clipped for me in all the great metropolitan newspapers, and in some of the others, about how this terrible crisis came upon us because we in this parliament were collectively so negligent since 1961 that we have done nothing about this railway problem.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
I have the impression that something the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) said in connection with another measure might be appropriate. I am not going to quote him, because that would be against the rules, and I have forgotten his exact words, which is even more inhibiting. However, I believe I remember the sense very well, and it was this, that there were some things that could be done in a crisis that could not be done in ordinary times.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am being misquoted.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Prime Minister, as usual is going to have to backtrack. The Prime Minister is not being misquoted, he is not being quoted at all. However, that is not his fault; it is just that I, like the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) earlier today, did not have Hansard handy, and I am relying on an equally imperfect recollection. The sense of what the Prime Minister said is good sense.
I like to think there is a sense of urgency about this legislation that has not existed at any time since the MacPherson report was received, and since there has been an opportunity, theoretically, for this parliament to deal with this problem. I had the inestimable advantage this morning, and it is an advantage that is rather spasmodic in the summertime, of the paper boy getting to my house. I had also the inestimable advantage of reading the editorial in the Globe and Mail. It is a wonderful thing for politicians that they have this public conscience every morning to remind them of their deficiencies. The editorial
September 1, 1966

is entitled, "Can politics be kept out of transportation?"
Well, sir, there is only one place in Canada where anybody could be so far divorced from the realities of Canadian life that he could possibly write an editorial with that title, and that is in the city of Toronto, and perhaps even there only in the editorial offices of the Globe and Mail. Anybody who knows anything about the history of this country knows that there would have been no Canadian polity without transportation, and without a polity there would have been no politics. I said this once before in the house but I think it is worth repeating: Transportation has the capacity to arouse emotions and prejudices and to obscure the vision of most people even more completely than questions of race, religion or language.
It is right that it should be so. It is essential that it should be so, because without adequate transportation, there never would have been the kind of Canada we have; without the maintenance of effective transportation we never could have a united, efficient or agreeable country. I hope the day never comes when some editor in some ivory tower in Toronto is able to take politics out of transportation.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I understand very well the politics of my hon. friend but I think he should do justice to that great city which I, as one member, represent.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I suggest to the house and to others like the hon. gentleman and myself, who have found it necessary for economic, social or other reasons to be transplanted from Winnipeg, that there are better places to go than Toronto.


Mr. Hellyer:: Mr. Speaker, I object.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I raise a point of order? Is it not a well known rule of this house that no matter should be brought before parliament by the government unless there is cabinet solidarity? Should we not adjourn until there could be a cabinet meeting on this?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have said nothing up to now


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I gave the hon. gentleman the opening that he wanted-but I have said nothing up to now on which it would be possible to achieve solidarity in the cabinet or
Transportation
out of it. I am trying, sir, to illustrate something that I feel is really quite essential if we are to consider this bill in the proper spirit. I hope that politics can never be kept out of transportation in Canada, because if anyone takes the trouble to read this editorial-in view of the points of order that I have raised in recent days in the house, I would not dare read it myself-he will see that keeping politics out of transportation means, according to the writer, that some wise person in Toronto would tell the rest of Canada what was good for it instead of allowing the politicians representing every part of the country to work out in a free parliament a transportation policy that is related to the wishes and needs of the people. This is what I understand by politics in transportation and I make no apology for it. On the day we cease to have politics in transportation, we will cease to have a free country.
Having said that, sir, I have to admit for the benefit of my colleagues on my right the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer), that there is a little germ of truth in what came out of Toronto this morning. There are two kinds of politics that we could have in transportation. One is the kind of politics which up to now I have been referring to; the kind of politics which means that in our collective wisdom, plus a certain amount of distributive foolishness, we do try in this house, despite partisan considerations, to get some kind of consensus of what will be suitable to bind this country together from Bonavista to Vancouver Island.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)


Mr. Graffley:: Would you mind singing it?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would have to ask the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) whether he knew the words to sing it. But I do not think my speech needs that kind of illustration.
There is another kind of politics which undoubtedly the editorial writer had in the back of his mind, and that is the kind of politics which, no matter which place we represent-even a place so self-sufficient as Toronto that it needs no transport-tempts all of us to see the selfish interests of individuals, groups or sometimes even of regions above the broader interests of the whole community.
That kind of partisanship and that kind of politics I quite agree we must try to keep out of our consideration of this measure if collectively we are to achieve something really

September 1, 1966
Transportation
useful for the country. I do hope that in the light of the circumstances in which we now find ourselves, while all of us will keep fully in mind the necessity for seeing that the point of view of every part of this country is adequately represented and fairly treated in a transportation policy, we will not push these regional and local interests to the point where it is difficult to reach a consensus of view that does meet the real national interest.
I know that there are in the house broadly two ideological views about transportation, and particularly about railways. Though this measure that I am introducing tonight is not by any means exclusively concerned with railways, it is mainly concerned with railways apart from the first part of the bill.
If I may once again allude to something which was said in an earlier debate today, I think by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett), it was very clearly stated that there were those who felt that a public monopoly of the railways would be preferable, more efficient and would remove a lot of problems which exist because of the fact that we have two main railways, and a certain number of other local railways in the country at the present time.
That view is one which I think is quite
tenable. There are a lot of arguments which could be made in its favour. But there are also a great many arguments on the other side. As I indicated two years ago-my views on this have not changed, and here there is cabinet solidarity because the views of the government have not changed-our view is that we do not think that on balance it would be an advantage at the present time to have only one railway in this country. We think that at the present time it is, on balance, better to make do with the basic situation which we have. We think that the rather limited amount of competition which exists at the present time-I would be the first to admit it is very limited, and I think too limited-between the railways themselves as well as between the railways and other forms of transportation serves the country better than would the other system.
However, Mr. Speaker, this is not the subject matter of the debate. Is is true that hon. members who wish to do so can assail this legislation and say that we should just scrap the whole system and have a different one. What we are seeking to do here-and perhaps this is why I was a little extravagant in the language I used two years ago when I said that what I proposed was revolutionary-is
[Mr. Pickersgill.l
not to scrap the basic corporate structure of the railways, or of any other form of transport at the present time, but to create a framework within which they can operate in a way which, in our view, will not only better serve the public-which is the main consideration-but which will also better insure the Canadian treasury and the Canadian taxpayers against unnecessary and undue charges, and in some cases duplicated charges for duplicated services, which do nothing except add to the costs which all of us both as a community and as individuals have to bear.
I think it is important to remind hon.
members, although they know it very well, that for nearly 80 years after confederation the railways were so much the most important mode of transportation in the country that they had in most areas a virtual monopoly in the carriage of goods, and pretty close to a monopoly in the carriage of people over any distance. That monopoly was mitigated in most areas of the country only by water transport, which of course is a much more ancient mode of transportation in Canada and was the original mode by which the country was opened up.
However, during this long period there existed the feeling which I think nearly always exists in any country where large and powerful bodies exercise an almost exclusive jurisdiction of any kind over things that enter into the lives and the livelihoods of nearly everybody, namely that this powerful force in the country had to be controlled by the public.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, this measure of control was established by the Laurier government in 1903, when the Board of Railway Commissioners was first established. From 1903 up to the present day, though there have been occasional changes in the ground rules, fundamentally we have continued to take the view that public regulation of the actions and charges of the railways is essential in the public interest.
This monopoly was mitigated in some respects, as I say, where there were obvious alternative sources of transport, such as the lakes area. It was more and more mitigated as modern highways were developed. The railway strike of 1950 transferred a lot of goods to other forms of transportation, particularly road transportation; and gradually in many parts of the country, with the development of air traffic, in respect to many forms of commodity, and above all in the
September 1, 1966

transport of human beings, that monopoly
has been eroded and in large part has disappeared.
It is not often that I pay tribute to the right hon. gentleman who leads the opposition, and I am sorry he is not here this evening, but he did one very good thing when he appointed the MacPherson commission. That commission made what I regard as a first rate report. It has stood up well, even after four or five years of exposure to the public gaze. It is true that circumstances have changed that some of these specific recommendations to deal with specific problems are no longer wholly appropriate, because some of the problems have changed their aspect. But the basic approach of the report was a new one. It was that there has been a development of alternative and competitive modes of transport in most parts of the country for most classes of travel, and that the kind of regulation of railway charges and practices by a regulatory body which may have been needed in the past was no longer essential for the protection of the public.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
Habits die hard. It has been very hard to get through our heads the idea that this has become true, and if we do not make a real effort of imagination it will be hard to appreciate the fact that many regulations which in the past were necessary in the public interest have simply become shackles in the present.
This is one of the exercises we have to perform if we are to make any basic improvement in the situation of the Canadian railways, and in their capacity to serve the Canadian public without placing undue burdens on the treasury. It is also necessary to make sure that we do not burden the public with services which have ceased to be essential because other modes of transport have taken their place. I have said before in the house that in no country in the world with which effective comparisons can be made is there a greater cost imposed on the community per capita in respect of transport services than is the case in Canada. This is true in respect of any country about which I know anything. It may not be true of Russia, though I doubt whether the density of the population there in relation to its transport facilities is any less than it is in our own country.
To put it in another way, the cost of transport enters more largely into the cost of 23033-506
Transportation
living and the cost of doing business of virtually every Canadian, on the average, than it does into the costs borne by citizens in any comparable country. It also happens that there is no other large country which depends to the extent this country does upon external income for the livelihood of its people. There is no country the per capita income of whose people is derived to such a large extent from outside the country as is the case in Canada.
In order to maintain this income it is essential that we should be competitive in the world we live in. Our transport services must be as efficient and as economical as possible. I cannot stress either of these things too much. After a great deal of deliberation and a great deal of discussion with people far more expert than I can ever hope to be, I came to the conclusion some six or eight months ago that in one respect we should make a more fundamental approach to this whole problem of national transportation than was envisaged two years ago when the bill was introduced at that time.
Because of my experience with other modes and forms of transport, for which I have a responsibility in so far as there is a public responsibility, I have reached the conclusion that one of the most important things of all is to have one unified organ of government divorced from any of these different1 modes of transport which would look at all of them, compare one with another and, when considering the regulation of one, would take account of what was happening in the other fields and determine whether we were getting the best value by spending public money on railways, for example, or whether it would be better to scrap a branch of a railway and concentrate on a highway or an air line.
We ought to be doing a lot more of this in Canada than we are today, if we are not to be burdened with expensive services which will not support themselves and for which the users cannot pay-services which therefore become an increasing burden on the treasury.
I do not think anything illustrates this more clearly than what has happened in the seven years since 1959. In those seven years, on three occasions, however this may have been disguised, the greater part of the increased wage bill of the Canadian railways has been passed on to the taxpayers of Canada-$20 million in 1959, $50 million in 1961 and another $30 million in 1966. So we are now paying out of the treasury $100 million a year. It seems to me, and it seems

September 1, 1966
Transportation
to some of my colleagues, that this process cannot go on without grave danger to the Canadian economy and to the well-being of all Canadians.
I think we are better able to appreciate this danger which has been brought home to us this week, so that we may be better able to overcome local prejudices and local tastes for the old and for the familiar, even when they have ceased to perform a function commensurate with its cost. Of course, it is easy for me to recommend that redundant services in Ontario or British Columbia, the prairies, Quebec or possibly, even the maritime provinces, should be curtailed.


An hon. Member:: But what about Newfoundland?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, as the hon. member points out, when it comes to Newfoundland it becomes much harder. That is going to be the experience of every member of the house, except one or two of those really highly minded members-and I will not embarrass them by identifying them-who really can keep politics out of transportation. But, sir, if we are going to do a job in this bill, if we really are going to have a national transportation policy, if we really are going to deal with this critical problem-and heaven knows this week we have had it emphasized how critical it is-we have got to balance those local desires and feelings against the burden that is also put on everybody in those localities by the maintenance of what were services, but which are now in many cases either luxuries or burdens.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
This is not going to be easy for any of us, and I do not fool myself. I have no illusions that it is going to be easy to get this bill through the house, although I have the impression that because we in the house were elected to represent all Canadians, as well as our own constituencies, and because we rub shoulders here in the house a good deal of the time, we do tend to have somewhat wider horizons than many of our fellow citizens who will be making representations about this legislation before it is passed.
We intend, or at least I am presuming, sir-I withdraw that-I hope, sir, the house will see fit to give this bill second reading and send it to the committee on transport and communications, and I hope that committee will see fit to hear the representations of every important interest in this country

which wishes to make representations about this matter which is so vital to us all.
Now, sir, I could go on to give a description of the bill. I do not really think that there is much in a speech on second reading that I need to add to the description that I provided the other day. But I think if I just indicated the various parts of the bill, and said one or two words about certain aspects of each part of it that I think will be the highlights, it might help other hon. members in their consideration of the bill.
The first part of the bill is prefaced by a declaration of policy. I shall not read it because it is against the rules to read the details of a bill, but I do commend clause 1-


Mr. Canielon:: Would the minister be prepared to answer a question before he goes into his detailed statement?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I really doubt if under our rules questions are allowed on second reading of a bill, but if at the end of what I have to say-


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: There is nothing in the rules to stop a question now if you will permit it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, there is nothing; but the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Can-telon), who is one of the most courteous members of the house and who, I am sure, does not wish to interrupt my train of thought-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: He would not be interrupting much.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -which, I may say, is moving rather slowly anyway-


Reginald (Reg) Cantelon: So long as I can ask the
question later.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure the hon. member would not wish to stop the train altogether, because it might not get started again. I know in the case of some hon. members they might like that, but I would really like to get to my destination, if Black Rod does not get here first.
I do commend to all hon. members clause 1, and the declaration of the principles contained in it, because the government has sought in this declaration to set out clearly and succinctly, and in hard language, the objectives we have in mind.
Having commended that part to hon. members I should now like to say a few words
September 1, 1966

about the proposed Canadian Transport Commission which is dealt with in Part I of the bill.
I know there are some people in the house as well as some outside the house who fear that this-I forget who first coined the original phrase-could be a bureaucratic monster. I hope it will not. That certainly is not the intention. The intention is precisely the opposite. The intention and desire of the government is to amalgamate the three existing organisms and to provide certain other services in an effort, if I dare use the word and if it is not going to do my cause any harm, at integration.
I recognize at once that we have not reached the stage of common uniforms, and therefore it is provided in the bill that there will be a series of committees dealing with specific aspects of transportation and performing most of the functions now performed by the existing agencies. There will be other committees to perform functions in relation to interprovincial and international highway traffic at such time as the government may decide that in the public interest the present arrangements for dealing with them can no longer be continued.
There are some difficulties there, and I hasten to repeat what I said the other day that there is no present and immediate intention of taking on this task without full consultation with the provincial governments, and the fullest co-ordination. It is a very difficult field. It is quite unlike the railways because the highways are owned by the crown in the right of the provinces and the degree and nature of the jurisdiction and regulations that it is possible for parliament effectively to exercise-whatever the theoretical position may be-is very limited.
There is another field in which there may not be very much to do for some time, and that is in the transportation of solids by pipe line. This is something we know is coming and it did seem desirable, when we were attempting to foresee as much as we could the various modes of transportation, to do something so that we would have the machinery to deal with this problem when it does become of some importance.
It will also be competent for the commission to establish other committees, either on a permanent or ad hoc basis, to deal with particular problems. But I think the main reason why I came to the conclusion, and the main reason I was able to convince my colleagues that this was good to recommend to
23033-506J
Transportation
the house, was not that the regulatory functions would necessarily be better done by a body with separate committees, but that it was really filling a vacuum that badly needed to be filled, that it was just as important to have continuous research, investigation and study, and to have it done by competent people all the time, and not just spasmodically, as it was to have good regulations and able boards to administer those regulations, e (8:50 p.m.)
When hon. members stop to think how vital transport is to the country and how large a part it plays in our whole economy, it is little short of disgraceful to realize that when a minister wishes to employ an expert in almost any field of transport he has to go outside the country either to the United States or to the United Kingdom. It is not because we do not have good Canadians with expertise, but it is because they all are employed with interests of one kind or another which in some respects are different from the public interest. This means that when you get these experts, if it takes them six months to do the job, they take four months educating themselves at the expense of the Canadian public, one month carrying on their investigation and another month writing their reports.
There is an awful lot to be said for applying that education continuously, and for educating Canadians. I do not mean that we are going to have a whole host of experts in the commission, but I do believe that if we keep this matter under continuous review we may in some of our universities-and I may say that some initiative seems to have been taken in this field in my own university in Manitoba-find that we will get some people in Canada who can be employed, and in respect of whom we will have the assurance that they are not in any way tied to any existing interests. Because they will be people who know the environment in which they live, they will not have to spend half of the time in which they are employed finding out what is the problem.
I believe that this plan will work. I do not say that it will end forever the neeed for any more royal commissions on transportation, but it will vastly reduce the need for them. Most of these studies will be done much more efficiently and much more quickly by people who are really familiar with the background of the matter which they are studying.


Mr. Bell (Carlelon):: Will the studies be public?

September 1, 1966
Transportation


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would think that would depend very greatly upon the circumstances. At the present time, pursuant to the recommendations of the MacPherson report we are carrying out at their suggestion a comprehensive study of the facilities of the Department of Transport in the Atlantic provinces. This study is being done by the Economist Intelligence Unit of London England with some co-operation from the Acres firm in Niagara Falls. This is the kind of study which, if this commission was in existence, would have been undertaken by them. This does not mean that they would not do what royal commissions do; that is, farm out a lot of their work in the form of special studies. However, the people who daily are dealing with these problems would in most cases, I think, be able to do it much more efficiently and in a much shorter time.
There are other things; there are certain kinds of studies which the Minister of Transport or the government as a whole may wish to have done in order to be of assistance to them in making up their minds as to the kind of policies which are to be recommended. In cases of this nature I should think it would be very unwise to have these working studies made public, because if ministers are to be of any use and not just ciphers, they must be allowed to exercise their own judgment.
Apart altogether from any other aspects of the matter, if you have an expert study made and exercise your judgment upon it, and then the expert study is published, it puts both the minister and the expert in really quite an awkward position. I think it is quite contrary to our system of responsible government to do that. I know there are many distinguished authorities on transportation in Canada, like Mr. Douglas Fisher who was a former member of this house, who do not subscribe to this view and who think that everything should be done in the full glare of publicity. Maybe; it is a view. I think, however, that most people who have had experience in government, and not just experience in criticizing governments, would realize that this is not necessarily so. Well, it may have some advantages; and sometimes I think you need to shed a little light in some of these dark places, even in the Department of Transport. There are many occasions when you can have freedom of discussion, freedom to express opinions, and change opinions only if you do not have to expose your vanity.

In answer to the intervention of the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) I should say that I think it would depend upon the nature of the studies and depend upon whether or not the government was seeking comment from the public and public understanding and whether or not the government was seeking to inform itself in order to exercise its functions in an adequate and effective manner. I sincerely believe and strongly hope that this function may be just as important and just as useful as the regulatory functions which also will be performed by the commission.
I do not think I should go on to say anything about the structure of the commission; it is in the bill and we will have plenty of time to examine it in great detail in the committee. Before I go on to the next part, in case I should be interrupted, perhaps I should say something which I had intended to say before I started discussing the bill; that is, the broad principles of this bill are endorsed by the government and are government policy, and on these policies we are staking our lives. The terms of this bill I think are certainly a lot better than in the bill of a few years ago and I think we owe a lot to the members of the previous parliament and to a lot of groups and persons who have made representations to the parliamentary committee and to the department.
I do not think the bill is perfect. As a matter of fact I found a typographical error only today. I do not think it is only typographical errors that will be found in it. I think it will be found in the committee that there are a lot of improvements which can be made in the detail, and I think it is just as well for me to enter this caveat now. I will not consider that I am retreating, even if the hon. member for Carleton is able to produce a better idea than I have, and I accept his rather than mine. I will simply consider I am wise enough to use his estimable brain. I may say that I only use the hon. gentleman as an example.
I do not think I need take very much time on part II of the bill. It makes provision for the jurisdiction over commodity pipe lines. Part III makes provision for the ultimate jurisdiction over extraprovincial motor vehicle transport.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)


Richard Albert Bell: The minister is placing the emphasis on the word "ultimate", is that right?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, the emphasis is placed on the word "ultimate".
September 1, 1966

Part IV is a very exciting and important part of the bill which deals with bridges. This is really a buck-passing section because it transfers the jurisdiction of the Minister of Transport or the Board of Transport Commissioners over to the jurisdiction of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mcllraith).


Richard Albert Bell: Wait until George hears about that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps this will show that the present Minister of Transport is not an empire builder.
Part V of the bill is the part which deals with railways, and it is, of course, the most important part. If anything, it is even more important than the establishment of the Canadian Transport commission.
Part V of the bill carries out, but in a rather different way from what was envisaged in the previous bill, the principle enunciated by the MacPherson commission, namely that those services which parliament requires the railways to perform in the national or social interest, but which are not remunerative, should have their losses largely paid for out of treasury. In other words, we should not put the whole burden on the railways for keeping on these services. I refer to the uneconomic services, to use a loose term, which give the railways a reason for saying they are unable to pay adequate wages and so on. The treasury should bear the losses or a large part of them in respect of these services. There are various types of services of this kind.
In the previous bill there was a simple provision which provided that in respect of passenger services, they could be abandoned by the railways on proof of loss, whether the service was deemed to be socially essential or not. I do not think anyone would be surprised, after the experience we had earlier in the present session, that a minister even as intrepid as the present Minister of Transport, would hesitate to bring in legislation allowing a passenger service to be abandoned merely because it was losing money.


Richard Albert Bell: We could think of other adjectives.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I have used some of them already.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What is recognized in this part is that in the case of passenger services, which can be shown to the satisfaction of the Board of Transport Commissioners to be los-
Transportation
ing money, and which are considered essential, 80 per cent of the loss should be borne by the treasury. The reason for establishing this figure at 80 per cent rather than at 100 per cent is the hope that there will be some incentive on the part of the railway companies to operate more efficiently on these lines and thereby reduce their portion of the burden.
The provisions for rationalization and the consequent abandonment of branch lines are basically similar to those contained in the previous bill. This legislation provides that if a line can be shown to be unprofitable, but the commission decides it is essential in the public interest, the total loss will be borne by the treasury.
In this legislation we are introducing a whole new concept and approach to the question of rationalization and abandonment of railway lines. I hope, at the committee stage, to be able to give hon. members an illustration of the way in which we intend to approach this matter under the new legislation. This whole concept is now in the course of preparation. It has been represented to the government by many interests on the prairies, and this applies exclusively to the grain growing areas where almost the entire problem exists, that instead of starting out by deciding which of these lines should be abandoned the government should prescribe the lines that will, regardless of circumstances, be kept in operation for a period of years. This will mean that everyone along those lines will know that there is no danger of any of these branch lines being done away with until a certain prescribed date. In this way investors, elevator companies and merchants of all kinds will know that these branch lines will continue for a certain period of time, and they will be able to plan their investments with a degree of certainty that has never been possible or envisaged in previous legislation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I may be allowed to ask the minister a question? Who will make the decision as to which lines will come within this prescribed period of time?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The decision will be made by the governor in council.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That decision will be made, of course, on the recommendation of the Minister of Transport, is that right?

September 1, 1966


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes. This whole process Mr. Pickersgill: I think that in fairness to
will be carried out only after intensive con- other hon. members I should reserve answer-sultation and examination of the lines. That ing that question until the end of my redoes not mean lines that are not guaranteed marks. If I forget to answer the question at essential will necessarily be abandoned, but that time, perhaps the hon. gentleman would they will be the only ones that will be remind me.
candidates for abandonment for a specified One of the most important things for us to period of time. That period of time will be <jo js make the maximum use for the time long enough to enable reasonable investments t,eing 0f the facilities which we have for to be amortized.	carrying grain. This means that if lines on
We know that vast technological changes which there is very light traffic can quickly, are taking place in the marketing of grain, without much incommoding of anyone, be Greater changes should be taking place than abandoned, that much more equipment of the are taking place at the present time. One of railways will be available to be used that the reasons these changes are not occurring much more efficiently, and therefore they will
as quickly as they should is that there is uncertainty as to which railway lines will survive. The provisions of this part should give not only a greater stability but also a greater incentive to improved handling facilities.
Perhaps the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) will frown when I say this. Although there may be poor years, it looks to me as though we can expect better crops and a higher plateau of production than most of us, like the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) and I, who are getting a little long in the tooth, used to regard as normal. We have not got facilities in Canada to handle in an efficient manner the amount of grain that is and will be produced. These facilities have to be expanded and modernized. This is one of the most important tasks facing the Canadian people today. A tremendous amount of our income comes from our grain production and I suspect that we will obtain a great deal more from grain in the future than we have until very recent years.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister would elaborate on this point while he is explaining the bill. Why has the minister decided that he and his department will make the determination about the lines that are sacrosanct and those which are to be submitted to the commission for determination? In view of the lack of research facilities, would this not seem to be the sort of role that the transport commission itself ought to pursue?


Mr. Kindt:: Mr. Speaker, before the hon.
member came into the chamber the minister said that he did not want his train of thought to be broken, and therefore we are refraining from asking questions until the minister has finished.

be able to carry that much more grain. I think it is just as important to carry grain economically, efficiently and expeditously as it is to grow it efficiently and economically, if we are to obtain the maximum return for it.
There is no doubt that because there has not been sufficient modernization the handling of grain is not as efficient as it could be and as it should be, if we are to obtain the maximum returns, as we must. The problem is urgent. While it would no doubt be very desirable, if it could be done, to wait two or three more years and have a lot more research done before a beginning is made in this process, it does seem to me that if a reasonable consensus is arrived at-and that is what it is hoped will be done-it will be better in the public interest to have it known that a basic structure is there for a sufficiently long time to come to enable a measure of stability and progress to be safely embarked upon. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that this problem is very urgent and we have to get on with it, and fast.
With regard to the lines to be abandoned, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) had some discussion with me in the house two years ago on this subject. The criterion that was followed in the past was that the biggest losers were the ones that the railways most wanted to abandon. I suppose that will still be true. But the line that loses the most is not always the one with the lightest traffic. It sometimes is; it usually is; but that is not always the case, as the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) and the hon. member for Qu'Appelle know. A great deal depends upon the terrain. In deciding as to whether the lines are economical to operate, the criterion with regard to abandonment will be that the necessary steps will be taken to see that the applications are made first for those lines
September 1, 1966

which have the least density of traffic. The
criterion that will be used will be as objective as possible in the light of information available to us.
Payments will be made from treasury, in respect of passenger traffic and branch lines which are not paying but which, in the public interest, it is decided to retain. However, Mr. Speaker, there is another very important area, one of the most important of all, especially in western Canada, and this concerns the rates in respect of export grain, usually known as the Crowsnest pass rates. The MacPherson commission found, with one commissioner dissenting, that these rates were not remunerative and recommended that a fixed amount, plus certain variable costs to be calculated, should be paid out of treasury in respect of this traffic.
There was a great deal of dissent in western Canada about this particular recommendation of the MacPherson commission. The government came to the conclusion that it would not be wise to put a figure in this bill, because any figure that was calculated in the earlier 1960's is obviously out of date, anyway. But since there was a good deal of dispute about whether there was a loss, there is provision in the bill that a costing study should be made over the next three years by the new commission. This will be a proper costing study. When that study has been made, the government can determine what, if any-and there are those who will say there should not be anything-payments should be made in respect of this traffic.
The more efficiently we handle the grain traffic, the less redundant services we have, the more likely these rates are to be really remunerative. Therefore every improvement that can be made in the next three years in the handling of grain will reduce the necessity for this kind of subsidy. We believe that in this way there will be a common interest for the farmers, the grain trade and the railways to work for efficiency. How is it possible for the railways to forgo a payment at the present time? I gave hon. members the figure a while ago of what is being paid to the railways in 1966.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, it appears that the government wants to ruin the Crowsnest pass rates.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did not hear the hon. gentleman's verb.
Transportation


John (Jack) Henry Horner: "Ruin"-do away with; abolish the Crowsnest pass rates. This is what the government is attempting to do, by not appointing an independent commission to study the question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Crowsnest pass rates are going to be continued as long as the present Minister of Transport remains Minister of Transport.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As has been stated by the Prime Minister every time he has sought the support of the people of Canada, this is a basic policy of the Liberal party. It remains so, and we intend to continue it. Let there be no mistake whatever about that.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: With the fatality of the present Liberal ministers, that is a pretty dangerous policy.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The basic principle of this bill is that with regard to any services that parliament requires the railways to perform that are not remunerative, the treasury, the taxpayers of Canada, should contribute the greater part of the loss, and not other shippers in other parts of the country. This seems to me to be only fair, right and reasonable. But we take the view that we do not have enough knowledge at the present time to make an estimate of what, if any, loss there may be in respect of these grain rates; therefore there is no figure put in the bill. It is not necessary to put a figure in the bill because there is an entirely new device in the bill of a transitional character. The subsidies being paid at the present time in respect of wages, namely $100 million, are so huge that they could not possibly be taken away from the railways next year when this legislation comes into effect.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
That would just be disastrous to the railways. However, what we propose to do is to reduce those subsidies by 12.5 per cent starting in 1968 thereby phasing them out over eight years. In the meantime, although the passenger subsidy and the subsidy in respect of branch lines will be calculated, the railways will not receive them in addition but they will be deducted from the transitional subsidy so that they will not get the same subsidies twice. At a given point, four, five or six years hence, the subsidies paid in respect of these particular services are likely to

September 1, 1966
Transportation
become as great as what is left of the transitional subsidies. The transitional grants will then disappear and the other subsidies take their place. In this way we will have plenty of time to do a proper costing. This will not be guesswork. In the meantime we will get rid of this huge, undifferentiated subsidy which is now being paid and which is a very unbusinesslike way, to put it mildly, of dealing with this problem.
In respect of rates other than the Crowsnest rates and the maritime freight rates, which of course will not be touched until the study is completed, and any new policy resulting from that study is evolved, apart from these rates and the Atlantic and eastern rates which are to be continued indefinitely, as well as the freight rate reduction in the Atlantic provinces which is to be continued for two more years, all other freight rates charged by the railways will fall into two classes. There will be those rates which are imposed upon captive shippers in cases where there are no alternative competitive ways of shipping goods. Those rates will be protected by a maximum rate and this will be the highest rate that the railway can charge. This does not mean that they will necessarily charge that rate, because most captive shippers today have agreed charges of one type or another. We have put two or three bills through this house in this session under which the railway branch lines have been based upon these agreed charges. However, every captive shipper will be protected by a maximum rate and the railway will not be able to charge a rate higher than that.
In the case of shippers who have an alternative mode of shipping which is genuinely competitive, the railways will be allowed to fix their charges, just as do other carriers such as trucks, ships or planes. In the main they will be able to compete for the traffic with other forms of transport. However, they will not be allowed to carry this competition to the point where the rates charged will become unremunerative. In other words, the railways will not be allowed to charge less than the cost of carrying the goods in order to put some competitor out of business. The rates they charge must be remunerative and the necessary provisions are contained in this bill to ascertain, in case of complaints, that they are. Those are the basic principles embodied in the railway section of the bill.
The other clauses are mostly of a tidying character and, as obviously the train is slowing down, I do not think I will impose upon

the patience of the house by attempting to give any description of them this evening.


An hon. Member:: Don't go on strike before you do.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Of course the fact that a train stops when it arrives at its destination is not a strike.
Basically, the two important parts of this bill are the proposal to establish the Canadian Transport Commission, and the very comprehensive legislation with respect to railways. I do hope hon. members will feel that after a relatively brief general debate on second reading of this bill, the basic principles of which are similar to those of legislation prepared by the previous government, and similar to legislation introduced once before by this government and simply brought up to date to some degree, the general principles of this legislation will commend themselves to hon. members in all parts of the house and that, before very long we will be in a position to accept the bill, and to get on with the labourious task of going through this important legislation clause by clause in the transport committee.
I think, sir, that this is as much as I should inflict upon hon. members today.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Mr. Speaker, while the minister is still in good humour and wishes to answer questions, I should like to ask him to explain the position of the freight rates on our coal shipments to Japan. I just received a telegram from the captive shippers from the Crowsnest pass. They are worried about this. I take it from what the minister has said that since the C.P.R. is hauling coal without competition from any other railroad and charging a rate of $5.30 per ton, this rate cannot be raised.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I must say, sir, that I think it is almost two weeks since I was last brought up to date on this matter. I understand the Attorney General of British Columbia had a meeting with the shippers and the representatives of the railway. A suggestion was put forward that there might be an alternative way of shipping this coal through the United States, which none of us would like to see happen. As far as I can judge, there is some very hard bargaining taking place between the coal companies and the C.P.R. at the present time. It is my hope that that bargaining will result in a solution of this problem.
September 1, 1966


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Does the minister mean that there will be a commuter train from the Crowsnest pass to Port Moody where the coal is shipped? This is what the operators are striving for.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Actually, the negotiations that are going on are between what are usually called two private interests in this country. The government is not a party to those negotiations. Both parties have come and talked to me about this matter at various times. Every so often I ask them how the negotiations are getting along because I am very much interested in this matter primarily as a Canadian and also because I am Minister of Transport. Under the law as it stands at present neither the minister nor anyone else would have the power to set the kind of rate that the mines may feel they have to have in order to be satisfactory.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: I have one other question, Mr. Speaker.


The Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

The Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Ottawa, September 1, 1966
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Robert Taschereau, P.C., Chief Justice of Canada, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, September 1, at 9.45 pan. for the purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
A. G. Cherrier Assistant Secretary to the Governor General
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)



TRANSPORTATION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Pickersgill for the second 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.
Lawrence Elliott Kindt: I have just one other question to ask the minister. The subvention on coal shipments to Japan is $2.73, and as the minister well knows the people in the Crowsnest
Transportation
pass area are dependant upon the shipment of coal to Japan. The minister is supporting those shipments. I wish to emphasize the fact that we do not want to see any increase in the present freight rate. If anything, we want to see a coal commuter train operated by the C.P.R. that will give us a rate of about $2.50 per ton. I hope the minister will work toward that end, as will the commission.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I should like to ask the minister if he would-


Reginald (Reg) Cantelon: I rise on a question of personal privilege. When I asked the minister a question he said he would like to continue his address so that his train of thought would not be interrupted. I was courteous enough to agree and, at his request, wait until now to ask him a question. I have been interrupted once or twice now and I would not like to be interrupted again because I should like to ask this question now.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Out of courtesy to the hon. member I yield the floor to him.


Reginald (Reg) Cantelon: The question I have to ask is probably the most important that could be asked of the minister, because it has to do with the matter of financing and, in particular, in the way in which this commission he is appointing to handle transportation is going to obtain information about railway operations. The minister says there will be expert help, he hopes, employed by the board. What I had in mind particularly was to ask him if there will be a firm of competent accountants engaged who will give their services to this board so that we may not have to depend entirely upon the figures the railways may supply. We should like to have impartial estimates for the use of the board and, I hope, for the use of the parliamentary committee on transport. This is my first question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It would be absolutely impossible for this proposed commission to do its work, I think, if it had to depend upon the accounting information provided by the railways, without any independent examination. Now, precisely how that would be done, whether it would be done by hiring outside experts or by engaging experts for the staff of the commission, it would be foolish of me to try to anticipate. I suspect both means would be used. I suspect they would have to have a considerable basic staff to do their costing. I would think that from time to time big problems would arise that were beyond

September 1, 1966
Transportation
the capacity of the staff the commission could economically afford to hire, and they would then retain outside consulting firms of accountants, or other firms who would be able to supplement their own staff. This is the way I envisage it; but of course the details are not prescribed in the bill.


Reginald (Reg) Cantelon: I thank the minister for that answer. The second question I have is one that has to do with a comment he made during his address. I believe he said it was possible that roads might have to take the place of railways. He went on to say, and I think I am using his own words, that there would have to be the fullest possible co-ordination and co-operation with the provinces. I should like to know, is this just a nice way of getting around a problem or does he really mean that there will be concrete aid to the provinces to build these roads and maintain them where rail lines are abandoned, or where there are new roads to be constructed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think it would be competent to the commission, in certain circumstances where there would not be adequate alternate service to the railway, to assist in that way. This has happened once or twice already, and it is certainly not outside the scope of policy.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I have one short question. I want to ask the minister if he could provide the members of this house, and particularly the members of the transport committee, with some of the costs related to the carriage of a number of commodities for the so-called captive shippers so that we in this house, or other interested parties, could do some calculating on the basis of the formula that is in the bill, and thus reduce it to dollars and cents in so far as they might be concerned.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will make every effort I can to get any such information. I think it would be helpful to me if any hon. member could give me some illustrations of captive shippers in which he was particularly interested. Then, we would have something concrete upon which to work. I am well aware of a good many of the cases.
I remind hon. members that most captive shippers, or a great number of them at any rate, are large corporations. They do not rely on the protection of any general maximum rate, but already have made specific bargains, what we call agreed charges, with the railway. Generally, those rates are more advantageous than any general protection likely Would be.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: During
the five minutes that remain to me, I think I should put forward a proposal-


Malcolm MacInnis: May I
rise on a question of personal privilege? The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) indicated that he did not want to receive any questions, as he indicated to the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Cantelon), until after he finished his remarks. I have been on my feet attempting to ask a question on several occasions, and you could not help but see me. During the minister's remarks he discriminated against members of this party, but when a member of the N.D.P. got to his feet to put several questions the minister answered. I have one question I am going to get across to the minister tonight, and I wish he would give an anwer.
The minister referred to the fact that next year there would be a reduction in subsidies. Will he not assure me and assure the miners of Cape Breton that any reduction in subsidies will not in any way interfere with the coal subvention to the Nova Scotia coal industry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It could not have any conceivable connection.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: At the end of my remarks I had intended to make a pronosal which I thought would be helpful to the house in moving more swiftly to grapple with the major problems on second reading. We have eliminated the resolution stage which, under the old rule, used to give members a chance to ask questions and get some points cleared up. This particular bill has in it at least a score of major principles which I feel sure every member feels need clarification. The mere fact that when the minister spoke on second reading tonight many of us wanted to ask questions is indicative of the fact that we have to know a great deal more before we can vote on the principles of this bill at second reading.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
The proposal I want to make, which apparently we will be able to consider overnight, follows other precedents in the house. I want to move at the end of my remarks, which I presume will be tomorrow morning, that the subject matter of Bill No. C-231 be referred to the standing committee on transportation, provided however that despite this motion the said bill shall remain on the order paper
September 1, 1966

as an order for second reading without prejudice to the right to make or proceed with the motion for second reading.
What I am suggesting, Mr. Speaker, for the consideration of the party leaders or house leaders of the various parties is that before we can intelligently vote on the many principles which are inherent in this omnibus legislation we might be able to speed up things quite a bit if we were to move straight into committee stage, before continuing our full debate on the principle. I intend to make in the committee stage, if I am allowed, some proposals which I think can speed up the lengthy debate that I foresee on two sections of the bill. My proposals are five in number and are very simple, and I am sure that when they are heard will be recognized as a device to save a long, drawn out debate that we cannot otherwise avoid. I put this suggestion forward for the consideration of the house leaders and party leaders in the hope that this type of proposal, which is used mainly on private members motions and has only been used once on a government bill, will be considered in relation to this legislation.
In the few minutes that are left I want to make a remark or two about what the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) has said. He stated that the MacPherson report was a sound report, that it was a tremendous effort to get at the basic considerations of the fundamentals of the railway industry. I agree with that statement, but there is one thing wrong with it. That commission was set up in 1959 when, in the minds of most of the economists and business people of this country, the railways were looked upon as a declining and almost dying industry. However, since 1961 the revolution has occurred, and the revolution is that instead of 400 million bushels of grain moving in a crop year in western Canada we are now moving 800 million bushels.
The railways are a type of industry which is operated mostly on a fixed cost basis. If you increase the number of units moving in a fixed cost operation, you drastically reduce your costs. Today no one in his right mind would even suggest that there is any loss involved in the haulage of grain. There has never been any conclusive proof that there was ever any loss. Not even the railroaders would suggest, except in a clownish moment, that there was any loss on the haulage of grain.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is precisely why the bill does not indicate any figure.
Transportation


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: What I am trying to say is that this bill today, in 1966, is much better than the bill produced in 1964, but it is still hanging on to that old shibboleth that the industry is a dying industry which we must surround and protect.
I suggest that what we should do is to face the fact that not only is grain going to be a large item, but that by 1970 there will be more tons of potash hauled over the railways of western Canada to the west coast alone than there is wheat now sent to the west coast. We have 12 new pulp and paper mills to build on the prairies over the next decade which must transport their products west or south. We also need to transport zinc, sulphur, molybdenum and coal, the production of which is increasing at a fantastic pace. So that instead of thinking that our railways are dead and dying, a precept to which this bill still clings to a certain degree, we should abolish this type of thinking and begin to take advantage of the fact that we now have the green light.
Fortunately, we have in this bill one clause that gives me hope. I think that in committee we can take a look at the facts and figures, the maps and so on, and can remove the great fear which exists in western Canada and has existed since the royal commission report was brought down, namely that 15, 20 or 25 per cent of the people will have their railway lines abandoned. That fear should be removed immediately.
This should be done not on a five year or ten year basis. They should be told right now that every application has gone out of the window and that not one application presently before the board will be considered. Then when you have done that, all of us in committee can sit down with the board, and I believe that within a few days we should begin to show the people of the three prairie provinces that this great fear which has been hanging over them has gone, that all we are going to consider is a direction to the railways to operate their systems efficiently.
The system operating in the west can be operated so efficiently that there will be no need for any subsidies whatever. We will make so much money for the railways in western Canada that perhaps they will begin to pay wages to their employees which equal those paid in other industries. We hope that we will be able to show so much profit for the railways in western Canada that instead of increasing freight rates, they will have to be reduced.

September 1, 1966
Transportation
That is the philosophy which I express in my remarks, Mr. Speaker, and I apologize to all hon. members of the house for jumping right into the theme of my remarks without building up to them as I had intended. However, I do want to get this feeling of optimism rather than pessimism before the house.
On page after page of this bill are listed the gruesome details of the procedure for abandoning rail lines, how a poster must be put up at every station along the line warning the people that an application has been made to close it. Even though the board or the governor in council has decreed that a particular line shall not be abandoned for a certain time, the people are nevertheless served notice that it may be abandoned some day, perhaps five years from now, perhaps three years from now. It is like living on death row, with the certain knowledge that you are not going to be painlessly removed but are going to be strangled by a slow death.
This fear, as I say, has to be removed, and that is where parliament comes in. If we can go into committee and get a statement from the minister, then after we have explained what is in our minds I think that 90 per cent of this fear, which is held by the minister, will vanish.
I knew what the minister meant when he said that it is a question of balancing the local interest against the national interest. He also said that the old bill of 1964 was the precursor of this one. Let us leave off the "pre"; everybody curses that bill because they knew what it was. The first bill of 1964 was a farce, so far as rationalization was concerned, and it was a sell-out so far as costing was concerned. My hon. friend from Kindersley was right on the ball when he mentioned that in his question.
Tonight the minister said that he knew it would not be very easy to get this bill through the house, and he quietly appealed in a hopeless sort of way that we reduce the amount of fighting. I say that there is a positive way to get at this bill, and a positive way which will have the support of every westerner in this house.
We are the lifeblood of the railways. We are also the biggest source of revenue that the railways have. We will make even more money for the railways. All we ask in exchange is that we take this rationalization concept and put it into effect. Then not in 10, 15 or 20 years-because that is what it will take when we get through all these ramifications-but in one, two or three years and

before 1970 we will be out of the subsidy business in western Canada and will have the peace of mind which we have not had for many a decade.
We know that there are one or two little joining up lines which have to be closed, and we do not oppose this; we welcome it. We know that we have tried for years to get the railway to abandon lines in certain places. Certain lines run parallel, and you can take out a fishing pole and touch them for mile after mile.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
This is hard to understand. We have known ever since the Duff report of 1934 that this was a losing situation for both railways. We note that the concept of joint running routes has been accepted. I can recall one case in Saskatchewan where the C.N.R. hauled grain 109 miles north and 100 miles south so that they would not have to cross a C.P.R. bridge. That is how archaic the system is. The C.P.R. was established on a favourable commercial basis but the C.N.R. was a hodge-podge and we have been paying the shot ever since. Now is the time to straighten out this hodge-podge and, without interfering with the right of the railways to manage their own affairs, say to them: For God's sake run the railways efficiently. If they will not do it, I want to see in this bill the power to require them to do it.
Maybe this is the principle which the government has in mind. I do not know what to recommend to my party. Should we support these principles when I do not know where the power lies? I should like the chance to question the minister before I vote on this bill on second reading.
I am sure the minister will find me as helpful as I was in the past on those committees which he mentioned tonight. After bill C-120 had been introduced at the resolution stage, he spoke and I spoke. I said I would support the principles which I thought were contained in the bill. The former member for Port Arthur was not as gullible as I was. He was suspicious. But I believed the government would not neglect the opportunity to place these railways on a national basis.
I did not get hold of the bill until 11.30 at night and I had not got beyond page 6 of it before I was on the telephone to farmers in western Canada and to the premiers of the provinces-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I hope the hon. member will not mind my interrupting him for a moment. The leader of the house is not here.
September 1, 1966

Notwithstanding that Black Rod may not be here before ten o'clock, I presume we would not want to do him the discourtesy of not waiting, and I wonder whether the house will -agree that the hon. member for Qu'Appelle should continue speaking? If he becomes exhausted, then someone else should carry on until the knock comes at the door.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I do not mind confessing that I am saving the bulk of my remarks for tomorrow.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Slow down the pace, then.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I was saying that at 11.30 I
got the bill. I had not gone beyond page 6 before I realized I had been led into a booby trap. I had to telephone farm leaders in western Canada and the premiers of the prairie provinces to say that the agreement I had made with them as a minister, the agreement between the grain companies, the railways, the three premiers and the federal government had been shot out of the window by the new bill, and that any remarks I had made on the resolution stage, observations made in good faith, had also gone out of the window. Within a few hours the minister had been made aware of the objections of the western leaders and as a result the bill never saw the light of day.
Later on I made a suggestion to the minister which was somewhat similar to the one I have just made. We met privately in an informal group representing the five parties to talk things over. As the minister may recall, we brought in outsiders. Some of us put forward reasonable and constructive suggestions for improving Bill No. C-120. All this was two years ago. Since then many of us have worked in a constructive attempt to improve that bill and make the rationalization concept workable.
Now the minister has put forward another idea, that of placing the power with a super board. The real power lies with the governor in council. I do not think this is necessarily a bad principle, because if we have to rely on the tender mercies of the Board of Transport Commissioners, whose decisions in the past few years have become precedents which have the force of law, our chances of improvement are slim I say this because the board are now prisoners of what they have been doing for many years.
Surely it is not wrong at the start of a new day for either parliament or the governor in
Transportation
council to take some positive initiative and lay down at least the terms on which these boards must operate?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I made it clear that the government was proposing to go even further along the road which the hon. gentleman is discussing that he has envisaged, that is, that we intend to indicate perfectly clearly that the basic network should not be disturbed at all, whether those lines were paying or losing lines? It would only be the really marginal lines which would be candidates for abandonment. The basic framework would be fixed, and everyone would know it was going to remain. I think this is what the hon. gentleman wants. It is a positive instead of a negative approach-not an approach from the viewpoint of abandonment but one from the viewpoint of the assured retention of all the lines which are really essential.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Was the hon. gentleman interrupting for the purpose of asking a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was asking a question.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Thank you for your protection, Mr. Speaker. 1 think you understand the difficulties under which I am working. I understand precisely why the minister has raised this question and it demonstrates, in my opinion, that the suggestion I have made is a sensible one. If we carry on here for the next two or three weeks on the basis of question and answer in the house we cannot hope to do our work effectively. I believe that if we could get together on these ideas it would be possible to remove many of the fears which are felt by representatives on this side of the house who come from farming areas. If these fears could be removed the minister might be amazed how forward looking we can be. If the minister would back this proposal and use his good offices with hon. members in all parts of the house, because there must be unanimous agreement, I think we would have a really good session because our ideas have advanced considerably during these past few years.
I wish to turn now, to another matter, one which is, I believe, the guts of the railway bill. This is where the big quarrel will take place. We shall fight on the question of maximum rate controls. Many ideas will be put forward as to how the passenger service should work in a country where the population density is hardly sufficient to maintain it at a profit. There will be ideas expressed on

September 1, 196B
Transportation
this and that. But there is one thing the minister should know. I believe he knows it already. Who is to decide on the formulae for costing? Throughout the bill it is stated that costing shall be as decided by the board. The minister has admitted that the board is not competent to deal with costing, and we all agree with that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure the hon. member does not wish to be unfair to people who are not represented here. I did not say the board was not competent. I said it did not have an adequate staff to enable it to do the job in the way we should like it to be done.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: If the minister wishes to put it like that, I will accept it. I will add something else-that none of us in this house is competent, either. When the question of the Crowsnest pass rates came up there were protests from all western provinces. The C.P.R. hired one of the most able and competent cost accountant firms they could find in the United States, who had done cost accounting on railways, to look at the figures for 1958 for the carriage of grain in Canada. After several months work they came up with figures allocating certain costs, and said that on the carriage of grain in 1958 the C.P.R. had lost $17 million.
This caused an uproar from the three prairie provinces and they decided to spend good money on a similar study. They went out and hired an equally able, experienced cost accounting firm in the United States to examine exactly the same figures as the previous firm had done. This second firm allocated them slightly differently and said no, the C.P.R. did not lose money that year, but had made $2 million. What was the royal commission to do? It went out and got another firm of equally able, competent people to examine the figures and they said, "Neither is right; we think it is probably in between," and so they set the loss at $500,000. This is a humorous anecdote of what actually happened. The Board of Transport Commissioners are simply not in this costing league. This is not new. The gas industry has been operating in North America for 60 years and still no costing system has been decided upon.
When the experts cannot agree, then we in parliament have some part to play. We shall have to lay down the terms of reference between these experts and say that for the next two years or five years this shall be the costing system, and perhaps change it at the end of that period to a new system.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have gone beyond ten o'clock because I wanted to get something on the record tonight in answer to what the minister had said, first to make absolutely clear that I think we in this house should reject this pessimistic feeling about railroads.
Railways have been and will continue to be a very important part of our transportation system. Over and over again the railways have demonstrated that when you kick them high enough they can do fantastic things. This year, after we in the House of Commons finally blew our top, what the railways were able to do with the movement of grain was unbelievable. They actually brought in more motive power. They railroaded as never before. One of these days they are going to get so smart that they are going to build or buy a proper car for carrying grain which, instead of taking 20 minutes to load, can be loaded or unloaded in 12, 14 or 16 seconds. Then they will find their cost-profit relationship sweet.
Therefore I say that in this matter of looking at the railway bill we have to examine it minutely and realize we are setting the basic framework on which railways will operate, and which may guide the transportation industry of this country for a generation or two.
The question of the super board is one on which many of our members will want to ask the minister many questions. We want to know how it is going to relate the functions of a railway, in the traditional sense, to a railway looking on itself as an arm of the transportation industry. There is not a railway company in existence that should not be a full transportation company. If they can transport things by rail they should also be in the air business, the water business, the hovercraft business and the pipe line business, in fact in any other thing that transports goods, and that should be an integral part of their operations in order to achieve maximum efficiency.
Here in Canada where so many of our goods will be carried by pipe lines, the railways are naturals to go into the business of operating and building pipe lines, in some cases in competition with each other, and in other cases working jointly. This is one of the things we should see popping up in this bill.
But as I read the bill all the enthusiasm for what a railway company can become in Canada, with these great distances which are a great opportunity for them, dies as I look at the duties of this super board. What are their
September 1, 1966

duties? They are to study this, study that, study this, and after a while study this. We need the statistics, yes; but surely parliament can give them some direction as to what we want them to do. There is another series of questions. If we take over the interprovincial trucking lines and the interprovincial buses and reach the point where the railways carry passengers on rail while the other carries passengers on rubber, and where the one carries freight on rail and the other carries freight on rubber, what is the relationship to the rate setting pattern? The railways are prohibited from setting a rate below compensatory levels. What is the situation in respect of the trucks. This is the sort of question to which the government will have to have answers. We have to have those answers before we know how to vote on the principles. So, I am going to move the adjournment of the house-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I hope not. The house agreed to continue to sit until Black Rod arrived.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I think we can move the adjournment and wait for Black Rod, be-
Royal Assent
cause I do not want to lose the opportunity to make the remarks I wish to make tomorrow.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C.R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Right Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General has been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to a certain bill:
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.
At 10.23 p.m. the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, September 2, 1966